WaterWired

My Ten Cents: Oregon's Groundwater - Been There, Done That or Déjà-Vu All Over Again

It's St. Patrick's Day, and the color most associated with today is green - also the color of money in the USA. Water, too. 

Yesterday I stumbled upon another Oregon groundwater tale of woe, this time proffered by Oregon Public Broadcasting: Race to the bottom: How big business took over Oregon’s first protected aquifer by Emily Cureton Cook. I started reading but my mind drifted back to 2016 when The Oregonian published an excellent tome entitled Draining Oregon by Kelly House and Mark Graves. The latter is more comprehensive than the Cook report but both are excellent and pull no punches. House and Graves go in depth (no pun intended) in such a way that only a major newspaper can.  

Although Cook's article uses the Cow Valley 'water rights grab' by a San Francisco-based hedge fund and subsequent takeover of Oregon's first protected aquifer as a focal point, both articles take the Oregon Water Resources Department to the woodshed, deservedly so. OWRD has some really good, conscientious people but the leadership is lacking. I was saddened to learn that Harmony Burright, who worked on an OWRD-funded project in the Harney Basin, has left to work for Rep. Mark Owens (R- Crane) She is a keeper and Rep. Owens is lucky to have her. 

So I will simply repeat the takeaways from my blog post (7 is new) of 2016:

Here we go:

1) Err on the side of caution when issuing permits.

2) Utilize graduate/undergraduate students from Oregon and other universities to do thesis work in the affected areas and elsewhere. Yes, it will cost money but OWRD will get more bang for the buck.

3) Charge each of the 17,000 irrigation and other large-capacity (municipal and industrial) wells $150 per year and put this money towards groundwater work. Owners of the so-called ‘exempt wells’ - those not requiring a water right and limited to 15,000 gallons per day (about 16 acre-feet per year) - would pay $20 per year. There are about 150,000 of these wells so their effects can be locally significant. No one really knows how much these wells use – they are not metered.

4) Meter all large-capacity (irrigation, M&I, etc.) wells.

5) Refuse to permit wells drilled in anticipation of receiving permits.

6) Enlist the support of the state's 'movers and shakers' (or 'shovers and makers') to initiate a statewide study of Oregon's groundwater resources. 

7) Avoid the accumulation of groundwater rights by entities whose motives (hoarding, etc.) are suspect. 

A Modest Proposal
I will offer to teach a 3 to 4 hour 'Groundwater 101' course in Salem for legislators at the start of the 2017 session. No charge. I'll let some people in Salem know about my offer.

This offer conflates nicely with the Groundwater Visibility Initiative and Oregon State University's land-grant university status. 

This course will not solve the problems so cogently described by The Oregonian but will help our state's lawmakers better understand groundwater so they can make better decisions and choices. 

No one took me up on the teaching offer. I did the lecture for a group of locals in Burns and I helped out on the OWRD-sponsored Harney Basin groundwater planning project. The 10-hour RT from Corvallis took its toll after a while.

If I'm still around in 2028 I suspect I can use this post again. I am skeptical that the groundwater situation will change for the better.

Kudos to Emily Cureton Cook, Kelly House and Mark Graves. Thank heavens for journalists like them. 

Enjoy.

"Cry me a river, build a bridge, then get over it." - Unknown

CRS Insight Report: 'Drought in the Klamath River Basin'

Back to the Klamath River Basin with Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh! They wrote this brief CRS Insight report (updated 2 March 2022): 'Drought in the Klamath River Basin'. The Insight reports have hot links in the online versions.

Download CRS_Insight_Report_Drought_Klamath_River_Basin_2March2022

As with yesterday's CRS report, Klamath River Dam Removal and Restoration, I have pasted the entire report below and uploaded a PDF immediately above this sentence. The online report (accessed in the first paragraph) has the online links preserved as does the PDF; the pasted version below does not. Click on the graphics to enlarge them. 

Introduction
Historic drought conditions in the Klamath River Basin (Figure 1) have received national attention and have led to increased conflicts among water users and other stakeholders. The basin includes the Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project, which delivers irrigation water to approximately 230,000 acres in Southern Oregon and Northern California. The Klamath Basin has a history of controversies related to water allocation and species protection. In the past, these issues have generated conflict among farmers, Indian tribes, fishermen, water project and wildlife refuge managers, environmental groups, hydropower facility operators, and state and local governments.

Background
Water supplies from both the federal Klamath Project and other off-project sources of water support irrigated agriculture, which is a driver of economic activity in the Klamath Basin. Other major users of Klamath Project water include six national wildlife refuges that sustain migratory bird habitat and several Native American tribes that rely on basin fish species. Currently, two species of upper basin fish (Lost River and shortnose sucker) are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; P.L. 93- 205), and one species of lower basin fish (coho salmon) is listed as threatened under the ESA. The basin also contains seven dams on the Klamath River and its tributaries, built between 1918 and 1962. PacifiCorp, a regulated utility, owns six of these dams (known as the Klamath Hydroelectric Project). The original Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license to operate these dams expired in 2006; FERC has since extended operations in multiple temporary annual licenses.

The Klamath Project has a history of conflicts associated with water deliveries. In 2001, Reclamation, at the direction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), significantly curtailed water deliveries to the Klamath Project to provide more water for endangered fish. Irrigators protested these actions. In 2002, irrigators received significantly more water than in the previous year, but thousands of Chinook salmon died on the lower part of the Klamath River, largely due to poor water conditions and fish health in that part of the basin.

In response to earlier conflicts, the federal government facilitated formal negotiations in the basin between 2006 and 2010. The resulting agreements—the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA)—aimed to resolve long-standing issues in the basin. The KBRA proposed actions to restore Klamath fisheries and support tribes, and it provided assurances for water deliveries to wildlife refuges and project irrigators. The KHSA outlined a process to remove four of PacifiCorp’s dams on the Klamath River. These agreements were proposed but not enacted in prior Congresses. The process for removing the four PacifiCorp dams has gone forward, with the federal government no longer directly involved in dam removal. At the same time, Reclamation continues to operate the Klamath Project under recent biological opinions (BiOps) under the ESA for listed species.

Previously, Congress has provided additional appropriations in response to issues in the basin, including the following:

•   $20 million in the 2001 farm bill (P.L. 107-20) and $50 million in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171), for water conservation and drought relief efforts in the basin

•   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration funds for fishery disaster determinations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 2007 ($60 million), 2016 ($3.86 million), 2016-2017 ($8.96 million), and 2018 ($2.23 million)

•   $17.57 million to Reclamation and other agencies in 2008-2011 for the Klamath Dam Removal Determination studies

•   $62 million to Reclamation in 2001-2015 for the Klamath Water Bank and successor agreements

•   $26 million to Reclamation from 2016-2020 for BiOp reconsultation and funding for other Klamath drought relief and water conservation efforts

  Recent Drought and Federal Response
  Recently, the Klamath Basin has faced some of its driest years in decades. Inflows in 2021 were at historically low levels, and Reclamation allocated only 33,000 acre-feet for irrigators (Figure 2). In May 2021, Reclamation announced the closure of the Klamath Project “A” canal, a major source of project releases. The agency also said it would not implement Klamath River surface flushing flows for salmon (an action it normally conducts pursuant to the ESA) during the current water year. Per terms in the BiOps, Reclamation created a Temporary Operations Plan (TOP) to manage water to address competing needs.

In response to the aforementioned 2021 drought conditions, the federal government provided additional aid in the basin, including the following:

•   $15 million in Reclamation funding for the Klamath Drought Response Agency (DRA), which was announced in April 2021, plus $3 million in trial technical assistance for ecosystem activities

•   $15 million for a U.S. Department of Agriculture block grant under the CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) to fund DRA producer payments to reduce irrigation demand.

•   $10 million for Reclamation drought response in the FY2022 continuing resolution (P.L. 117-43)

•   $162 million for ecosystem restoration on FWS-leased lands in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58)

  Conditions in the basin are again below average in 2022 (Figure 3). Reclamation’s Klamath Project allocations are expected in April 2022 and may lead to stakeholder calls for additional federal aid and other actions.

Enjoy!

"Being right half the time beats being half-right all the time." - Malcolm Forbes

CRS InFocus Report: 'Klamath River Dam Removal and Restoration'

Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh, two of my favorite CRS researchers, authored this timely two-pager (3 March 2022): 'Klamath River Dam Removal and Restoration'. 

Download CRS_InFocus_Report_Klamath_Dam_Removal_Restorartion_3March2022

I have pasted the entire report below. You can also download the above PDF or click on the title in the first sentence to read the report online. Click on the graphic to enlarge it.

Introduction
The Klamath River Basin (Figure 1)—a 12,000 square mile area on the California-Oregon border—is a focal point for discussions on water allocation and species protection. These issues have generated conflict among farmers, Indian tribes, fishermen, water project and wildlife refuge managers, environmental groups, hydropower facility operators, and state and local governments.

Background
Multiple people and species rely on Klamath Basin waters. Irrigated agriculture in the Upper Klamath Basin is supported in part with water from the federal Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation’s) Klamath Project and in part with off-project supplies. Further, six national wildlife refuges rely on basin waters to sustain migratory bird habitat and several Native American tribes historically depended on lower and upper basin fish species.

Mitigating the effects of water management, habitat alteration, and other factors on listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.) is a perennial issue in the basin. Two species of upper basin fish are currently listed as endangered under the ESA—the Lost River sucker and the shortnose sucker. In the lower basin, the coho salmon is listed as threatened. Conflicts in the basin first came to a head in 2001, when, as a result of previous biological opinions, Reclamation severely curtailed water deliveries to the Klamath Project to provide more water for endangered fish. Subsequent issues, including a major fish kill of Chinook salmon on the Lower Klamath River in 2002, resulted in federally led settlement talks in the 2000s.

The basin contains seven dams on the Klamath River and its tributaries, built between 1918 and 1962. Six of these dams were owned by PacifiCorp, a regulated utility. These dams are known collectively as the Klamath Hydroelectric Project (KHP). Historically, all but one of the dams have produced hydroelectric power for the basin, including low-cost power for Klamath Project irrigators. The original Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license to operate the KHP expired in 2006. In 2004, PacifiCorp applied for relicensing of the project, and, in 2007, FERC staff issued a final environmental impact statement for the application. FERC analyzed various alternatives for the application, ultimately recommending a new license with mandatory prescriptions to create fish ladders that was projected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to implement and to result in net operating losses for the project. At this time, PacifiCorp has entered into basin settlement negotiations with stakeholders and continued to operate the project under temporary annual licenses.

Klamath Settlement Agreements
In 2010, the Secretary of the Interior, governors of Oregon and California, PacifiCorp, and 44 other parties announced two interrelated settlement agreements intended to resolve long-standing issues in the basin: the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA). The KBRA proposed actions to restore Klamath fisheries and assurances for water deliveries to wildlife refuges and project irrigators, among other things. The KHSA laid out a process for removal of the four Lower Klamath Project dams (Figure 1). After a secretarial determination on dam removal, the dams would be transferred to the Department of the Interior (DOI), which would oversee decommissioning. The dam removal project would be one of the largest and most complex ever undertaken in the United States. A third agreement involving off-project irrigators in the Upper Klamath Basin was finalized in 2014.

The Klamath settlement agreements were contingent on passage of federal legislation authorizing numerous new federal activities and expenditures in the basin. Legislation approving the agreements was introduced and received hearings in the 113th and 114th Congress but was not enacted. Despite this, some work under the KBRA and KHSA occurred under existing authorities: studies by DOI to inform the KHSA secretarial determination on dam removal were completed (although a formal determinationwas not made, due to lack of authority), and some actions under the KBRA have been implemented under existing authorities. After widespread acknowledgement that Congress appeared unlikely to enact the agreements, removal of the Klamath River dams moved to a separate track that no longer requires congressional enactment, as discussed below.

FERC Transfer and Removal of Lower Klamath River Dams
In 2016, the parties amended the KHSA to no longer require the transfer of dams to DOI, thus avoiding the need for congressional authorization. The amended KHSA lays out a process for PacifiCorp to transfer the dams slated for removal to a new nonprofit entity, the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC). Under the KHSA, KRRC is to be funded by PacifiCorp surcharges in Oregon ($184 million) and California ($16 million), as well as bond funding from the State of California ($250 million). KRRC is led by a 15-member board appointed by the governors of California and Oregon, the Karuk and Yurok tribes, and conservation and fishing groups.

In 2016, PacifiCorp and KRRC applied for FERC approval to transfer the license for the Lower Klamath Project to KRRC and to surrender and decommission the Lower Klamath Project. KRRC’s timelines originally anticipated FERC approval in 2019 or 2020, with dam removal beginning in 2022. On July 16, 2020, FERC issued an order conditionally approving a partial transfer of the license for the Lower Klamath Project to KRRC but required that PacifiCorp remain a co-licensee. On November 17, 2020, KRRC and PacifiCorp filed an amended application for surrender of license and removal of project works. They stated that they were not accepting co-licensee status, as approved by the commission’s July 2020 order, and would instead file a new application to transfer the Lower Klamath Project from PacifiCorp to KRRC, the State of Oregon, and the State of California as co-licensees. The new transfer application was filed on January 13, 2021, and approved by FERC on June 17, 2021.

The amended surrender application remains pending before FERC. In it, KRRC proposed to decommission and remove most project facilities and to implement management plans that detail the specific methods that would be used to draw down the reservoirs, remove the dams, and restore lands occupied by the dams and reservoirs, among other things. Based on its review of the management plans, FERC is to decide whether to approve the licensees’ application to surrender the license for and decommission the Lower Klamath Project and, if so, what conditions should be included in any surrender order issued. On February 25, 2022, FERC issued its draft environmental impact statement of the application, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.).

Dam Removal Considerations
KHSA parties and other interests support the removal of the Klamath dams due to the potential benefits for basin fisheries, habitat, and water quality. In its dam removal studies, DOI projected that removal would open more than 420 miles of historic salmon spawning habitat and wouldimprove water quality. Further, DOI noted that removal is expected to lower mortality at the generators, eliminate reservoirs that produce temperature and dissolved-oxygen problems for salmonids, and avoid the need to implement other costly mitigation measures. Some scientists question these points and suggest that conservation benefits associated with dam removal are uncertain. Removal of the Klamath dams also has been opposed by some, in particular some local groups and officials in Oregon and California. Opponents argue against the loss of hydropower, recreational, and flood control benefits associated with the dams and worry about flooding, pollution, and other hazards related to removal.

In 2016, then-Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell voiced DOI’s formal support for the 2016 FERC applications to transfer and remove the KHP dams, in part based on federal studies of dam removal dating to the 2010 KHSA. These studies analyzed dam removal alternatives and impacts and informed dam removal plans by the KRRC. The most recent dam removal plan before FERC was laid out in a revised Definite Plan Report in KRRC’s 2020 amended surrender application. Under the plan, the KHP reservoirs would be drawn down over the course of 2-3 months, with the four facilities removed simultaneously over the 20 months thereafter. Restoration would occur for at least the next five years. The timeline and approach in the report are intended to minimize high suspended sediment loads with the potential to negatively affect aquatic resources.

Costs are another concern associated with dam removal. As of early 2020, total dam removal project costs (including project reserves) were estimated at $445 million, although some argue these figures are out of date. However, prior analyses have suggested the cost of upgrading and maintaining the dams for fish passage (most recently estimated at $515 million in 2021 dollars, plus $77 million annually for operations and maintenance costs) would exceed the removal costs.

Significance of Klamath Dam Removal
Removal of the Klamath Dams would be a historic undertaking and has received widespread attention due to the project’s magnitude and complexity. Never before have so many large dams been removed from a single river at one time in the United States. Many are interested in the project as a proof-of-concept for other major dam removals. Some have expressed hope that the model—in which a private dam owner transfers dams to states and/or nonprofits for removal in exchange for liability protections—might be used for similar projects.

Congressional interest in dam removal relates to what role, if any, the federal government should have in studying and executing specific projects (and any associated restoration), FERC’s role in approving the removal of certain nonfederally owned dams, and what, if any, federal incentives or authorities should be available for the removal (or maintenance) of aging dams.

Let's get this done!

Enjoy!

"We have built one dam [in the USA] for every day since Jefferson signed the Declaration of Independence... Surely among 75,000 there are a few mistakes." - Bruce Babbitt, former Secretary of the Interior

My Ten Cents: Lake Abert Redux Revisited - Who Cares? Lots? Well, Maybe a Few

About three weeks ago I posted about Oregon's only salt lake, Lake Abert. What spurred me to do so after a hiatus of seven years was the excellent piece by Rob Davis (who wrote the one I blogged on in 2014) on the front page of The Oregonian. He wrote another piece, Lawmakers weigh how to protect dry Lake Abert which hit the front page on 26 January 2022.

Here is a Beat Check podcast by Andrew Theen with reporter Rob Davis. This goes far beyond Lake Abert. It touches on Oregon's reluctance to enforce the natural resource laws, especially on the eastern side of the Cascade Range. The podcast is a mostly sad tale about some environmental shenanigans over yonder. Give it a listen.

Back to the most recent Davis article: it's proof that something on the front page has the potential to motivate people. Some legislators promised some hearings when the legislature convened on 1 February. Rep. Mark Owens, from the Burns area, is vice chairman of the House Water Committee, is in a position  to do something. But it's a short session this year so I am not holding my breath.

One thing I would love to see is the determination of the steady-state size (volume, area and bathymetry) and salinity of the lake. By 'steady-state size' I mean devoid of any diversions. This would not be a 'true' steady-state size but a 'mean steady-state size' around which the lake size would fluctuate (I am deferring to Elaine Hanford's comment) due to natural variations in precipitation, ET and runoff. We know Lake Abert and Summer Lake used to be included in the much larger Lake Chewaucan, which began desiccating about 15,000 years ago, leaving only Summer Lake and Lake Abert. Maybe that is what Amy Simpson was working on. But steady-state size in times of climate change and non-stationarity is pretty much a fiction.

I did find a little gem of a 12-page article by Douglas W. Larson and Ron Larson on Lake Abert in the Winter 2011 issue of LakeLine from the North American Lake Management Society:

Download 31-4-9

All the graphics are from this article. 

Enjoy!

"The article raises a number of questions and raises the bar on the agencies to provide that certainty." - Sen. Michael Dembrow (D-Portland), quoted in the 26 January article

My Ten Cents: Lake Abert Redux - Who Cares?

The Old Days
On 9 July 2014 I wrote a blog post entitled, Lake Abert's Desiccation: Natural or Not? Why Not Find Out?. It was a response to an earlier excellent article by The Oregonian's Rob Davis: Oregon’s only saltwater lake is disappearing, and scientists don't know why. Davis also wrote: 5 things you should know about Lake Abert, Oregon's disappearing salt lake.   

So?  

The Present Day
Imagine my surprise this morning when a picture of a desiccated Lake Abert graced the front page (above the fold) of The Sunday Oregonian, with the headline What killed Lake Abert? Once again, Rob Davis was the reporter.

The story picked up where the 2014 article ended. It related the work of Amy Simpson, then a Oregon Department of Environment Quality engineer who decided, on her own (can you spell i-n-i-a-t-i-v-e?), to get to the bottom of Lake Abert's lack of water.

At this juncture, let me note the motto on ODEQ's homepage:

Uh-huh.

From the article:

Simpson estimated that the River’s End Reservoir, constructed in 1994 with government subsidies immediately upstream from Lake Abert, had kept billions of gallons of water from reaching the lake. In a dry year like 2014, the difference was a death blow.

She shared those preliminary findings with her manager and others inside the department and proposed asking another state agency to require the reservoir to release water. But Simpson said her manager, Steve Mrazik, called her into his office and abruptly halted her efforts after a summer 2015 meeting of high-ranking officials from five state agencies, including the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, which helped build the reservoir.

“I stopped working on this project because my manager told me to stop working on it,” Simpson, an engineer who left the environmental agency in 2018, told The Oregonian/OregonLive. “I asked why, but was told it was a managerial decision and was not given a reason.”

Simpson said she asked to finish analyzing the reservoir’s impact on the lake but was told by Mrazik “all work must stop.”

Mrazik didn’t respond to questions from The Oregonian/OregonLive. A Department of Environmental Quality spokesperson, Harry Esteve, said in an email the agency decided “at the time that there was no significant action we could take.”

More:

The reservoir isn’t solely responsible for Lake Abert’s decline. The precipitation that feeds the lake has dwindled. Last year was the driest since at least 1979. Ranches upstream long ago laid claim to river water that would reach the lake to instead irrigate crops like alfalfa. Still, scientists who study the lake say the reservoir has harmed Lake Abert and should release more water to it.

So what should be done?

My Ten Cents
1) ODEQ should immediately resurrect the Simpson report (hire her as a consultant if need be) and get other relevant agencies (ODFW, OWRD, USFWS, BLM, USGS, et al.) and some academics/consultants to comment.

2) Support the legislation proposed by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) to provide research funding. I would like to see the funding to include others beside the USGS - some academics would be appropriate. 

3) If (2) doesn't fly, try to cobble together some funds to induce some academics to perform the research.

4) Investigate the effects of PacificCorp's proposed pumped-storage facilities on Lake Abert. This project would require four new reservoirs.

5) Investigate the concept of water rights for Lake Abert.  

6) Try to assess the steady-state size/volume of Lake Abert (see below)

 It should be noted that Lake Abert and nearby Summer Lake are all that remain of Lake Chewaucan, a huge freshwater lake that existed over 15,000 years ago along with Lake Bonneville (Great Salt Lake) and Lake Lahontan (Pyramid Lake and others). So Lake Abert is much smaller than it once was and is likely seeking an equilibrium of some sort after beig in decline for c. 15,000 years

   Graphic from this report.

Shout-out to Rob Davis.

"Those agencies, all they need is the slimmest excuse not to show interest in natural resources that are being impacted. East of the Cascades, it’s still the Wild West. People do what they want to do with the environment and the agencies just turn their back.” - Ron Larson, retired USFWS biologist (quoted in the article)