This is a weekly roundup of some of ICIE’s activities in and around the Idaho Legislature. Staffing limits mean we can’t cover every meeting. If there’s an item of interest to you at an upcoming meeting of one of the environment or agriculture committees, let us know and we’ll try to cover it. Agendas are available at http://www.state.id.us/. Click on “Legislative” and click on “Calendars and agendas.”
The House Environment Energy and Technology Committee met again on Wednesday (1-28-09) to discuss rules brought forth by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Barry Brunell, Idaho DEQ water qualiy administrator presented a rule he said was intended to protect consumers from buying homes with faulty septic systems. The rule would increase the estimated wastewater flow area for septic systems based upon updated water use information for residential homes. Many members of the committee wondered to what extent consumers needed such protection, but Brunell didn’t have exact figures as to how many septic systems have actually failed due to too small a waste water field, versus other factors such as lack of maintenance or shoddy installation. The rule was also opposed by realtors and citizens who testified against it. The committee voted to reject the rule.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Ground Water Quality - Saturday Summary 1/31/09
This is from a weekly roundup of some of ICIE’s activities in and around the Idaho Legislature. Staffing limits mean we can’t cover every meeting. If there’s an item of interest to you at an upcoming meeting of one of the environment or agriculture committees, let us know and we’ll try to cover it. Agendas are available at http://www.state.id.us/. Click on “Legislative” and click on “Calendars and agendas.”
The House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee met again on Wednesday (1-28-09) to discuss rules brought forth by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Barry Brunell, Idaho DEQ water qualiy administrator, presented a Ground Water Quality Rule. The DEQ has been meeting over the past two years with stakeholders, including those in the mining industry and environmental groups, to address setting points of compliance within which a mine can contaminate groundwater. Federal agencies leave these standards up to the state. The DEQ feels the resulting proposal is a good compromise between the two stakeholder groups, and expands the existing rule to include opportunities for the mine operator to request a point of compliance review for a fee. Testifying in favor of the rule were John Tippets, a representative of phosphate and nitrogen company, Agrium, and Jack Lyman of the Idaho Mining Association. Both noted that the DEQ proposal wasn’t exactly what they would have brought to the table, but it was a good compromise. Not so, said Justin Hayes, of the ICL who testified in opposition to the proposal, as it would grant permanent exemptions to the groundwater contamination parameter – leaving the state no recourse to pursue restitution from those companies that go out of business. He suggested implementing a bond requirement, which the DEQ staff felt was beyond the scope of the bill. Representative Eskridge asked the DEQ to consider the timeline issues raised by Hayes. The committee ultimately approved the rule, with Representatives Smith, Jaquet and Cronin dissenting. * * * * *
The House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee met again on Wednesday (1-28-09) to discuss rules brought forth by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Barry Brunell, Idaho DEQ water qualiy administrator, presented a Ground Water Quality Rule. The DEQ has been meeting over the past two years with stakeholders, including those in the mining industry and environmental groups, to address setting points of compliance within which a mine can contaminate groundwater. Federal agencies leave these standards up to the state. The DEQ feels the resulting proposal is a good compromise between the two stakeholder groups, and expands the existing rule to include opportunities for the mine operator to request a point of compliance review for a fee. Testifying in favor of the rule were John Tippets, a representative of phosphate and nitrogen company, Agrium, and Jack Lyman of the Idaho Mining Association. Both noted that the DEQ proposal wasn’t exactly what they would have brought to the table, but it was a good compromise. Not so, said Justin Hayes, of the ICL who testified in opposition to the proposal, as it would grant permanent exemptions to the groundwater contamination parameter – leaving the state no recourse to pursue restitution from those companies that go out of business. He suggested implementing a bond requirement, which the DEQ staff felt was beyond the scope of the bill. Representative Eskridge asked the DEQ to consider the timeline issues raised by Hayes. The committee ultimately approved the rule, with Representatives Smith, Jaquet and Cronin dissenting. * * * * *
Bunker Hill - Saturday Summary 1/31/09
This is from a weekly roundup of some of ICIE’s activities in and around the Idaho Legislature. Staffing limits mean we can’t cover every meeting. If there’s an item of interest to you at an upcoming meeting of one of the environment or agriculture committees, let us know and we’ll try to cover it. Agendas are available at http://www.state.id.us/. Click on “Legislative” and click on “Calendars and agendas.”
On the 26th, the House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee addressed the expansion of the impact area of the Bunker Hill Mine site. Bunker Hill has been listed as a super fund site since 1982. The area surrounding the site was later expanded into the lower Silver Valley basin. The bill proposed by Department of Environmental Quality is intended to stimulate the local economy, providing a vehicle for land transfers for commercial development. For example, Eagle Crest Golf and Ski Resort has had a tremendous economic impact in the Silver Valley. The committee voted unanimously to send the bill to the floor. *****
Transmission - Saturday Summary 1/31/09
This is from a weekly roundup of some of ICIE’s activities in and around the Idaho Legislature. Staffing limits mean we can’t cover every meeting. If there’s an item of interest to you at an upcoming meeting of one of the environment or agriculture committees, let us know and we’ll try to cover it. Agendas are available at http://www.state.id.us/. Click on “Legislative” and click on “Calendars and agendas.”
House Environment, Energy & Technology Committee, 1-26-09: At last week’s House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee, Office of Energy Resources Administrator Paul Kjellander presented a bill to create priority status for transmmission projects in Idaho. This week, he returned with more information about its impacts. Committee members were particularly interested in how the designation of priority status would impact local government agencies. Kjellander noted the benefits of granting transmission projects priority status include providing an open public forum and public records to facilitate better public understanding of such projects. “People may still not like (a particular) project,” Kjellander noted, “but at least they’ll have the opportunity to understand it and why the priority status was designated.” Kjellander noted that the bill would not challenge the decision-making autonomy of county government where transmission projects were concerned. The bill would only pertain to those agencies that the State and Public Utilities Commission deal with. Representatives from the PUC and the Association of Idaho Counties testified that they agreed with Kjellander’s assessment of the impact of this bill on local authority. The committee voted to send the bill to the floor with a do-pass recommendation.
*****
*****
ICIE Legislative Activities - Saturday Summary 1/31/09
This is from a weekly roundup of some of ICIE’s activities in and around the Idaho Legislature. Staffing limits mean we can’t cover every meeting. If there’s an item of interest to you at an upcoming meeting of one of the environment or agriculture committees, let us know and we’ll try to cover it. Agendas are available at http://www.state.id.us/. Click on “Legislative” and click on “Calendars and agendas.”
Senate Health & Welfare Committee, 1-26-09 Members of ICIE’s Environmental/Regulatory Affairs (E/RA) Committee gave a presentation to the Senate Health & Welfare Committee on Rules, Guidance and Stringency. Norm Semanko, Chairman of the E/RA Committee introduced the presenters—Roy Eiguren, Eiguren Public Law & Policy; Jack Lyman, Idaho Mining Association; Joan Cloonan, member of the Board of Environmental Quality and environmental consultant discussed the differences between rules and guidance and the issue of state stringency over federal rules. The same presentation was made the next day to the House Resources & Conservation Committee.
*****
*****
Sheep Update - Saturday Summary– 1-31-09
This is from a weekly roundup of some of ICIE’s activities in and around the Idaho Legislature. Staffing limits mean we can’t cover every meeting. If there’s an item of interest to you at an upcoming meeting of one of the environment or agriculture committees, let us know and we’ll try to cover it. Agendas are available at http://www.state.id.us/. Click on “Legislative” and click on “Calendars and agendas.”
More on Sheep ...
I received a couple of calls this week about my report on the issue of sheep grazing rights in the Payette National Forest. So I did some research on the subject and watched the same presentation by sheep rancher, Ron Shirts and his attorney, Alan Schroeder, a second time when they came before the House Resources & Conservation Committee.
The correction: Big horn sheep were extirpated from the Hells Canyon area in the 1940’s, but there are currently big horn sheep in that area as a result of program to reintroduce them.
The dispute: Alan Schroeder showed the committee a map of the area in question with the location of big horn sheep marked. The Shirts family contends that there are few if any collared big horn sheep in the area during the time his domestic sheep would graze. His attorney presented a map that showed areas where bighorn sheep have been detected, and a map showing big horn sheep detected in that same area during the time domestic sheep would graze.
At the center of the dispute is the 1997 agreement which was signed by the state wildlife agencies of Idaho, Washington and Oregon, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (which has jurisdiction over Hells Canyon), Bureau of Land Management, the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep that allowed further reintroductions of bighorns in exchange for an agreement that domestic grazing would not be impaired.
According to a letter sent Idaho Wool Growers Association at the time, “the committee understands that bighorns may occasionally migrate outside of their designated range and come into contact with domestic sheep. These bighorns will be considered ‘at risk’ for potential disease transmission and death. There is also the potential for an exposed bighorn to leave the area and spread disease to other bighorn sheep. Under these conditions, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington Department of Wildlife will assume the responsibility for bighorn losses and further disease transmission in their respective areas. The three departments will also take whatever action is necessary to reduce further losses of bighorn sheep without adversely impacting domestic sheep operators.”
The Payette National Forest released its updated forest plan in 2003, and it seemed to include the essence of the 1997 agreement that bighorn reintroductions would not impair the grazing of domestic sheep. Several environmental groups and the Nez Perce Tribe challenged the plan in part over the domestic sheep-grazing issue. In 2005, the Chief of the Forest Service agreed that the plan did not provide enough protection for big horn sheep. The next year the Payette Forest published a risk assessment that found one allotment in the area in question, Smith Mountain, at very high risk for big horn sheep and four allotments at high risk. Domestic sheep grazing continued, however, while groups from both sides tried to reach some sort of accord.
In April, 2007, the anti-grazing group, Western Watersheds Project and the Hells Canyon Preservation Council sued the Forest Service for failing to protect a viable population of bighorn sheep as required by the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
NFMA rule says that each national forest must maintain a minimum, viable population of the species that live there which applied to the re-introduced big horn sheep. Once the big horn sheep were re-established, the Forest Service has a duty to protect them despite the 1997 agreement.
Faced with the lawsuit, the Payette National Forest agreed to a bighorn-protection plan drawn up by the Nez Perce Tribe. During a hearing in May, Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah A. Ferguson told Judge Winmill that the Payette National Forest would stop grazing during the 2007 season on portions of two domestic sheep allotments in the bighorn country on the Idaho side of the Snake River. Grazing on two allotments on the Salmon River would also be curtailed. The permittees were given just a few days to find alternate grazing or sell large portions of their herds.
The Forest Service had to do a risk assessment and an SEIS before modifying the permits; however, according to the ranchers, it modified the permits before the risk assessment and SEIS were done.
The ranchers contend there is no documented evidence of transmission of disease from domestic sheep to wild big horn sheep. There are some common pathogens but both wild and domestic sheep have them. The big horn sheep that have been reintroduced come from Canada and other states and are not tested for pathogens. Domestic sheep that are moved across state lines are tested for pathogens.
Those who want to end domestic grazing on these allotments or on all federally-managed land claim that bighorn sheep are highly susceptible to pathogens carried by domestic sheep. They also claim that there are numerous examples of big horn sheep dying after suspected contact with domestic sheep.
More on Sheep ...
I received a couple of calls this week about my report on the issue of sheep grazing rights in the Payette National Forest. So I did some research on the subject and watched the same presentation by sheep rancher, Ron Shirts and his attorney, Alan Schroeder, a second time when they came before the House Resources & Conservation Committee.
The correction: Big horn sheep were extirpated from the Hells Canyon area in the 1940’s, but there are currently big horn sheep in that area as a result of program to reintroduce them.
The dispute: Alan Schroeder showed the committee a map of the area in question with the location of big horn sheep marked. The Shirts family contends that there are few if any collared big horn sheep in the area during the time his domestic sheep would graze. His attorney presented a map that showed areas where bighorn sheep have been detected, and a map showing big horn sheep detected in that same area during the time domestic sheep would graze.
At the center of the dispute is the 1997 agreement which was signed by the state wildlife agencies of Idaho, Washington and Oregon, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (which has jurisdiction over Hells Canyon), Bureau of Land Management, the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep that allowed further reintroductions of bighorns in exchange for an agreement that domestic grazing would not be impaired.
According to a letter sent Idaho Wool Growers Association at the time, “the committee understands that bighorns may occasionally migrate outside of their designated range and come into contact with domestic sheep. These bighorns will be considered ‘at risk’ for potential disease transmission and death. There is also the potential for an exposed bighorn to leave the area and spread disease to other bighorn sheep. Under these conditions, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington Department of Wildlife will assume the responsibility for bighorn losses and further disease transmission in their respective areas. The three departments will also take whatever action is necessary to reduce further losses of bighorn sheep without adversely impacting domestic sheep operators.”
The Payette National Forest released its updated forest plan in 2003, and it seemed to include the essence of the 1997 agreement that bighorn reintroductions would not impair the grazing of domestic sheep. Several environmental groups and the Nez Perce Tribe challenged the plan in part over the domestic sheep-grazing issue. In 2005, the Chief of the Forest Service agreed that the plan did not provide enough protection for big horn sheep. The next year the Payette Forest published a risk assessment that found one allotment in the area in question, Smith Mountain, at very high risk for big horn sheep and four allotments at high risk. Domestic sheep grazing continued, however, while groups from both sides tried to reach some sort of accord.
In April, 2007, the anti-grazing group, Western Watersheds Project and the Hells Canyon Preservation Council sued the Forest Service for failing to protect a viable population of bighorn sheep as required by the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
NFMA rule says that each national forest must maintain a minimum, viable population of the species that live there which applied to the re-introduced big horn sheep. Once the big horn sheep were re-established, the Forest Service has a duty to protect them despite the 1997 agreement.
Faced with the lawsuit, the Payette National Forest agreed to a bighorn-protection plan drawn up by the Nez Perce Tribe. During a hearing in May, Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah A. Ferguson told Judge Winmill that the Payette National Forest would stop grazing during the 2007 season on portions of two domestic sheep allotments in the bighorn country on the Idaho side of the Snake River. Grazing on two allotments on the Salmon River would also be curtailed. The permittees were given just a few days to find alternate grazing or sell large portions of their herds.
The Forest Service had to do a risk assessment and an SEIS before modifying the permits; however, according to the ranchers, it modified the permits before the risk assessment and SEIS were done.
The ranchers contend there is no documented evidence of transmission of disease from domestic sheep to wild big horn sheep. There are some common pathogens but both wild and domestic sheep have them. The big horn sheep that have been reintroduced come from Canada and other states and are not tested for pathogens. Domestic sheep that are moved across state lines are tested for pathogens.
Those who want to end domestic grazing on these allotments or on all federally-managed land claim that bighorn sheep are highly susceptible to pathogens carried by domestic sheep. They also claim that there are numerous examples of big horn sheep dying after suspected contact with domestic sheep.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Saturday Summary 1-24-09
This is a weekly roundup of some of ICIE’s activities in and around the Idaho Legislature. Staffing limits mean we can’t cover every meeting. If there’s an item of interest to you at an upcoming meeting of one of the environment or agriculture committees, let us know and we’ll try to cover it. Agendas are available at www.state.id.us. Click on “Legislative” and click on “Calendars and agendas.”
Senate Resources & Enviornment Committee, 1-19-09: Committee heard a presentation on the issue of grazing rights in the Payette National Forest by permit holder Ron Shirts and attorney Alan Schroeder. The Payette is revising its forest plan to eliminate all grazing of domestic sheep in order to protect wild big horn sheep. This revision would cancel a 1997 agreement between Idaho, Oregon, Washington, the Forest Service and the ranchers to allow grazing of domestic sheep. Under the agreement, the states’ fish & wildlife agencies took responsibility for any contact between the big horn sheep and the domestic sheep grazing in the area. There are currently no big horn sheep in the Hells Canyon area, but they were there historically. The Payette Forest wants to reintroduce the big horn sheep in the area in a revised forest plan.
Until 2005, everyone was conforming to the agreement that was part of the forest plan. The Chief of the Forest Service asked the Payette Forest reconsider this agreement and to eliminate all grazing of domestic sheep. There is no documented evidence of transmission of disease from domestic sheep to wild big horn sheep. There are some common pathogens but both wild and domestic sheep have them. The big horn sheep that would be reintroduced would come from Canada and other states and would not be free of pathogens.According to Idaho Department of Fish & Game, big horn sheep already have pathogens and can get pathogens from many sources including birds. There is no data for the area in question showing that big horn sheep have contact with domestic sheep. The Forest Service claims that the forest plan can override the agreement signed in 1997. The Forest Service is supposed to do a risk assessment and an EIS before modifying the permits; however, it has modified the permits before the risk assessment and EIS are done.
House Environment, Energy & Technology Committee, 1-20-09: Paul Kjellander, Administrator of the Office of Energy Resources presented a bill for print to create priority transmission status for projects in Idaho.Companies planning transmission projects would follow a protocol for priority transmission status which would be followed by an executive order by the Governor to grant the project priority status. A developer would apply for status through the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The PUC would hold public meetings in order to initiate a ruling for priority status. Using the PUC to approve priority status would streamline the process so that an application does not have to be reviewed by several agencies. In answer to questions, Kjellander pointed out that this is not a siting bill. This bill would allow priority status to be established but the PUC does not determine siting. The PUC looks at what is in the record to determine the impact on the public interest, such as with rates, for example. Siting of transmission projects would remain under local county control except for those projects that are in the national interest and in an area that has been designated as a national transmission corridor by the federal government.
Joint Meeting of the Senate & House Transportation Committees, 1-20-09: On Tuesday, the Idaho Senate & House Transportation Committees gathered to hear a report on a performance audit of the Transportation Department. As the governor mandated, the audit focused on the ITD Highways program. Unsurprisingly, the conclusion was that the current ITD funding is insufficient to maintain and preserve the current highway system, and Idaho is behind its peer group in keeping its roads up to a serviceable level. The audit evaluated the ITD from an organizational standpoint, as well as from the financial planning, scheduling and budgeting standpoints.
Other findings included:
- Road construction costs are increasing faster than the general rate of inflation
- Comprehensive statewide strategy is lacking
- Business and financial planning process is missing
- Departmental programs are generally reactive, lacking a long-term infrastructure management plan
- Capital projects could be improved by establishing uniform project selection criteria and better integration of the planning process
- ITD management is district-centered and decentralized
- Program outcomes are measured against a select but limited set of performance measures
- ITD does not use currently available technology for management of complex maintenance needs
- ITD does not use consistent project management and consultant management practices agency-wide
- GARVEE performance could be improved through a more flexible project finance strategy and institutionalizing generally accepted project management practices.
The audit report went on to make a series of recommendations in each area, with the recommendation that Idaho adopt explicit policies to promote maintenance, preservation and restoration as highest priorities for transportation funding, and that new highway projects should be evaluated for cost effectiveness, and project plans should include long-term maintenance costs for these new roadways.In closing, auditors stressed that the current situation facing Idaho’s highway system is untenable and that the state is falling further and further behind in its ability to maintain and preserve its highway and bridge infrastructure. A full report can be found on the Idaho State Legislature’s website at: http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/ope/publications/reports/r0903.html
Senate Resources & Environment Committee, 1-21-09: On Wednesday, the Idaho Water Resources Board reported on the status of the organization since the Governor’s request to hold back $12 million of a $20 million appropriation. Currently the organization is working on water modeling for the Treasure Valley and Rathdrum/Prairie aquifers as its top priority. Of the original appropriation, there is enough left to complete this task, but there will be not enough to move on to other priorities.The group discussed the status of the CAMP process with the committee in response to a query from Senator Cameron. CAMP refers to the Comprehensive Aquifer Management Planning for the Snake River Plain Aquifer. Senator Cameron commended the group on their ability to bring together all those interested in using the water and recharging the aquifer. In some cases, these people represent either side at the litigation table.In response to a question from Senator Werk, the board chair outlined the basic responsibilities and duties of the board. The board does hold water rights and is working with the state to determine what can be done with those resources not used by water rights holders. They also give regular legislative updates.Senator Werk asked about the planning horizon – considering global warming and the projected early season snow melt. The Department is in charge of water management of resources used by water rights holders. The board would be the organization to look at planning issues related to water storage. The objective is to make the water last as long as possible, for the benefit of the state rather than for that of individual water holders. Currently the board is looking at water years and estimating for the next 50 years.A member of the board explained some basic tenants of water law for the benefit of the newer members of the committee. In order for the board to made these 50-year projections, it has to consider requests according to “beneficial usage” and address ground water and those resources not already spoken for under previous water rights. Water law as determined by the Idaho Constitution which stipulates a “first in time, first in right,” doctrine. Then there is a hierarchy of water use. If there is water available at this point, the usage has to conform to the beneficial use criteria.
Senate Resources & Enviornment Committee, 1-19-09: Committee heard a presentation on the issue of grazing rights in the Payette National Forest by permit holder Ron Shirts and attorney Alan Schroeder. The Payette is revising its forest plan to eliminate all grazing of domestic sheep in order to protect wild big horn sheep. This revision would cancel a 1997 agreement between Idaho, Oregon, Washington, the Forest Service and the ranchers to allow grazing of domestic sheep. Under the agreement, the states’ fish & wildlife agencies took responsibility for any contact between the big horn sheep and the domestic sheep grazing in the area. There are currently no big horn sheep in the Hells Canyon area, but they were there historically. The Payette Forest wants to reintroduce the big horn sheep in the area in a revised forest plan.
Until 2005, everyone was conforming to the agreement that was part of the forest plan. The Chief of the Forest Service asked the Payette Forest reconsider this agreement and to eliminate all grazing of domestic sheep. There is no documented evidence of transmission of disease from domestic sheep to wild big horn sheep. There are some common pathogens but both wild and domestic sheep have them. The big horn sheep that would be reintroduced would come from Canada and other states and would not be free of pathogens.According to Idaho Department of Fish & Game, big horn sheep already have pathogens and can get pathogens from many sources including birds. There is no data for the area in question showing that big horn sheep have contact with domestic sheep. The Forest Service claims that the forest plan can override the agreement signed in 1997. The Forest Service is supposed to do a risk assessment and an EIS before modifying the permits; however, it has modified the permits before the risk assessment and EIS are done.
House Environment, Energy & Technology Committee, 1-20-09: Paul Kjellander, Administrator of the Office of Energy Resources presented a bill for print to create priority transmission status for projects in Idaho.Companies planning transmission projects would follow a protocol for priority transmission status which would be followed by an executive order by the Governor to grant the project priority status. A developer would apply for status through the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The PUC would hold public meetings in order to initiate a ruling for priority status. Using the PUC to approve priority status would streamline the process so that an application does not have to be reviewed by several agencies. In answer to questions, Kjellander pointed out that this is not a siting bill. This bill would allow priority status to be established but the PUC does not determine siting. The PUC looks at what is in the record to determine the impact on the public interest, such as with rates, for example. Siting of transmission projects would remain under local county control except for those projects that are in the national interest and in an area that has been designated as a national transmission corridor by the federal government.
Joint Meeting of the Senate & House Transportation Committees, 1-20-09: On Tuesday, the Idaho Senate & House Transportation Committees gathered to hear a report on a performance audit of the Transportation Department. As the governor mandated, the audit focused on the ITD Highways program. Unsurprisingly, the conclusion was that the current ITD funding is insufficient to maintain and preserve the current highway system, and Idaho is behind its peer group in keeping its roads up to a serviceable level. The audit evaluated the ITD from an organizational standpoint, as well as from the financial planning, scheduling and budgeting standpoints.
Other findings included:
- Road construction costs are increasing faster than the general rate of inflation
- Comprehensive statewide strategy is lacking
- Business and financial planning process is missing
- Departmental programs are generally reactive, lacking a long-term infrastructure management plan
- Capital projects could be improved by establishing uniform project selection criteria and better integration of the planning process
- ITD management is district-centered and decentralized
- Program outcomes are measured against a select but limited set of performance measures
- ITD does not use currently available technology for management of complex maintenance needs
- ITD does not use consistent project management and consultant management practices agency-wide
- GARVEE performance could be improved through a more flexible project finance strategy and institutionalizing generally accepted project management practices.
The audit report went on to make a series of recommendations in each area, with the recommendation that Idaho adopt explicit policies to promote maintenance, preservation and restoration as highest priorities for transportation funding, and that new highway projects should be evaluated for cost effectiveness, and project plans should include long-term maintenance costs for these new roadways.In closing, auditors stressed that the current situation facing Idaho’s highway system is untenable and that the state is falling further and further behind in its ability to maintain and preserve its highway and bridge infrastructure. A full report can be found on the Idaho State Legislature’s website at: http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/ope/publications/reports/r0903.html
Senate Resources & Environment Committee, 1-21-09: On Wednesday, the Idaho Water Resources Board reported on the status of the organization since the Governor’s request to hold back $12 million of a $20 million appropriation. Currently the organization is working on water modeling for the Treasure Valley and Rathdrum/Prairie aquifers as its top priority. Of the original appropriation, there is enough left to complete this task, but there will be not enough to move on to other priorities.The group discussed the status of the CAMP process with the committee in response to a query from Senator Cameron. CAMP refers to the Comprehensive Aquifer Management Planning for the Snake River Plain Aquifer. Senator Cameron commended the group on their ability to bring together all those interested in using the water and recharging the aquifer. In some cases, these people represent either side at the litigation table.In response to a question from Senator Werk, the board chair outlined the basic responsibilities and duties of the board. The board does hold water rights and is working with the state to determine what can be done with those resources not used by water rights holders. They also give regular legislative updates.Senator Werk asked about the planning horizon – considering global warming and the projected early season snow melt. The Department is in charge of water management of resources used by water rights holders. The board would be the organization to look at planning issues related to water storage. The objective is to make the water last as long as possible, for the benefit of the state rather than for that of individual water holders. Currently the board is looking at water years and estimating for the next 50 years.A member of the board explained some basic tenants of water law for the benefit of the newer members of the committee. In order for the board to made these 50-year projections, it has to consider requests according to “beneficial usage” and address ground water and those resources not already spoken for under previous water rights. Water law as determined by the Idaho Constitution which stipulates a “first in time, first in right,” doctrine. Then there is a hierarchy of water use. If there is water available at this point, the usage has to conform to the beneficial use criteria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)