Menu
More than two dozen citizens protest water transfer
A number of Elmore County citizens voiced their concerns about a water right transfer proposed by the city of Mountain Home, during a pre-conference hearing at city hall last Wednesday.
The city filed application no. 72128 with the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) in February to transfer six water rights with the intent to add three new wells to the city's municipal system. But 24 people contacted IDWR to protest the transfer application and Wednesday's pre-hearing was scheduled to, "Simplify and identify problems," according to John F. Westra., Western Regional Manager for IDWR.
Westra and his associate, Manuel Rauhut, oversaw the conference while more than 25 protesters, along with their attorney, John Simpson, attended the pre-hearing to, among other things, "Share concerns about the water level of the aquifer," according to Simpson.
"My clients want to know how long we can continue to draw out water from the aquifer before their wells start to run dry," he said. "They also want to know who is going to be responsible for the costs should their wells dry up and they are forced to drill new ones."
Also in attendance were several representatives for the city, including City Attorney Jay R. Friedly, Public Works Director Wayne Shepherd and Engineering Consultant Charles Brockway, of Brockway Engineering in Twin Falls.
The protestants were first given 30 minutes to address issues important to them and list suggestions to resolve those issues painlessly.
Prostestant Richard T. McMahon, Jr., began by asking about the locations of the well sites. "With the aquifer going down every year, I want to know how much thought went into the selection of those sites," he said.
Although the application is for six water rights, they city proposes to only use three of those for new wells. The locations have yet to be determined but a map outlining the wells shows proposed sites near legacy park, the city shop and the sewage disposal area.
Elmore County resident Jim Carrie said, "We have a very sincere desire to see Mountain Home prosper and we commend the city for attempting to acquire and move these water rights."
"It was, however, unfortunate that they didn't inform the citizens about this issue until it was almost too late," he said.
Carrie touched on the city's reassurance that the people affected by these new wells would be taken care of.
"If our wells run dry, we want the city to guarantee that, without litigation or lawsuits, they will cover our costs," he said.
Forrest Freer was also concerned about the city's guarantee.
"We shouldn't have to have a lengthy and costly court battle so the city will pay for our losses," said Freer.
Phil Hazard said his concerns were not just the quantity of water in his well, but also the quality.
"I'm going to lose drinking water," he said. "And who is going to ensure that what I have left will be suitable to drink anyway?"
Two of the water rights applied for by the city are irrigation rights and seek to provide additional diversion capacity and volume for city irrigation needs.
Finally, business owner Jerry Loosli remarked on the effect the new wells could have on both his residence and his business.
"If my well runs dry, not only will it affect my residence but also my business," he said. "I will have no washrooms or drinking water available for customers."
"This will essentially shut down my business."
After a short break, the applicant (city) was allowed to make their presentation.
Charles Brockway, of Brockway Engineering, explained the fact that the city had two options if it needed more water.
"First, they can purchase new water rights. Or, they can apply to transfer water rights and move designate several municipal rights that were previously used for irrigation," he said. "In which case, expansion or increase is not allowed, according to the law."
"It is true that water levels in the Mountain Home area are declining and have been for some time," Brockway continued. "We understand that, and not all of these sites will be drilled."
"These proposed sites were based off of future demands and geological features. We used running models to try and determine what effect this new transfer will have on your wells and it appears to be minimal," he said.
James Bledsoe, of Keller Associates, elaborated on the future water needs of Mountain Home.
"In the next 20 years we foresee the city needing at least two or three more wells," he said. "It's really all about supply and demand."
After the city was done with their presentation, discussion was held to determine settlement options.
Hazard wanted to know why most of the sites proposed were at the south end of town.
"Why aren't we locating those wells up by all those new subdivisions?" he asked. "The demand is up there, not down south where two of those wells are proposed."
Carrie agreed that the well locations didn't make any sense to him.
"Northwest of town, the water level has not decreased at all whereas south of town it has been declining for years," he said.
City Public Works Director Wayne Shepherd responded, "We have determined that more growth will come to the south and west of town in the future."
"As much as four times the amount of subdivisions are proposed out that way than at the north end of town," he said.
Carrie reiterated that the protestants were not trying to stop the city from expanding or acquiring more water for its municipal needs.
"My business is expansion, so I'm not at all against that," he said. "We just want assurances that if your models are incorrect and we end up having dry wells, we won't be left out to dry too."
"The entire city council should be at the conference too," he added. "We're here, and they should be as well."
Simpson then formally requested that the city council meet with his clients as soon as possible.
"The protestants want to hear from them in person," he said.
City Attorney Jay R. Friedly said that he didn't see any reason why the council wouldn't meet with them.
"I don't think they have tried to hide anything in this matter," he said.
Mayor Joe B. McNeal then appeared to inform those present that he would set up a time for the entire council, himself included, to meet with the prostestants.
Both attorneys agreed that a formal hearing did not need to be set and that the next step would be a telephone conference in the middle of this month, or sometime after city council met with the prostestants.