YBSA Monthly Report

July, 2015

 Water Storage in the Yakima Basin: The graph prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation shows the 5 reservoirs in the storage system (in acre-feet), as of July 30^th, the stored water level is just below 600,000. Average storage for this time of year is just below 800,000 acre-feet. As of July 30^th the present capacity in all the reservoirs is 53%. Lake Cle Elum, the largest of all the reservoirs, has 35% of the water left in the lake.

Lake Cle Elum

High Temperatures in Rivers: Sockeye Salmon are dying in parts of the Columbia River due to water volume and high temperatures. Temperature of the lower Yakima River is exceeding 70°. The fish returning to the river to head upstream may get stranded or could be harmed by shallow, warmer stream temperatures.

Upcoming Temperatures: The Weather Channel is predicting that temperatures in the lower Yakima Basin will fluctuate from the mid 80° to 100° through the month of August with 80° continuing through the month of September.

Go to www.ybsa.org for additional information.

YBSA Monthly Report

June, 2015

Reservoirs and Available Water: As of June 29th the percentage of total capacity of the five reservoirs is 76%. With the snowpack at 0% the inflow into the five reservoirs is 25% and the releases from all five are 95%. Unregulated flow in the Yakima River near Parker is 13% and observed flow is 37% of average. Roza Irrigation District is adding 90 cublic feet per second (cfs) and Sunnyside Irrigation District is adding 40 cfs to their delivery systems.

Drought Impact on Agriculture for Junior Water Users: The Department of Agriculture report on May 11th of their assessment of the 2015 Drought Agricultural Economic Impact provides the following information pertaining to the Yakima Valley. The first water uses curtailed during a drought are those held by junior water users. For this analysis, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Assessment Section (NRAS) assumed a 50% crop loss in two major junior water right irrigation districts, Roza Irrigation District (Roza) and Kittitas Reclamation District (KRD). Both districts were contacted and provided crop acreage information to assist the analysis. The total crop loss value estimated in these two districts (based on top three crops in KRD and top eight crops in Roza) is $243 million.

This is a conservative estimate, and in no way reflects secondary economic impacts potentially caused by this drought including less need for labor, shorter packing seasons, lower crops or the impact of low soil moisture on crops normally planted in the fall. Those costs will not be fully realized until 2016 at the earliest.

Time to Revive the Black Rock Reservoir Plan by Don C. Brunell: Yakima Valley farmers have the same problem as their California counterparts: there just isn’t enough water for crops, migrating fish and people.

With snowpack in the Cascades at a dismal 10 percent of normal, Yakima farmers are struggling to stretch available water supplies during the upcoming summer months when irrigation water is most needed. The situation has once again prompted state and federal officials to consider adding water storage capacity.

Considering that, it is time to dust off the Black Rock project, which, as originally conceived, would transfer spring runoff water from the Columbia River in central Washington uphill to a new reservoir east of Yakima.

In 2008, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation determined that the Black Rock Reservoir would be too costly. The estimated cost then was about $5.69 billion, but it could potentially climb to as high as $7.7 billion. At the time, the Bureau reported that Black Rock would return 13 cents for every dollar spent to build and operate. (the Integrated Plan, if completely implemented, would cost in excess of $5 billion.)

Over the last eight years, massive amounts of wind generation have come on line, which means, in addition to an irrigation lake, Black Rock could become a pumped storage facility generating hydropower from wind power.

A pumped storage project using wind-generated electricity would provide a storage battery for energy and would benefit fish, agriculture, municipal needs and economic stability while leaving a reliable water supply in the Yakima River.

Black Rock could become more than just an irrigation reservoir; it would ease the demand to divert water from the Yakima River for irrigation, leaving more water in the river, which would raise stream flows, which in turn would improve salmon and steelhead habitat.

See the full article by Dan Brunell on www.ybsa.org.

How much water is there in the Columbia River?: The following graph (below) presented by the Columbia-Snake River Irrigators Association shows the April-September unregulated runoff at the Dalles (linear Treadline Added). The volume of water in the Columbia has increased and the volume now is more than 100 million acre/feet annually.

Work Group Now Including Possible Transfer of Columbia River Water: At the June 3rd, 2015 Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Work Group (IP) meeting a list of surface water storage activities was provided. For the first time a report included; begin appraisal of potential projects to transfer water from the Columbia River to the Yakima Basin. For a complete report on the Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study (Storage Study) go to www.ybsa.org and in the archives read “The Black Rock Project” and the “Columbia River Pumped Storage Reservoir Reports”.

Go to www.ybsa.org for additional information.

YBSA Monthly Report

May, 2015

Water in the Yakima Basin:

1. The Yakima Valley economy depends on water storage for its agricultural economy, population growth, and ecosystem.

2. Droughts are common in the area, but climate change indicators point to more severe droughts, more often.

3. The Integrated Plan purports to provide increased storage through 4 projects (Bumping Lake, Lake Cle Elum, Lake Kachess, and Wymer) but are all the projects viable?

4. The surface water storage element in the Integrated Plan includes a review of water transfer from the Columbia River to the Yakima River Basin. As of June 3, 2015 no review has begun.

5. Is the capacity of the surface water storage projects presented in the Integrated Plan sufficient to meet instream and out-of-stream needs over the long term? Proposed storage projects will not provide enough water volume, predictable supply, and storage capacity for future needs. Total cost = $4.4 billion over 30 years (from Normandeau Associates).

The water supply update at the end of May provides 44% of the normal supply of water to the junior irrigation districts. An update on available supply of water will be provided each month (from the Bureau of Reclamation).

The estimated crop loss during this year’s drought is $1.2 billion. In addition to the crop loss, fewer agricultural jobs will be available.

Using the water to address this year’s drought in each reservoir that normally is retained as carryover for 2016 and predictions of a second year of less than normal snowpack would create a more severe drought in 2016.

See link below for water issues.

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2015/06/reversing-william-shatners-idea-moving.html

Go to www.ybsa.org for additional information.

YBSA Monthly Report

April, 2015

Yakima River Basin Drought 2015: Today we have a full reservoir system at about 99% and normally that would occur in early June.

The outflows from the reservoirs exceed inflow because of irrigator demand and required flows for fish. The fish flows have been quantified for a minimum in terms of flow at a geographical point in the system called Parker, just below Union Gap, based on monthly TWSA (Total Water Supply Available) estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The minimum flow is 300 cfs. That equates to 5 months at 600 acre/feet per day, or 90,000 acre/feet.

However, in the spring there can be periods when pulse flows are needed to transport the juveniles out to the Columbia, on the order of 10,000-20,000 acre/feet. We don’t know what fish needs would be if flows were so low that river water temperatures are higher than 69 degrees, as that is the temperature at which critical problems begin to occur, and at 78 degrees mortality approaches 100%. That either kills the fish or keeps them out of the river, in which case more water will be needed to allow them to move to their spawning areas. Those temperature can occur in dry years when a lesser amount of water is available in the river. Dead fish in the river from high temperatures would be a very dramatic event.

Senior water rights total 1,091,000 acre/feet, juniors 1,315,000 acre/feet, combined total of 2,406,000 acre/feet. Our storage totals are only 1,065,000 acre/feet, or just a little less than the senior water rights. The rest must come from snow-pack.

Today we are at 15% of our normal snow-pack (6% in upper basin, 23% in the lower, average = 15%). (ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/data/water/wcs/gis/maps/wa_swepctnormal_update.pdf The June estimate will determine the amount of water available for fish and agriculture.

At this point in time the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation estimates junior water rights to receive 54% of their allotment. The forecast is for below normal precipitation, and above normal temperatures. In the past 25 years the Yakima Basin has been able to survive using ground water, conservation, and water transfers from idled acres in exchange for money. Most irrigators are hoping the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation estimate is right.

This could be the driest year since post war times, we won’t know until the irrigation season is over. The most significant drought relief measure is to pump ground water. It is a possibility that the well yields will be significantly less than historical production, due to increased demand for ground water and the accumulation of 10 more years of well drilling and pumping. It is noted that with the forecasted estimates for next year are continued below normal precipitation and above normal temperatures 2016 will be devastating to both fish and agriculture.

Go to www.ybsa.org for additional information.

YBSA Monthly Report

March, 2015

Extended Comment Period: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Kachess Drought Relief Pumping Plant and Keechelus Reservoir-to-Kachess Reservoir Conveyance, consisting of more than 1600 pages, was available on January 9, 2015. The 60 day comment period ended March 10th. A Bull Trout Enhancement Project (BTE) was added to the DEIS. On March 11th at the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Work Group Meeting the Bureau of Reclamation announced an extension of 60 day period for more comments. The reason given for the extension was “common misunderstandings about what the projects would entail that were apparent in some of the comments submitted so far”. What additional information will be provided that wasn’t included in the original DEIS and when will the comment period start after the amended information is provided? A compilation of the original comments received during the first 60 day period needs to be identified so they can be compared with those made during the extended period.

Update on Ongoing Projects: Technical Project update on ongoing storage projects at the March 11th Work Group Meeting:

1. Continue to attempt to locate an adequate location for the Keechelus-to-Kachess Conveyance.

2. Continuing to finalize the Kachess Drought Relief Pumping Plants locations and designing a method of passage for fish between the upper and lower lakes.

3. The final EIS is now being prepared for the Cle Elum Pool Raise. The design of an access road to the Cle Elum River below the dam to transport returning Sockeye to Lake Cle Elum needs to be completed. Finalize the structure and its location in the lake so the fish can leave the lake during the time when the lake surface is lowered for instream flow and out of stream use.

4. Reviewing locations for a dam to store water at the proposed Wymer Project to hold the most water at the lowest cost.

5. Continue to do more geological investigations to determine the viability of Bumping Lake Expansion.

Cost of Projects: An updated estimate of potential costs of the changes being developed for each storage project needs to be completed.

Reservoirs, Snowpack and Drought: As of April 1st, 2015 storage reservoirs are full. They contain approximately 1/3 of the water necessary for instream flow and out of stream needs. With the snowpack approximately 28% of average, 2015 will be a drought year. Everyone will need to tighten their belts and hope, between now and next year, the mountain snow will return.

YBSA comments on the DEIS K-to-K Project is located on www.ybsa.org.

YBSA Monthly Report

February, 2015

Possible Drought Conditions: Once again the Yakima Valley agricultural community is in danger of drought conditions due to the lack of snowfall in the Cascade Mountains. The water needed for instream flow (fish) and out of stream needs (irrigation) may not be available. Our five reservoirs in the Yakima Basin are more than 90% full, but that amount of water only provides about 1/3 of what is necessary. The runoff from the average snowpack in the mountains provides the additional 2/3 of the water necessary to provide what is needed annually in the Yakima Basin. As of the end of February, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Yakima Project Systems Status NRCS Snotel sites for the upper Yakima Basin has 22% of normal snow pack and the lower basin sites are reporting 38% of the average snow pack. Without a large snowfall in the next 2 months the Yakima Basin could be in for drought conditions this summer.

YBSA Response to DEIS: YBSA is submitting a response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Kachess Drought Relief Pumping Plant (KDRPP) and Keechelus Reservoir-to-Kachess Reservoir Conveyance (KKC) projects. YBSA’s mission is to ensure an adequate supply of water for now and future generations for all water interests in the Yakima Basin. While we support the Integrated Plan in the goal to propose and implement projects that enhance aquatic ecosystems, improve drought-year supplies for agriculture, and provide for future municipal needs, we have concerns about the proposed projects.

The December 2014 WorkGroup meeting notes report that the Implementation Committee is currently working on an authorization bill for the KKC,KDRPP, Cle Elum Pool Raise Project, fish passage, and water conservation initiatives. The exclusion at this time of the other two major storage projects as reasonably foreseeable future actions, the approach being taken for storage authorization and appropriations, the significant unavoidable adverse impacts indicated in the DEIS, and stakeholders adamantly opposing this action and a somewhat similar action with respect to the existing Bumping Lake are not very reassuring that joint water storage operations presented to date in the Integrated Plan will be a reality. It is most apparent however, that the KDRPP and KCC projects will not meet drought year water needs and will very adversely impact the immediate area. Under these circumstances is this a wise investment? The full response is available at www.ybsa.org.

Friends of Lake Kachess Editorial in the Northern Kittitas County Tribune: I am writing as a resident of North Kittitas County to express my grave concern and opposition to the controversial Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP).   This proposal would transfer water from Lake Keechelus and Lake Kachess to junior water rights holders in the Yakima Basin at a cost approaching $1 billion.   It would drain 200,000 acre feet of water a year from the two lakes and spill it into the Yakima River, to be taken out by irrigators.  To be clear, an acre foot of water is one acre, one foot deep in water.   Now imagine one acre of water…38 miles high!  Or think of it as an acre of water the height of 14 Mt. Rainiers!   That is the additional amount of water that would be drained from our two lakes in Kittitas County.

The devastating impacts of such an act on our environment is hard to imagine.  However the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) just released on this project acknowledges it will deplete the aquifer, endanger threatened fish species, reduce recreational opportunities for individuals and families,  possibly cause wells to fail, and permanently destroy elements of a fragile ecosystem enjoyed by thousands of Washingtonians.  Despite the clear risks represented by the project, the DEIS only states that it will “monitor and mitigate” damages after they occur.   This is unacceptable and should be opposed by everyone who cares about protecting our environment for future generations.

But the damage to our environment is not even the worst of this controversial project.  A study conducted by distinguished scientists from Washington State University and the University of Washington, at the request of the Washington State Legislature, documented it is not only an environmental disaster, it is an economic disaster.  A team of scientists and economists conducted a Benefit-to-Cost analysis of the two projects that are now being considered by the Legislature.   They showed conclusively that costs would far exceed benefits.   In fact one project would lose $.80 of every taxpayer dollar spent, and the second project would lose $.54 of every taxpayer’s dollar.   No private enterprise would consider such a venture, and no public initiative should either.   At a time when our State is facing serious challenges with regard to funding critical needs in education and infrastructure, it is unacceptable to waste taxpayer money in such a manner.

In summary, YRBWEP represents an effort by special interests in Yakima Basin to drain water from our aquifer, and even worse to drain dollars from Washington taxpayers for this environmental and economic disaster.  In the strongest terms possible, I urge Tribune readers to oppose YRBWEP; neither we nor our environment can afford it.

Included with the permission of

Bill Campbell, PhD

Friends of Lake Kachess

Easton, WA

YBSA Monthly Report

January, 2015

Kachess Drought Relief and Keechelus to Kachess Conveyance: One of the proposed storage sites in the Yakima Basin listed in the Integrated Plan is to pump an additional 200,000 a/f of water from Lake Kachess below the normal annual drawdown. The Integrated Plan was developed to provide more water for fish, agriculture, and municipal use in the Yakima Basin.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed action of implementing the Kachess Reservoir Drought Relief Pumping Plant (KDRPP) and the Keechelus to Kachess Conveyance (KCC) alone or in combination is available. A Bull Trout Enhancement (BTE) package in the tributaries above the two reservoirs as well as throughout the Yakima Basin has been added. The proposed project creates a major change in the environment in the Kachess and Keechelus Basins adversely impacting slack water recreation, lake fishing, and shoreline camping.

Public comments can be submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation by March 1, 2015. The DEIS is very voluminous and difficult to track concerns and issues that makes it difficult to identify the severity of the potential impacts on the current resources. For example, the DEIS compares the No Action and Action Alternatives with continuation of the historical hydrologic conditions in detail, but is lacking when it comes to similar detailed information on reservoir draw down, refill durations, impacts on reservoir fishery, bull trout tributaries, and general visual quality of the area for the moderately adverse and more adverse climate change scenarios.

Benefit-Cost-Analysis of the Yakima River Basin Integrated Plan Project: The report was completed by the State of Washington Water Research Center, Washington State University. The following are conclusions presented to the Integrated Plan Work Group at the December 17^th meeting:

1. Individual storage and conservation does not pass the benefit-to-cost (B/C) test as part of a full Integrated Plan implementation.
2. Cle Elum raise approaches B/C viability alone in the most adverse drought scenario only; KKC-KDRPP also, less so (and with more caveats).
3. Market gains from trade are predictability substantial with active market development.
4. Fish passage projects are the most likely to satisfy and B/C test.See the Bureau of Reclamation website at http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2011integratedplan/index.html for the complete DEIS.The language in the DEIS does not address the issue of is there enough water annually to provide an adequate and reliable water supply for the Yakima Basin.A link to the complete DEIS is posted on the www.ybsa.org website.Visit our website at www.ybsa.org

See the Bureau of Reclamation website at http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2011integratedplan/index.html for the complete DEIS.

The language in the DEIS does not address the issue of is there enough water annually to provide an adequate and reliable water supply for the Yakima Basin.

A link to the complete DEIS is posted on the www.ybsa.org website.

YBSA Monthly Report

December, 2014

Benefit-Costs of the seven elements of the Integrated Plan: The Washington State Legislature authorized in the Capital Budget for 2013, the preparation of a separate benefit-cost analysis for each of the projects proposed in the Integrated Plan.

The WSU Washington State Water Research Center presented their report on the benefit-cost of individual projects in the Integrated Plan to the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Work Group.

The economic study pointed out the following:

1. The major storage projects of the Integrated Plan, when implemented together, are unlikely to provide positive net benefits.

2. Net benefits for individual water storage projects are negative, with some exceptions under the most adverse climate and water market conditions

3. Instream flow benefits for fish are insufficient to support water storage infrastructure given the net benefit shortfall in out-of-stream use benefits, but proposed instream flows may be supportable through market purchases.

4. Insufficient evidence exists to assess the economic efficacy of fish habitat restoration with a useful degree of precision.

5. Reservoir fish passage projects are likely to provide positive net benefits through their pivotal role in supporting wild Sockeye reintroduction into the basin.

6. Water markets show potential for reducing the impacts of basin wide curtailment.

The draft report can be found at www.swwrc.wsu.edu

Integrated Plan Work Group Implementation Committee Comments:

1. The Implementation Committee does not believe that a “disaggregated” evaluation of the Integrated Plan can provide a realistic assessment of the Integrated Plan’s full value. It would seem, however, to have been appropriate to provide more than just a passing recognition of the results of the aggregated benefit/cost analysis conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation in 2012, which did attempt to account for synergies among the Integrated Plan’s projects and activities. In addition, the title of the report should also be modified to clearly reflect that it is, by design, a disaggregated analysis and, as such, views the Integrated Plan in a way that is contrary to the manner in which it is actually structured and has been proposed.

2. It is important to note that the economic analysis that was conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation in 2012 did, in fact, include use of a disaggregated analysis of plan components as a starting point for conducting the aggregated analysis, Reclamation’s analysis also concluded that, when viewed in isolation, a number of the Integrated Plan projects, particularly the surface water storage projects, do not yield positive benefit/cost ratios. The Implementation Committee of the Integrated Plan Work Group does not labor under the illusion that an isolated project that is designed primarily to provide water on a

sporadic basis in response to water shortages and droughts can yield a positive benefit/cost ratio using traditional methods of evaluation.

3. We firmly believe that the Integrated Plan provides the Yakima River Basin with the tools needed to preserve the basin’s economy, to restore the basin’s once prolific salmon and steelhead runs, and to provide resiliency in the face of climate change impacts that are predicted to have devastating effects on the basin’s snowpack and mid-to-late summer stream flows.

Additional information can be found at www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2011integratedplan/index.html when posted.

YBSA’s Comments on the Draft WSU Economic Impact Report of the Integrated Plan:

1. The Bureau of Reclamation’s water resources planning process involves a “plan formulation step” in which the costs of potential measures/actions are tested against their economic monetary benefits. Essentially what this involves is building the Integrated Plan from an economically justified core to a final proposal of justified increments, and those increments, which because of other non-monetary attributes, should be included. In the case of the Integrated Plan, which is now before us, plan formulation did not occur in this manner. Rather, the concept was the synergistic nature of the Integrated Plan as a whole, which in this case, bypassed the plan formulation step. An equitable distribution of the total benefits at this time is difficult and can have significant impacts on how the Integrated Plan is perceived. It is not surprising that the disaggregation of the total benefit categories results in some individual projects not having positive net benefits and a benefit to cost ration of 1 or greater.

2. Irrigation benefits are computed as the net farm revenue generated from agricultural production resulting from the proposed action; in this case providing a supplemental water supply in dry years. Net revenues reflect the crops grown, the values of those crops, and the costs incurred by the farmer in producing the crops. These are “direct benefits” and do not include “indirect benefits” which are generated as a by-product of farm production in the regional economic area and throughout the State of Washington.

Complete comments can be found at www.ybsa.org

Visit our website at www.ybsa.org

YBSA Monthly Report

November, 2014

Testimony at Honeyford’s Meeting on a Water Bill: YBSA presented the following testimony at Senator Jim Honeyford’s Public Meeting on water bill being proposed to fund projects that address needed Storage.

YBSA is a volunteer organization with multi-generational experience in water and environmental issues in the Yakima Basin. Our mission is to ensure there is an adequate water supply in the Yakima Basin for all users: municipal, agriculture, Tribal, environmental, and recreation, for generations to come.

In the Yakima Basin, our entire economy is based on a thriving agriculture sector. Without an adequate storage of water to weather drought years and potential changes in hydrologic patterns due to climate change, our Basin is left vulnerable. Other irrigated basins typically have storage for 2-3 years of water supply; our basin has less than 1 year of water storage. This means that every year our supplies are in jeopardy until as late as May. And when severe droughts hit our area, our economy suffers greatly, not just during the drought years, but for many years after.

We support the proposed bill in that it will provide funding for water storage projects and give preference to those projects that provide multiple benefits. However, our experience leads us to insist it is critical that projects slated for funding be reviewed by knowledgeable third parties for sound science and engineering. Proposed water storage project must adequately address multi-year droughts, climate change scenarios, the interaction between groundwater depletion and surface water during drought years, the method of payment and a realistic assessment of the timelines of project completion.

How do we pay for these expensive and necessary water infrastructure investments? It is too big for governments alone. We believe that water storage is the key; and to make it pay, it must be multipurpose and we must maximize the benefits for instream uses, out of stream uses, recreation and pumped storage for energy.

Access to Water from the Bottom of Lake Kachess: A story in the Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control (RSBOJC) update Fall, 2014 included information about creating access to water in the bottom of Lake Kachess; water that can’t be diverted through current outlet works. The project looks at erecting a pumping plant along the Kachess lake shore that would draw water from the lake bottom and divert it into the Kachess River below the dam. An initial estimate places the cost at $205 million. The water would be available in those drought years when supply falls below 70 percent. The Roza water supply is subject to being cut when supplies are inadequate to meet all needs.

Roza Manager Scott Revell said directors will need to review resultus of the study to analyze district costs and whether the district would pay those costs on an annual basis, including years when the water wouldn’t be accessed in order to lower the year to year costs. There also is a possibility that other districts may participate.

Revell said directors want to have all the information before them prior to proceeding, including solving the complicated water rights issues surrounding the Kachess dead storage. “The Board wants to have a high degree of confidence that Roza water users will be able to get what they pay for.”

The following are excerpts from YBSA’s comments on the Draft EIS for the Cle Elum Pool Raise: YBSA’s mission is to ensure an adequate supply of water for now and future generations for all water interests in the Yakima Basin. While we support the Integrated Plan in their goal to propose projects that increase aquatic resources and flows for agriculture and municipalities, we have concerns about the Cle Elum Pool Raise project.

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Cle Elum Pool Raise Project (DEIS) does not include estimates of monetary benefits that would be used in determining project economic justification. We suggest that the Bureau of Reclamation’s plan warrant consideration of project economic justification as a part of the public review process of the draft and final environmental impact statements and in the Record of Decision.

We do not believe the cost of the project is justified when the benefits to fish and agriculture are so minimal. It is stated that, “Hydrologic modeling indicated that the existing full reservoir elevation of 2,240 feet would be exceeded in about 72% of the years modeled and the proposed reservoir elevation of 2,243 feet would be reached in about 52 percent of the years modeled.” This implies the additional 36 cfs of flow supplied to the Cle Elum River would only occur roughly 50% of the time, and less additional water will be supplies approximately 70% of the time. And additional 20% flow that is available only 50% of the years is not significant.

The DEIS states that, “Reclamation expects changes in runoff in the Cle Elum River basin caused by climate change to be substantial. The shifts in runoff quantity and timing shown in the model results would cause substantial risks to water supply.”

Since the “watershed areas above the Yakima basin reservoirs are not high in altitude we do not understand why significant funds are being spent on reservoir enlargement projects in the Yakima basin that may or may not provide benefits to aquatic resources annually when the option is still present to pump water from the Columbia River. The headwaters for the Columbia River are in the Canadian Rocky Mountain Range, which is at a much higher elevation than the Cascade headwaters that feed the Yakima Project. Higher elevations provide a larger buffer against the effects of climate change on winter precipitation timing and type.

Full comments by YBSA will appear in the EIS

Visit our website at www.ybsa.org

YBSA Monthly Report

October, 2014

Review of the Integrated Plan: YBSA contracted with Normandeau Associates Inc., a national environmental consultant, to do an independent review of the Integrated Plan. The review was to evaluate:

1. if the Integrated Plan would provide sufficient water for instream and out of stream water needs,
2. if the capacity of the storage of water in the Integrated Plan will be sufficient to provide over the long term, and
3. if the timeline for construction of the storage projects is achievable over the long term.The highlights of the report are

• The water needs assessment for instream and out of stream use is insufficient.
• Tribal treaty flow rights for fish can influence the allocation of water available for irrigation in drought years.
• Water needs currently exceed supply and future scarcity is overlooked.
• Storage is insufficient to address future water needs and supplies.
• The storage projects will not provide enough water volume, predictable water supply and the necessary water storage capacity for future needs.
• Increasing ground water depletion.
• The Integrated Plan economic model is inconsistent and limited.
• What do the Normandeau report conclusions mean for the Integrated Plan and the future of the Yakima Basin?
• The value of water to the region’s productivity and prosperity needs to be aligned with the predicted scarcity.The completed review of the overview of the Integrated Plan, an infograph of possible water available in the Yakima Basin, and the complete report of the review of the Integrated Plan prepared by Normandeau Associated Inc. can be found at www.ybsa.org.