YBSA Monthly Report October, 2010
YBSA Monthly Report
October, 2010
YBSA Supports IWRMP: Yakima Basin Storage Alliance (YBSA) remains committed to support the Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWRMP) to solve the Yakima Basin’s water supply problems that exist now and will be more prevalent in the future.
The Following is from the Report to the September 23, 2010 Work Group Meeting:
Climate Change: The climate change report showed the integrated plan scenario results for meeting the water supply needs do not meet the 70% prorationing water supply goal seven times in the 20 year period between 1985 and 2005.
Adjusted Storage Scenario: The adjusted scenario without Bumping Lake Enlargement, Wymer Reservoir, or Kachess Inactive Storage with Keechelus to Kachess Pipeline does not meet the 70% proration water supply goal, provides less water for irrigation and instream flow benefits, and less carryover storage following dry years.
Environmental, Policy and Legal Barriers: Major impacts on storage projects that could prevent or delay a project include impacts that cannot be mitigated and not include all possible environmental impacts and a high potential for historic and cultural resources in the Yakama Nation ceded territory and historic structures.
Bumping Lake Expansion eliminates some old-growth, Northern Spotted Owl, and Bull Trout spawning habitat. It would inundate several large public and private recreation facilities. Kachess Lake inactive storage would affect Bull Trout passage and habitat.
YBSA’s Perspecitve on Proposed IWRMP: For the past 65 years the failure to provide sufficient volume of water for both instream and out-of-stream use has jeopardized the economy, the return of salmonoids, and municipal and rural growth. A plan needs to include enough water to ensure a healthy economic environment and a return to a more historical hydrograph in the Yakima River. The following was provided to the Work Group explaining YBSA’s position:
YBSA’s perspective on the proposed
Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin
This paper explains YBSA’s position October 2010, and list elements we deem critical for the plan to succeed.
Why do we support 800 kaf for the Yakima River Basin when others are OK with 400 kaf?
I. Support for Out-of-Stream Needs
We support:
1) 70% criteria as a target for dry-year proratable agricultural water supply which in a year like 2001 requires an additional 355,000 acre-feet for irrigation
2) 45,000 acre-feet for future municipal/domestic water.
Therefore Out-of Stream needs total 400,000 acre-feet additional water storage.
3) In addition the USGS report presented at the September workgroup meeting shows we need an additional 50,000 acre-feet of water within reservoir storage for aquifer recharge.
Total needs for out-of-stream identified to date equals 450,000 acre-feet.
However, we are very concerned that significant out-of-streams needs for water in the Yakima Basin have not yet been quantified. These include:
1. Water for multiple-year droughts that may last 3 years, or more. How much water would be required to meet the 70% supply target in year 2 or year 3 of a drought?
2. The USGS groundwater report estimates that approximately 145,000 acre/feet of water is being lost from the lower Yakima Basin. No replacement water is included in the 450,000 acre/feet figure.
3. Climate change will inevitably change the nature and timing of precipitation and runoff regime in the Yakima Basin. Since approximately 2/3 of the annual irrigation water supply is derived from snowmelt in the spring and early summer, the impact of reduced snow-pack could be severe, even if annual precipitation is not greatly reduced. How much water, under various climate change scenarios, will be required to compensate for the reduced snow-pack?
II. Support for In-Stream Needs
Instream flow needs have not been adequately quantified.
What are the optimum flows in the river for salmon recovery?
1. We believe the best flow regime for recovery is the unregulated hydrograph; modified to the extent we have good data to support a deviation from it. We also know that storing more Yakima River water deviates further from the unregulated flows. Instream flows are seriously deficient in significant reaches of the Yakima River and tributaries; most notably the lower 100 miles of the mainstem Yakima. Despite the need for significant flow increases throughout the Yakima Basin, as well as flow reductions in some reaches, instream flow needs have not been quantified. Any water planning effort in the Yakima Basin that does not include quantification of the instream flow needs is fatally flawed. Although not quantified, it appears obvious to us that the quantity of water needed for instream flows is of such magnitude that we believe that only water from the Columbia can satisfy this need.
2. Current water quality conditions in the lower Yakima River, in particular temperature, preclude salmon spawning or rearing and significantly inhibits migration as well. These conditions have been documented in a number of reports, and are summarized in the 2001 Yakima Subbasin Summary, the 2005 Yakima Subbasin Plan, and the 2008 Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan. Restoring salmon production in the lower Yakima River will require a determine effort over an extended period of time, but we strongly believe that restoring salmon production in this reach is not only possible, but necessary for the future well-being of the Yakima Basin. We are profoundly disappointed that the current planning effort has failed to effectively address this issue.
III Feasibility of Specific Projects as Proposed in the plan
1. Comparing. For this plan, or any plan to succeed, all options should be listed on a matrix to compare costs and benefits on the same basis, and the criteria should be the same as those of the current plan.
We also know that the cost of the package will be high, which is why we advocate that recreation and power value be maximized so as to attract private funding to reduce taxpayer expense.
2. The Public. Perhaps most importantly, the public has to be apprised of the options, and given a chance to comment. Without their support, congressional passage is not likely.
3. Sequencing. Further, all parties should be aware of the sequence, timing and triggers for substitute projects if it appears that a given project becomes unfeasible or unlikely to begin construction within a predefined period. A project schedule for each element of the Integrated Plan should be developed. This schedule should include project costs and timing for construction, mitigation elements (if necessary), and operation and maintenance costs.
4. Triggers. Within the project schedule, there should be objective measures to determine if a project will move forward on schedule. If it is determined by these objective measures (e.g. timely appropriation, engineering/cost feasibility, absence of litigation to forestall a project) that a project will not move forward according to the schedule, other projects would be moved forward and accelerated.
For example, the expansion of Bumping Reservoir is one critical element to the performance of the Integrated Plan in meeting goals. There have been repeated attempts in the past to expand Bumping Lake. However, opponents to this expansion and the soundness of their arguments have not been reduced by time, and have in many ways increased. Additionally, recent conversations concerning potential mitigation exchanges which may significantly add to the cost of this project must also be more fully considered by the Workgroup before being included in the Integrated Plan and subsequent funding request.
The Workgroup will see model scenarios that quantify the effect of loss of the major project components. The Plan should include backup provisos that reliably ensure the water supply needs of the basin to account for contingencies such as the infeasibility of one or more major project components. Project sequencing, timelines and triggers are required to establish the probable loss of such components and prevent potential failure of the Plan in meeting its goals. Given the potential for one or more Integrated Plan elements to be infeasible to construct, we propose the Columbia River water exchange, in combination with other elements of the Integrated Plan, be the next project proposed for implementation. We agree it offers the best opportunity for addressing the Yakima River basin water issues as they stand today and in the future and also provides the opportunity for integration of wind power into the Federal Columbia River Power System and to meet expected changes in hydrologic timing of Yakima River basin runoff due to climate change.
5. Legislation. To assure the water supply of the Integrated Plan it is imperative that specific provisions be included in the Plan and in Federal/State authorizing legislation for appropriation of funds for
a) planning and selecting a Columbia River water exchange project, and
b) construction of the least cost per acre-foot Columbia River exchange project as a replacement project for a major water supply project that does not move forward and/or to meet additional water needs as may subsequently be required. And
c) that the Bureau of Reclamation’s withdrawal right of Columbia River water for a water exchange in the Yakima River basin shall be continued.
d) The pumping power rate used for the Columbia River water exchange project shall be consistent with the rate for the delivery of surface water to the Odessa Groundwater Area of the Columbia Basin Project.
e) Storage, conservation and passage must proceed concomitantly, and must be so linked in the legislation.
SUMMARY: What we have learned from the past 65 years is that failure to provide sufficient volume for both instream and out of stream use jeopardizes both, and we will repeat our past; fighting in court for drops, when we need thousands of acre feet to resolve this long standing unresolved conflict, and realize the basin’s potential. The additional water needs to be enough for to compensate for climate change, multiple year droughts, ground water replenishment, and enough to protect and restore fish life throughout the Yakima Basin, but most specifically in the lower Yakima River, and to address emerging ESA issues.
YBSA remains committed to support this opportunity to resolve the basin’s inadequate water supply with substantive long-term solutions. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our perspective, to voice our concerns and ideas, to have them addressed so that we may support the In-Stream and Out-of-Stream Needs Recommendations and ultimately the IWRMP for the Yakima River Basin.
See updated information that includes video of salmon spawning in the Yakima River Basin at www.ybsa.org