Idaho lawmakers must act on water funding. Chaos looms if they adjourn in failure | Opinion
Update, March 14: It seems that a deal has been reached that, if it clears both the House and Senate floors, should put back on solid ground the 2024 water agreement intended to head off a repeat of last year’s crisis.
Word that a deal had been reached started circulating late Thursday, and first thing Friday morning, the deal moved smoothly through the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, which sets state budgets. JFAC passed a version of the budget for the Idaho Department of Water Resources that included Gov. Brad Little’s recommendation for $30 million in ongoing funding for water infrastructure projects.
JFAC Co-chair Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, supported the ongoing funding deal, as did a 6-4 majority of senators on JFAC and an overwhelming 9-1 majority of its House members. Horman had earlier expressed objections to a stream of ongoing funding, arguing it would be better for the committee to directly evaluate and approve specific projects each year as one-time appropriations.
“What happened in JFAC this morning is good news for all Idahoans because the success of the 2024 settlement agreement means success for all water users in Idaho,” Horman said. “This was step one toward that outcome. I appreciate the confidence that constituents placed in me this summer to get up to speed quickly on water and become an advocate for our region.”
The deal largely mirrors the language in Senate Bill 1128, a bill sponsored by Sen. Van Burtenshaw, R-Terreton, and co-sponsored by dozens of lawmakers, mainly from the affected regions of the state.
“It’s still got to get across the House floor, but I’m very optimistic that the principals on this issue came together and were able to put aside whatever small differences they had and do the right thing,” said Lt. Gov. Scott Bedke, who helped lead negotiations between the ground and surface water irrigators.
Original column, March 11:
A crucial piece of legislation meant to prevent reigniting the 2024 water crisis, which for a time shut off irrigation to a quarter of irrigated land in Idaho during a time of abundant water, is in danger. Many close to the issue are sounding alarm bells, warning that if the Legislature doesn’t act to uphold the state’s part of the deal, the crisis will quickly return.
Last year’s crisis involves a yearslong dispute between surface water users, largely in the Magic Valley, who have senior water rights, and groundwater users in eastern Idaho.
And if it weren’t for a hard-fought deal, the economic losses in eastern Idaho and statewide would have been staggering — Idaho exports about $3 billion in agricultural goods annually.
Aquifer recharge funding
A key part of the deal, meant to halt the decline of the Eastern Snake Plain aquifer, is that the state would make significant investments in aquifer recharge — Gov. Brad Little proposed $30 million in ongoing funding in his state of the state address this year.
Recharge captures spring runoff in good water years and diverts it to ponds where it sinks down into the aquifer. From there, water leaks slowly back into the river. Think of it as putting more away in your savings account during the good times, so you’ll have a bigger cushion when times get hard.
But recharge only works when you have recharge sites to send the water to, and it takes money to build them.
And as the legislative session draws toward a close, money hasn’t yet been appropriated for eastern Idaho recharge, even as expensive items like a new voucher program and major tax cuts chip away at the remaining room in the budget.
The budget committee
Rep. Wendy Horman is one of the two co-chairs of the powerful Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, which writes the state budget. The Idaho Falls Republican is from the center of the area impacted by the water fight. She’s also seen by many who support recharge funding as the central obstacle to moving that funding forward.
In an interview, Horman emphasized that she supports funding aquifer recharge projects in eastern Idaho. But she said that she thinks recharge funding is a capital project — a large infrastructure investment.
“When we fund capital projects, we fund that on a one-time basis,” said Horman.
But not everyone sees it that way.
Sen. Van Burtenshaw, R-Terreton, is a farmer who represents a large, heavily agricultural district in eastern Idaho. Late last month, Burtenshaw introduced Senate Bill 1128, which would appropriate $30 million in ongoing funding, codifying what Gov. Little proposed. It would leave it to the Idaho Water Resources Board to decide where those funds would be spent, though no more than half could be spent in any particular region of the state. (Horman objects to this as well, arguing that all $30 million should be spent in eastern Idaho.)
Co-sponsors of 1128 include Senate Pro Tem Kelly Anthon, R-Burley; Assistant Majority Leader Mark Harris, R-Soda Springs; Sen. Kevin Cook, R-Idaho Falls; Sen. Dave Lent, R-Idaho Falls; Sen. Doug Ricks, R-Rexburg; Rep. Marco Erikson, R-Idaho Falls; Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen, R-Idaho Falls; Rep. Rod Furniss, R-Rigby; Rep. Clay Handy, R-Burley; Rep. Jack Nelsen, R-Jerome; Rep Mike Pohanka, R-Jerome; Rep Jerald Raymond, R-Menan; Rep. Jon Weber, R-Rexburg and Rep. Josh Wheeler, R-Ammon — in short, most of the representatives and senators from the region affected by the policy.
But not Horman.
It passed the Senate last week by a wide margin with bipartisan support — less than a dozen senators, almost all on the far right, opposed it.
Turf war
Burtenshaw introduced his bill through the Senate State Affairs Committee, which Horman objected to.
“Appropriations come out of the appropriations committee,” said Horman.
But policies that entail the appropriation of state funding come out of other committees all the time. Horman herself was the lead sponsor of House Bill 93, which created Idaho’s voucher program, and which ran through the House Revenue and Taxation Committee and will cost almost twice as much as recharge funding.
Horman argues it would be better for lawmakers to directly approve the projects funds are spent on, rather than turning over funds to the Idaho Water Resources Board.
But as Senate Finance Vice-Chair Jim Woodward, R-Sagle, pointed out during the debate on the Senate floor, turning over the decision to an expert board ensures that funding decisions are “not so driven by political motivations to bring home the pork.”
“It takes the politics out of the distribution of water money,” seconded Pro Tem Anthon.
But as late-session tempers flare, Senate Bill 1128 remains bottled up, referred to the the House Resources and Conservation Committee chaired by Rep. Ron Mendive, R-Coeur d’Alene, without a hearing scheduled.
No alternative has emerged from the budget committee, which has increasingly verged on chaos.
As Clark Corbin of the Idaho Capital Sun reported, there has been widespread disagreement about what the rules are at JFAC, to the point of a shouting match over whether a bill, which received 11 votes in favor and nine against, had passed. It was ruled to have failed. House Speaker Mike Moyle, R-Star, told Corbin there has been talk about splitting the joint committee apart.
High stakes
Here’s the simple fact: There is a very broad consensus behind Burtenshaw’s bill. It has already passed the Senate by a wide margin, and several members of JFAC are cosponsors, as are most of the lawmakers who represent areas that stand to lose without funding.
There’s also considerable support from those directly affected.
“As the legislative session nears an end, we cannot afford for our representatives to let this fall through the cracks,” wrote Adam Young, an eastern Idaho farmer and board member of the Bingham Ground Water District, in an op-ed.
The bill was also formally supported by the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation and the Idaho Water Users Association.
Burtenshaw’s bill deserves a hearing. The fate of eastern and central Idaho’s farming — and of the state’s broader economy — depends on recharge funding. And right now, any alternatives are purely theoretical.
If lawmakers’ egos and the urge to defend institutional turf outweigh the clear interests of their constituents, if they manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, we’ll all suffer the consequences.
This story was originally published March 11, 2025 at 4:00 AM.