softconversion contor 20080228 2 · acre ft/year (not a prediction of gains, estimate of...

1

Soft Conversions

Presentation to theComprehensive Aquifer Management

Plan CommitteeIdaho Falls, February 2008

B. Contor

2

The Potential Application of Additional Surface Waterto Irrigated Lands

Having Both Surface-water and Ground· water Irrigation Rights,

to Benefit the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer:

Soft Conversions

PT_od .. _ w .. " R ____ Ro_ ....... ~ __ ,IT'"

01 """"",, . """"'"''''' T'E~ ASS>STA><C£ '00 .... STE ... """"" PiAl" ACIUf'ER COIoO '""HEr<St<E AOO F ER o.w<""""'''1T ........ STUl!~

• __ w",, -.. ......... •• _ ... "" ",-,,,,,,,,oIW_ R-... ..

"_2000 ... ""w_-.. __ ... ..... r_ "-R-, 0000-<l02

3

Why conversions?

• Legal status of water use is irrigation• Double benefit to aquifer

– reduce pumping– increase incidental recharge

• Keeps land in production– "main-street" economic benefits

• Recharge is broadly distributed– fewer water-quality concerns

4

What are "mixed-source" lands?

• Lands that have both a valid surface-water right and a valid ground-water right

5

Paradigm 1

Ditch Pump

Well Pump

6

Paradigm 2

Ditch Pump

Well Pump

7

Paradigm 3

Ditch Pump

Well Pump

8

What are "soft conversions?"

• Full or partial replacement of ground-water with surface water, to irrigate mixed-source lands– already have surface water rights

– major infrastructure components (diversions & main canals) already exist

• To benefit the aquifer, there must be additional surface water delivered.

9

Illustration 1: Soft Conversion with Additional SW Delivery

10

"Before"

Diversion 50ET -40Net Rech 10

Pumping -50ET -40Perc 10

11

"After"


12

Comparison



Combined

GW Pump -50Net Rech +10GW Perc +10Total -30

Combined

GW Pump 0Net Rech +20Total +20


50 acre ftnew diversions

50 acre ftaquifer benefit

Before After

13

Illustration 2: Soft Conversion without

Additional SW Delivery

14

"Before"



15

"After"


16

Comparison



Combined

GW Pump -50Net Rech +60GW Perc +10Total +20

Combined

GW Pump 0Net Rech +20Total +20


nonew diversions

no newaquifer benefit

Before After

17

Study Questions:

• How many mixed-source lands can receive additional surface-water supplies?

• What would it take to convert the rest?• Can the canals deliver to all these

parcels?

• Is there water available?

18

Study Approach:

• How many mixed-source lands can receive additional surface-water supplies?– Field inspection & WR file review

20

Study Approach:

• What would it take to convert the rest?– Field inspection & IDWR engineering

expertise

• Can the canals deliver to all these parcels?– Review of diversion data

– Letters to canal managers

21Figure 2 from report

Aberdeen Canal Maximum Monthly Diversions - IDWR Records

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Yr

KA

F/m

onth Annual

Per Rec Capacity

20-yr Capacity

22

• Is there water available? – assessed by IDWR, not part of this study

23

Results:

• Most parcels are physically supplied by either GW or SW

• Very few are actually supplied by both

• Very few still have both types of infrastructure

24

• About 53,000 acres could reasonably be converted– nearly all would require a ditch pump

– about 2/3 would require additional improvements

• 3-phase power• ditch• mainline


75%

12%

13%

Above M.

Below Milner

Both

26

• Most canals have adequate capacity to support soft conversions– One manager said laterals might need

enlargement

• Canals that are capacity-limited are only limited during peak demand

• Great benefit could still be obtained by delivering to soft conversions only in the spring and fall

27

Bottom Line:

• 53,000 acres reasonably convertible• Considering seasonal irrigation

demand, canal-capacity limitations & acreage under each canal, potential benefit to aquifer is 180,000 acre feet per year

• Cost is $3,000,000 for the easiest 1/3, $15,000,000 for all 53,000 acres

28

• $15,000,000/180,000 acre feet = $82 one-time investment for capacity to deliver 1 acre foot/year benefit

• $3,000,000/57,000 acre feet =$53 one-time investment for capacity to deliver1 acre foot/year benefit

29

• If this were the lowest-cost alternative, would supplies be available in many (most) years to supply these conversions? (see IDWR water-supply results)

– Presentations this afternoon assume available water is delivered to other uses first

30

• If soft conversions were supplied every year, most benefits would be realized at springs & rivers within 20 years (assuming 10-year phase-in)

Soft Conversions Total Benefit Assuming Full Supply

185,584

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Year

Acr

e F

t/Y

ear

(NOT a prediction of gains, ESTIMATE of IMPROVEMENT)

31

• Most of the benefit would be available at Milner and above

Soft Conversions BenefitsAssuming Full Supply

164,143

21,440

185,584

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

0 50 100 150 200

Year

Acr

e F

t/Y

ear

Abv Milner

Blw Milner

Total

(NOT a prediction of gains, ESTIMATE of IMPROVEMENT)

32

Discussion

33

Backup slides

35

W-YR en ,cv ceo "'" em WR wc "" ,c, ,c, Ace ~ec '"' me 16.5 B C C C C " 57.4 '" 62.1 71.2 53.1 m me 16.5 B C C C C " 57.4 59.7 71.2 52.1 33.8 297.1

'"'' 16.5 B C C C C " 47.9 ffie " m TI, 274.4 1931 16.5 B C C C C , 40.1 " 44.1 "', 12.8 '"' , 1932 16.5 B C C C C " 44.3 "H 64.8 '" 24.9 265.3 1933 16.5 B C C C C " '" 74.1 67.2 51.8 27.2 282.3 1934 16.5 B C C C eo

'" 53.7 "'" "" '" 11.5 176.6

,% 16.5 B C C C C " 47.7 ffi' 61.1 "', 14.8 "" C m, 16.5 B C C C C " 9" 65.6 69.7 40.8 27.6 M 1937 16.5 B C C C C " '" ffi, 69.6 48.2 '" He m, 16.5 B C C C C " 9 H 64.9 69.1 51.4 31.0 W,

'"'' 16.5 B C C C C " 71.7 74.4 74.8 55.5 "', 334.9 1940 16.5 B C C C C " 67.7 73.9 '" '" 16.3 "" 1941 16.5 B C C C C " 63.4 73.3 ffi 48.1 32.6 n , 1942 16.5 B C C C C " 46.9 72.2 76.6 61.2 40.5 320.3 1943 16.5 B C C C C " 65.7 643 76.4 69.8 53.7 352.8 1944 16.5 B C C C C " 547 51.1 75.5 63.8 45.2 313.2 1945 16.5 B C C C C " ;ec ;e, 75.7 64.5 52.4 33].8 1946 16.5 B C C C C " 67.1 65.3 78.1 61.9 m 333.8 1947 16.5 B C C C C " 71.9 ;e, 79.3 "" 43.7 342 .8 1948 16.5 B C C C C " 53.2 62.9 77.7 67.4 44.2 328.3 1949 16.5 B C C C C " ," mo 811 62.7 40.6 llO" '''''' 16.5 B C C C C " " 65.1 74.3 74.2 47.3 345 .8

"" 16.5 B C C C C " 59.6 70.3 79.7 67.7 '" EO ,

"" 16.5 B C C C C " 61.5 " 79.9 73.6 51.5 EO ,

''" 16.5 B C C C C " 51.5 57.9 ",e 67.6 42.5 323.2

"" 16.5 B C C C C " 69.1 62.6 78.6 ffi' 46.7 "C

"'" 16.5 B C C C C " 55.7 73.3 78.3 "'" 41.4 no , ,~ 16.5 B C C C C " "" 72.4 00, 73.8 52.5 376.8

"" 16.5 B C C C C " 32.7 76.7 87.5 "" 9" EO"

'''' 16.5 B C C C C " m, 77.8 87.4 62.4 40.3 E U

"'" 16.5 B C C C C " " "''' ffiC 69.4 47.3 374.3

'''' 16.5 B C C C C " ffi, 83.8 91.6 65.2 49.7 381.7

'''' 17.6 " C C C C ;0 ffi' 75.5 79.3 57.7 15.3 317.2

''', 17.6 " C C C C ;0 " 74.6 00' 70.2 61.0 379.1

''', 17.6 " C C C C ;0 m '" 91.5 72.4 42.7 325.8

'''' 17.6 " C C C C ;0 40.2 ;eo 00" 77.8 ;e, 345 .1

''', 17.6 " C C C C ;0 me '" "" ffi~ 542 359.7

'''' 17.6 " C C C C ;0 76.7 en en 72.8 47.5 392.2

'''' 17.6 " C C C C ;0 45.8 59.3 en 79.7 ffi ::63.3

'''' 17.6 " C C C C ;0 " " 91.7 '" 44.2 ::62.6

'"'' 17.6 " C C C C ;0 77.9 71.8 91.1 82.3 em 4[6 .7 1970 17.6 " C C C C ;0 46.6 " 87.5 76.4 48.4 E" 1971 17.6 " C C C C " 52.2 74.3 ffi' 71.7 43.2 348.9 1972 17.6 " C C C C , 73.7 74.5 877 70.2 46.3 377.1 1973 "" C C C C C , ffi' ffi, 00, 74.6 49.3 "'" 1974 24.5 C C C C C ," 61.9 ffi, ,m 077 52.4 liH 1975 "" C C C C C C 21.1 "''' ffio 70.6 " 340.5 1976 "', C C C C C C 41.8 " ffi 52.1 45.2 313.3 1977 m u c c c c " 52.7 ffi, 73.7 51.5 33.3 m 1978 18.8 C C C C C U 43.2 ffi, 74.1 ;e, m 'mC 1979 31.4 C C C C C " 59.5 72.1 76.6 ;e, 48.7 "" C '"" M C C C C C , m 61.5 "" 57.4 42.8 m

'''' 21.6 C C C C C ,C 37.6 65.2 77.8 62.2 52.1 322.3

''', 18.6 " C C C C H 44.9 57.4 65.9 '" m 284.4 ,em 17.4 c C c c C 10.3 m '" 65.3 52.1 45.6 287 .9

'''' 19.3 C C C C C B 37.4 54.5 62.2 44.8 41.7 263 .8

''''' m c c c c c e" 48.7 65.1 ffiC 54.6 " 3]2.2

"'" 16.8 C C C C C 12.9 " 61.1 59.9 49.3 37.2 xm

'"" 19.7 C C C C C 22.7 59.7 ffi, 61.9 54.4 42.6 329.3

''''' 19.7 C C C C C "" 61.3 71.5 " '" E 317.2 ,ern "', c u c c C 13.6 59.4 67.2 " 53.6 41.8 DU

'''' 19.1 C C C C c m " 64.9 72.8 55.8 46.2 337.6

"" "', c c c c C 14.4 " ffi, 72.5 57.2 44.5 312.1

"" 21.1 C C C C C 3' 69.6 64.9 55.7 34.9 m 3]1 .6

"B H C C C C c n 37.3 53.4 ffi, 49.1 m 254 .9

'''' "" c c c c C 19.9 61.9 75.4 74.5 9" " 354.8 me 13.7 c C c c C 23.9 48.7 49.3 67.6 55.6 48.2 '" ,em '" c c c c C 23.6 55.3 ffi, ffi' 57.2 46.2 341.5

'''' m c c c c C 18.8 57.1 " 63.6 m, 45.5 mo ,em 22.1 c C c c c "" 57.1 59.4 73.2 ;e, 45.6 3439

"m 17.5 c C c c C 22.3 49.7 'U 74.5 61.1 52.9 n, = ';0 C C C C C 'EO 63.5 " 73.9 62.9 47.9 400.4

"'" 23.4 C C C C C 15.5 62.1 ffi' 61.1 "" 19.9 283.5

"", C C C C C C '" 53.8 67.9 64.9 52.5 21.0 "" , "'"' co c c c c c m 59.3 78.1 70.1 3' 19.2 282.4

"'" C C C C C C 18.3 62.5 65.1 62.3 m 3" 294.4

= C C C C C C '" 47.3 65.1 71.7 54.4 46.5 294 .1


Legend

D Inspected.Jlo~Qons

D 300_ran oom]ct,' Qct1 s

o Modellou nd arylDTM83

Prepared by Paul L. Pelot


D Counties _ IESW018 D Model Bndry IESW019 SW Entities IESW020 _ IESWOOO IESW022

IESW001 IESW025 _ IESW002 IESW027 _ IESW005 IESW028

IESW007 _ IESW029 IESW008 _ IESW030 IESW009 IESW031 IESW010 IESW032 IESW011 IESW033 IESW012 IESW034 IESW014 IESW035 IESW015 _ IESW036

_ IESW016

IESW037 IESW038

_ IESW039 IESW040

_ IESW041 IESW044 IESW051 IESW052

_ IESW053 IESW054 IESW055 IESW056

_ IESW057


Water-right Status of Surface-water Irrigated Lands in ESPAM1.1 Data

D Counties D Model Boundary SW Entities - Water Right Status

GW&SW _SWOnly


43%

6%

51%

GW

Mixed

SW

40

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000B

AN

NO

CK

BIN

GH

AM

BO

NN

EV

ILLE

FR

EM

ON

T

JEF

FE

RS

ON

MA

DIS

ON

PO

WE

R

BLA

INE

CA

SS

IA

LIN

CO

LN

MIN

IDO

KA

ELM

OR

E

GO

OD

ING

JER

OM

E

TW

IN F

ALL

S

Mostly Above Milner Both Mostly Below Milner


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0 1 2 3 Impractial

No. of Improvements in Addition to Pump

Improvements Needed for Soft Conversion,Field Inspection of Sample Sites


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Miles

Miles of Power Line Needed for Soft Conversion,Field Inspection of Sample Sites


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Miles

Miles of Ditch Needed for Soft Conversion,Field Inspection of Sample Sites


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Miles

Miles of Pipe Needed for Soft Conversion, Field Inspection of Sample Sites


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

MA

R E

T

AP

R E

T

MA

Y E

T

JUN

ET

JUL

ET

AU

G E

T

SE

P E

T

OC

T E

T

ET

Req

(ft

/mo

)


Available Canal Capacity

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT

Acr

e F

eet


Soft Conversion Potential as Limited by Convertible Acres, Irrigation Demand and Canal Capacity (if supply were to be made available)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT Sum SumThrough

June

Net

Aq

uif

er B

enef

it,

AF

/yr


Soft Conversion Potentialand Available Canal Capacity

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT Sum

Acr

e F

eet

Conv. Requirements Avail. Capacity


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

April May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Div

ersi

on

s K

AF

/mo

nth

Manager 19-yr Avg

IWRRI Study Avg


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

April May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Div

ersi

on

s K

AF

/mo

nth

Manager 12-yr Avg

IWRRI study Avg

51Table 1 from report

Table 1

Infrastructure Improvements Needed for Soft Conversion of 53,000 Acres (410 sites)

Within the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer

Improvement Number Approximate CostPumping plant 410 $9,060,000 3-phase power line 29 miles $3,220,000 Earthen ditch 19 miles $150,000 Buried pipeline 46 miles $2,470,000 Total cost $14,900,000 Average cost/site $36,500


Table 2

Soft-conversion Convertible Acres by Surface-water Irrigation Entity

Entity Acres Entity Acres Entity Acres

IESW001 112 IESW018 4,317 IESW034 4,924IESW002 19,020 IESW019 2,471 IESW035 448IESW007 3,310 IESW020 495 IESW036 623IESW009 555 IESW022 2,627 IESW038 60IESW010 1,976 IESW027 932 IESW039 280IESW011 302 IESW028 634 IESW055 241IESW012 1,508 IESW030 1,562 IESW056 762IESW014 753 IESW031 0 IESW015 0 IESW032 4,157 IESW016 695 IESW033 72


Table 3 Average Percentage of Irrigation Requirement

for Soft Conversions that Can Be Served With Available Unused Canal Capacity

Entity Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

IESW001 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW002 100% 100% 37% 27% 100% 100% 100% IESW007 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW009 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW010 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW011 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW012 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW014 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW015 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A IESW016 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW018 100% 100% 31% 27% 100% 100% 100% IESW019 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW020 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW022 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW027 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW028 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW030 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW031 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A IESW032 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW033 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW034 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW035 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW036 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW038 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW039 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW055 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% IESW056 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

54Table A1 from report

Table A1

Cost Estimates to Develop One Site

Item Cost 100hp pump with screen and panel $14,250 3 - phase power using 350mcm wire $19,000 1320 feet of 6" PVC mainline $7,000 Installation cost $10,000 Plus 20% contingency fee on equipment $8,050

Total $58,300

55Table A2 from report

Table A2 Adjusted Per-improvement Unit Costs

Item Base

Estimate Pump Only

Power Line

Mainline Ditch

Pumping Plant $14,250 $14,250 Power $19,000 $19,000 Mainline $7,000 $7,000 Ditch1 $2,000 $2,000 Installation $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Contingency (20%)

$8,050 $2,850 $3,800 $1,400

Total $60,300 $22,100 $27,800 $13,400 $2,000

Unit Site Mile Mile MileUnits in Base Estimate

1 0.25 0.25 0.25

Per Unit $22,100 $111,200 $53,600 $8,000

Table 1 in the body of the text applies the per-unit costs from Table A2, rounding the total to the nearest $10,000.

softconversion contor 20080228 2 · acre ft/year (not a prediction of gains, estimate of...

Documents