On June 30, 2015, a historic comparison agreement was reached between groundwater users and surface water users to end the long-term dispute over the use and management of Idaho`s immense Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer (ESPA). Almost as large as Lake Erie, ESPA supplies water to about two million hectares of farmland and dozens of cities and industries in southern Idaho. About half of this arable land is watered by espa-pumped groundwater, while the other half is watered with surface water from the Snake River, supplemented by groundwater flowing from the ESPA into the Snake River from springs in the American Falls and Thousand Springs areas. This comparison has resolved more than a decade of disputes between surface and groundwater users. It calls for increased groundwater accumulation, funded by the State of Idaho, and diversion reductions by groundwater users, aimed at stabilizing and improving groundwater levels over time. In 1984, the parties entered into a transaction that established a fair sharing of water. [iii] In particular, the Swan Falls Agreement reduced the minimum flow to 3,900 cubic feet per second (cfs), made it more difficult to authorize new upstream water spills, and notably triggered a legal review of all water rights in the Snake Basin River. [iv] In particular, the tally showed that accurate data related to willingness to negotiate could yield impressive results in water disputes. After the agreement was approved by the state legislature, the Snake River Basin Adjudication began. The 1984 Swan Falls Settlement not only established a way to find common ground between hydroelectric and agricultural interests, but also laid the foundation for the long but successful Snake River Basin Adjudication. To learn more about the use of our media files, please see our standard licensing agreement. ____In late 1970s, a group of Idaho Power Company employees sued Idaho Power Company, claiming that the hydroelectric supplier had failed to protect the water rights of its Swan Falls Dam. The oldest dam on the Snake River.
The group argued that the company`s inability to protest against the junior water rights outside the water resulted in a decrease in water in the dam and, as a result, an increase in electricity costs for customers.