YBSA Monthly Report January, 2013

YBSA Monthly Report

January, 2013

Testimony on HB1196:  Yakima Basin Storage Alliance testified at the work session held by the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on HB1196.

The Yakima Basin depends on the Yakima River for our economy, the environment and water needs. It’s difficult to support HB1196 as written because of the uncertainty of an adequate water supply for the Yakima Basin at a cost of $3 to $5 billion.

We support the concept but need to obtain more storage as soon as possible and all storage projects should be evaluated concurrently. If any of the proposed storage projects are not completed the Yakima River Basin will again be without sufficient water to meet its instream and out-of-stream needs.

The following is part of the presentation made by Yakima Basin Storage Alliance at the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee work session:

The Yakima Basin Storage Alliance (YBSA) is a local “grassroots organization” formed to raise the awareness of the dependence of our Yakima River Basin economy and environment on a reliable surface water supply and the needs for additional stored water. YBSA is in a unique position in the Workgroup not being affiliated with any specific entity, agency or interest group. YBSA is focused solely on the challenge of an adequate and reliable water supply for the future in concert with our environmental and cultural values.

YBSA supports the Integrated Plan concept, but we are deeply concerned with the adequacy and reliability of the surface storage element to meet long-term instream and out-of-stream water needs.

The Integrated Plan purports to restore sockeye salmon to the Yakima River Basin by providing fish passage to streams above the five Yakima Project storage dams inaccessible to adult spawning. Adult salmon are projected to range from 140,000 to 310,000 at the mouth of the Yakima River facing a summer in-basin migration of 150 to 215 miles upstream to the spawning grounds when peak irrigation diversions are occurring.

• How do we know the instream flows are sufficient      to improve water quality problems of temperature, phosphorous, and other      parameters critical to anadromous fish migration and reproduction? This is      particularly critical to adult sockeye and the effects of thermal blocks      in the river during the summer migration.

Three entities have the majority of the junior water rights and will participate in the dry-year supplemental irrigation water supply from the Integrated Plan. These are the Kittitas Reclamation District, Roza Irrigation District, and Wapato Irrigation Project on the Yakama Indian Reservation.  The water supply of these entities is significantly impacted in dry years when proration of the available irrigation is necessary. The Integrated Plan attempts to improve their junior supply to the extent needed to provide a 70 percent supply in dry years.

Recent climate change studies, however, indicate that watersheds like the Yakima River Basin dominated by fall rain and spring snowmelt will be most affected by climate change. To assess the impact on the Integrated Plan three climate scenarios were evaluated; less adverse, moderately adverse, and more adverse.

• How will the dry-year proratable irrigation      water needs of a 70 percent supply be met when operation studies show the      following for two of the three climate change scenarios: moderately      adverse scenario of 14 drought years our of 25 years with 70 percent      criteria violated in the every dry-year; and most adverse scenario of 24      dry years out of 25 years with the 70 percent criteria violated in 22 of      these years?
• What assurance do we have that after incurring      significant capital investments the conflict among instream uses with time      immemorial senior Treaty rights will not subordinate junior out-of-stream      rights in dry years?

One of the three projects of the water storage element is the construction of a new dam on the Bumping River about one-mile downstream of the existing dam. The numerous reports gathering dust in the bookcases of Reclamation offices are testimony to the failed efforts to bring an enlarged reservoir on-line since about 1950.

• In view of the long history of rejection of an      enlarged Bumping Lake Reservoir why do we insist on going down the same      path once again knowing full well the current opposition from some of the      environmental groups and others?
• How can we precede with construction of any of      the storage projects until the status of an enlarged Bumping Lake      Reservoir is known?
• Taking into consideration the above, why is the      assessment of an inter-basin transfer from the Columbia River which is a      potential option in the Integrated Plan “if conditions warrant” being      deferred? It seems prudent its viability and conjunctive operation be      determined prior to authorization of an Integrated Plan.