Gov. Butch Otter didn’t include any money in the budget this year for studies of potential new water storage projects but the Idaho Legislature is preparing to throw its weight behind the idea.
The House Resources and Conservation Committee received Idaho Department of Water Resources director David Tuthill warmly last week as it agreed to print a joint memorial supporting his call for studies of dam projects to increase water storage. Joint Memorial 8 tells federal officials, Congress and frankly anyone who will listen that Idaho supports studies of any dam that might increase the amount of water stored in the state.
It specifically talks about rebuilding Teton Dam and the Twin Springs project, which would dam the Middle Fork of the Boise River to give our drainage another reservoir. Galloway Dam, long a proposed dam on the Weiser River will look a lot better later this spring as the large snowpack threatens another flood there.
Tuthill knows some of these projects are controversial and would be nearly impossible to attract funding. But talking about the need, he says, is starting discussions and bringing new ideas to the table.
For instance, the Teton Dam, which failed in 1976 soon after it was built, would be hard to rebuild in the Teton Canyon. But already he has received an alternative to build several lakes above the canyon that not only would provide storage but also might be attractive for developers.
Agricultural users in the Boise River Valley have long advocated Twin Springs Dam to provide future water supplies here. They hope recreation and residential users would see the value in having more water for future development and perhaps stream flows. Then the farmers could keep what they’re using not just for farming but to lease to others so they can lower their costs for water even more.
But residential and industrial users will be able to get the water they need in the future by drying up farmland just as is done in state from Colorado to California on the Colorado River. Tuthill and other state officials know this is controversial, polarizing and as popular to farmers as drying up the Boise River in the winter is to fishermen.
If Twin Springs is to become a serious proposal, its unlikely more storage will be the driving force. The greater need for an additional dam in the Boise River drainage would be for flood control.
The reality is that when the 100 year flood comes to the Boise River, the flooding around Eagle last year will seem like a minor soaking. Millions of dollars of damage to riverside homes and even property far from the river will someday force Treasure Valley residents to recognize the costs of the thousands of decisions made to build in the floodplain here over the last 40 years.
If the snow keeps falling and we get a hot week in April, May or June it could happen this year.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo
How about if we restrict
How about if we restrict building in the flood plain? This is stupid. Who is going to pay for this?
I remember when Eagle Island used to flood all of the time now there are hundreds of expensive homes built there that will flood because these stupid people don't realize that EVERY RIVER FLOODS! Dams will make a real flood worse because they will empty them to save them. The people who built homes on Eagle Island are going to make the flooding worse for the people downstream too. RIVERS FLOOD, don't build in them.
Everything is a flood plain...
Ask Noah.
Water is something the state can own and control
and sell. It is the gold of the west.
YEAH!
$&^##&(in rivers!
Lets see now, as I recall
Lets see now, as I recall flood plains are defined by on-site surveys every few years by the US Army Corps of Engineers. These studies are performed to give local governments and insurance agencies guidance on where risk of flooding is moderate to high and therefore help guide development. Too bad many developers and local decision makers don't heed this info.
So how many local developers, homebuyers and local officials does it take to define a floodplain then? Apparently no one has paid attention. We keep building in them and raising buildings a foot above the projected flood level of which the infilling changes the level again. Flood plains are important wildlife habitat and water recharge areas amongst other benefits.
More dams simply allow people to think they are protected more from flooding. As far as water shortages go I suggest we apply more water conservation practices both in the urban and agricultural use areas. farmers could do much better than worrying about using their water right so they don't lose it. Twin Springs Dam, Galloway, etc all will have more negative environmental impacts today than they would have had when proposed years ago so let's not waste our tax money on such projects. rather lets look at keeping new development out of flood prone areas then I won't be subsidizing those homeowners insurance rates and having to listen to their whining when the water level rises again.
Teton, Johnstown...
yeah, I tend to agree. Nice point.
Every "Flood Control" Dam...
... built is, at one time or another, overwhelmed by the forces of nature. The only true solution is to respect the forces of nature and allow rivers room to flood. Unfortunately, development desires often overwhelm common sense and we end up with the problems we now face in the Treasure Valley. It will take a real flood - not the minor freshet of 2007 - to bring this reality home to the powers that encourage and allow inappropriate development within the floodplain.
The money wasted on building an additional dam on the Boise River would be better spent removing structures from the floodplain before mother nature takes her shot.
This, of course...
means Jordan Valley should have a population of 3,450,231 you know.
I haven't sung in a while...
"Mine eyes have seen the glory of a hot chick in a Ford/but we can't go to the river to get drunk and then to score/for we can't get near the water or we'll float to Bangalore!
This common sense is wrong!"