Aquifer protection district recommends drawing reserves down for modeling, outreach and pilot programs

An Aquifer Protection District representative told the Kootenai County Board of Commissioners on May 26 that the district ended 2025 with approximately $1.25 million in fund balance and is recommending applying a portion of those reserves to technical modeling, public outreach and pilot stewardship programs in fiscal year 2027.

The presentation laid out a five‑year lookback and a forecast based on the current parcel fee of $5.74. The presenter said roughly $100,000 of district revenue comes from a BNSF agreement and the remainder is county transfers (about $400,000–$425,000), with roughly $36,000 used for administrative support. The district’s advisory board recommended reducing the carryover reserve to about $200,000 to fund projects and avoid an excessive balance.

Why it matters: commissioners said the district’s large carryover reduces public accountability and creates pressure to identify legitimate projects or return funds to taxpayers. The district argued that strategic investments now could improve long‑term protection of groundwater quality and support future policy options.

The district outlined three priority uses of funds. First, an investment in an IWAC‑style aquifer model to better map contaminant pathways and spill impacts across the Washington–Idaho border; the presenter said the planned model will be used primarily for water quality tracking and emergency response mapping, while adding volume/quantity tracking likely requires a state statutory change. "If we do have a major spill...this helps us keep a better view of how that might impact the aquifer," the presenter said.

Second, the district proposed stepped‑up education and outreach, including a dedicated website, partner presentations and billboards targeting Highway 95 and I‑90; the presenter estimated about $30,000 in FY27 for billboard placement paid from the district budget, not county general funds. Third, the district described potential pilot programs in partnership with the soil and water conservation district to incentivize stewardship, and said reserve funds could support easements, land purchases or other targeted projects if the advisory board identifies clear proposals.

Commissioners pressed several concerns. Several questioned proposals that would give money to private individuals rather than contracting directly with organizations, and one commissioner said two FY27 applications were not recommended because they lacked clear scopes and appropriate contracting arrangements. Commissioners also debated policy options: use reserves to develop a legislative package to add volume authority to the district (a statutory change that carries political risk), spend reserves on pilots and outreach, or reduce the parcel fee and return money to taxpayers.

The presenter walked commissioners through a forecast that shows net revenue declining under the current $5.74 parcel fee with modest parcel growth; the district’s plan assumes using reserves to support projects over the next five years while holding the parcel rate steady for now.

The update included references to partners and programs seeking district support, including a Spokane community directory, a University of Idaho‑sponsored high‑school 'Confluence' project and other conferences and education efforts. Two recent applications—a carrying‑capacity study and an application where funding would pass through to an individual—were not recommended for FY27 because of unclear scope and procurement concerns.

The presenter and commissioners also discussed interagency coordination: Washington has invested in similar modeling, and the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) was mentioned as the state agency that would play a role if quantity (volume) issues are pursued in future policy work.

Next steps: commissioners asked the advisory board and district staff to return with more concrete project scopes, a communications proposal for outreach spending and any recommended contract structures for external partners. No formal budget vote or action was taken at the status update.