YBSA Monthly Report February, 2010
YBSA Monthly Report
February, 2010
Comprehensive Watershed Planning: YBSA continues to endorse the criteria that were given to the Bureau of Reclamation by Congress which would find a solution to the frequent droughts (like what may happen in 2010) that occur in the Yakima Basin. The December, 2008 Final Planning Report/Environmental Impact Statement on the Feasibility Study which would bring and store water for irrigation purposes from the Columbia River to the Yakima Basin would have accomplished that task but was discarded because of cost. We need a program that provides enough water for fish with a more normal flow in the Yakima River, water to provide a minimum of 70% of the water needed during droughts for the proratable Irrigation Districts and water for municipal and industrial growth for the next 100 years.
YBSA believes that the following questions need to be answered before we adopt a plan. The proposed plan would not come close to solving the water problems in the next 30 years. The following should be documented in the discussion about the Integrated Water Resource Management Plan.
1. Pumping costs – the rate presented does not compare with the rates quoted for the Odessa Project, the Umatilla Project, and the pump/storage of Columbia River water (Black Rock).
2. Are the proposed projects economically justified and what are the benefits of each project pertaining to fish, instream flow, and drought relief.
3. Does the proposed direct pump of Columbia River water to the Yakima Basin take into consideration the restrictions to removing water from the Columbia during July and August and other months when ther is not an adequate supply in the Columbia River?
4. Since one of the goals was to return the Yakima and Naches Rivers to a more normal flow, there needs to be a study to determine the biologically based target flows needed in the Yakima Basin. That could be done by SOAC which exists today or an outside biologist with working knowledge of the flows needed from the head waters to the confluence of the Yakima and Columbia Rivers.
5. The proposed water supply surface storage projects should be evaluated as to the probability of being built because of environmental concerns.
Work Group Process: YBSA will continue to participate in the DOE/BOR Work Group planning process. The Integrated Water Resource Management Plan needs to be completed but not without a large amount of stored water for instream flow and fish.
Possible Drought: On March 10th the Bureau of Reclamation will report on the snow pack and water available for 2010. This will be the first report on the total water supply available for instream (fish) and out of stream (agriculture) use this summer. The report will provide the farmers an estimate of how much water will be available. Decisions will be made on what should be planted and how to manage the existing crops that drive the economy of the Yakima Basin.
Final Report: The Final Report of the Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWRMP) for the Yakima Basin developed by the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP) 2009 Work Group includes a surface storage proposal as part of the IWRMP. If Wymer is the only storage reservoir that could be completed we would be left with insufficient storage to provide the water necessary for our economy. See the following table from the IWRMP Preliminary Report for the Yakima Basin which lists the preliminary implementation cost estimates.
Compilation of Preliminary Implementation Cost Extimates
Phase/Project Costs ($M) Low High Source
Phase I
Fish Passage (Cle Elum, Bumping, Clear) 125 150 Estimate based on Reclamation’s 2008 Fish Passage Draft PR, indexed costs to October, 2009 (assume Clear Lake = $5M)
Conveyance Improvements at Wapatox 2 4 Estimate based on 2008 Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan
Roza Power Subordination No capital cost; lost revenue would be incurred
Chandler Power Subordination No capital cost; lost revenue would be incurred
KRD Main Canal/South Branch Modification 8 12 Estimate based on CH2M Hill 1999 report, indexed costs to October, 2009
Cle Elum 3’ Pool Raise 20 40 Estimate based on 2000 Cle Elum Improvements Project Cost Estimate Summary Report, indexed costs to October, 2009
Keechelus-to-Kachess Pipeline 55 65 Doubled Reclamation estimate from 2006 to account for twice capacity, indexed costs to October, 2009
Wymer Reservoir (162kaf)
Wymer Mitigation 1,200 1,600
10 10 Estimate from Reclamation FEIS and Ecology FEIS
Preliminary Ecology Estimate
Bumping Reservoir Enlargement (160-190 kaf)
Bumping Reservoir Enlargement Mitigation 600 1,000
20 20 Estimate $3,000-5,000/AF new storage
Preliminary Ecology Estimate
Reservoir Inactive Storage (100 kaf) 25 50 Estimate, assumed pump station
Municipal Aquifer Storage 4 6 Estimate
Groundwater Infiltration 40 100 20-50 kaf x $2,000/AF (assumes implementation, not just pilot)
Mainstem Floodplain Restoration 90 110
Habitat Enhancement Projects 50 70 Habitat Enhancement Subcommittee Recommendations
Agricultural Conservation (YRBWEP+ Enhanced) 300 300 Estimate from Reclamation and Ecology FEIS
Municipal Conservation 1 3 Estimate from Anchor (2007)
Facilitate Market Transfers No capital cost; $4-10M annual cost during drought (20-50 kaf x $200/AF
Phase I & II Evaluations 25 50
Subtotal: Phase I 2,575 3,590
See updated information at www.ybsa.org