WaterWired

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

From the dynamic duo of Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh comes this timely (understatement) CRS Insight (8 June 2021) report: 'Drought in the Klamath River Basin'.

Download CRS_Insight_Report_Drought_Klamath_River_Basin_8June2021

These 'Insight' reports often have hot links embedded in the text. If they are not displaying properly, read the document online (click on the title in the second line). I have pasted the entire report below. 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 debates 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
Much of the Klamath Basin relies on economic activity generated by irrigated agriculture. Water supplies from both the federal Klamath Project and other “off project” sources of water support basin agriculture. 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. Most prominently, 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. Later in 2001, the George W. Bush Administration directed additional water for irrigation. 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.

Congress has provided multiple appropriations in response to previous issues in the basin. In the 2001 and 2002 farm bills (P.L. 107-20 and P.L. 107-171, respectively), Congress provided the U.S. Department of Agriculture with $20 million and $50 million in funding, respectively, for water conservation in the Klamath Basin, in addition to funding under other emergency authorities. Congress also appropriated supplemental funds, including $60 million to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2007 (P.L. 110-28) for a 2006 fishery failure determination under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§1861(a) and 1864), as well as $10 million for Reclamation drought activities in the basin in 2010 (P.L. 111-212).

Also in response to earlier conflicts, the federal government facilitated talks among multiple groups, including formal negotiations 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. Removal of the four PacifiCorp dams has proceeded, 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 sucker and salmon species.

Recent Drought and Federal Response
In 2021, the Klamath Basin is facing one of its worst droughts in four decades. Water deliveries are at historically low levels (Figure 2); Reclamation allocated 33,000 acre-feet for irrigators. On May 12, 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.

Reclamation determined that 2021 hydrological conditions are preventing, and will continue to prevent, it from operating the Klamath Project in a manner consistent with the BiOps. Per terms in the BiOps, Reclamation conferred with FWS and NMFS and created a Temporary Operations Plan (TOP) to manage water to address immediate and temporary competing needs, including the needs of all threatened and endangered species. Reclamation will use the TOP to operate the Klamath Project in an adaptive manner using real-time monitoring and forecasting, and it will coordinate with FWS and NMFS to implement deviations from this plan.

In response to the drought, the federal government has provided additional aid, including $15 million in immediate aid to the Klamath Project Drought Relief Agency announced in April 2021, plus $3 million in trial technical assistance for ecosystem activities in the basin. The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture issued a joint statement declaring their intent to coordinate resources and identify immediate financial and technical assistance for impacted irrigators and tribes. The Department of the Interior also withdrew several TrumpAdministration determinations related to basin water supplies because the determinations “were issued without government-to-government consultation with affected Tribes and do not reflect the current administration’s goals for long-term water recovery and economic restoration.”

Enjoy!

"You can lead a man to Congress but you can't make him think." - Milton Berle (quoted in @TheExpressPA via  @TheWeek).

Blue Peace Workshop on Columbia River Basin - 14 October 2020 Be There!

Here is the narrative prepared by Erica-Lynn Porta, the mover behind the workshop and the creation of the North American Youth Parliament for Water.

The North American Youth Parliament for Water, in partnership with The Economist, OSU's Water Resources Graduate Program, and Oregon IWW, has organized the Blue Peace Workshop on 14 October, 4-6pm Pacific Time via Zoom. This event focuses on the Columbia River Basinand is the first phase of a year-long pilot research and policy analysis program organized by the NAYPW, which will create a limited number of funded summer research opportunities in the summer of 2021. It is designed to
educate and raise awareness about transboundary management issues in the Columbia River Basin and the Blue Peace Index use among young professionals and early-career researchers, such as graduate and undergraduate students.

 

Participation is free but registration in advance is appreciated click here.

 

Download the flyer here: View this photo

 

This will be real good - attend!

 

If there is a report on the workshop I will post it here.

 

Enjoy!

"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education."- Albert Einstein

USGAO Report: 'Hanford Cleanup - DOE Should Take Actions to Improve Inspections and Oversight of Contaminated Excess Facilities'

This report was just released to the pubic on 20 February 2020: Hanford Cleanup: DOE Should Take Actions to Improve Inspections and Oversight of Contaminated Excess Facilities.

Download GAO_Hanford_Full_Report_20Feb2020

Download GAO_Hanford_Highlights_20Feb2020

Maria Gibson and I just finished a project up there but it was unrelated to the waste issues per se. She did her usual excellent job.

Fast Facts
Nuclear facilities that are no longer used await cleanup at the Department of Energy’s site in Hanford, WA. Contractors inspect and maintain these facilities, but DOE hasn’t ensured that these activities fully meet requirements. For example, structural conditions are unknown in parts of a facility that inspectors haven’t entered in 50 years.

In 2017, workers found a partial roof collapse in a storage tunnel. DOE evaluated physical causes, but did not examine all inspection and maintenance practices that may have contributed to the accident. We recommended doing so and taking steps to improve inspections and maintenance.

Hanford Plutonium Uranium Extraction Plant (PUREX) and Storage Tunnels

What GAO Found
The Department of Energy (DOE) has taken some actions to evaluate the physical causes that contributed to the May 2017 partial collapse of the Plutonium Uranium Extraction (PUREX) Tunnel 1, but has not determined the programmatic causes that led to the collapse, such as by completing an accident investigation or a root cause analysis, among other things. For example, although an engineering evaluation of the tunnels was completed at the request of the State of Washington, Richland Operations Office (RL) officials told GAO an accident investigation was not initiated because the event did not meet threshold requirements in a DOE order that includes, among other things, damages or costs exceeding $2.5 million. However, GAO's analysis shows that the costs of responding to the event and stabilizing the tunnel were about $10 million. At the contractor's request, RL also waived performance of a root cause analysis, which DOE guidance states is typically required for such a significant event, and agreed to a less rigorous analysis of the potential physical causes of the event. By conducting a root cause analysis to determine any programmatic weaknesses that contributed to the collapse of PUREX Tunnel 1, and taking action to address any identified weaknesses, DOE will have greater assurance that another, similar event will not take place.  According to a DOE report and GAO's review, although the Hanford contractor is generally conducting routine surveillance inspections of contaminated excess facilities, these inspections have weaknesses and GAO found that DOE has not ensured requirements are fully met. Specifically, DOE orders require that processes be in place to ensure that inspections are conducted to detect deterioration and determine whether the structural integrity of facilities is threatened. A December 2017 DOE report and GAO's review found that the surveillance and maintenance (S&M) inspections at several facilities were not comprehensive and that there are areas of some facilities that personnel infrequently or never enter—physically or by remote means—to conduct inspections. For example, parts of the Reduction-Oxidation Facility have not been entered in more than 50 years and structural conditions are unknown. Without conducting comprehensive inspections, RL cannot ensure that it is meeting all of DOE's S&M requirements, such as addressing aging degradation and obsolescence of some facilities, and preventing other potential events similar to the PUREX tunnel collapse.

In addition, GAO's review of oversight reports since 2013 by DOE headquarters offices responsible for evaluating field office operations found that none of these assessments focused on RL's management and oversight of the contractor's S&M activities. DOE's Oversight Policy requires DOE to conduct independent oversight to the extent necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of DOE field office oversight of contractor activities. Without conducting periodic assessments or audits focused on RL's management and oversight of the contractor's S&M activities for contaminated excess facilities, DOE does not have assurance that RL is overseeing S&M activity in a way that ensures these facilities are inspected and maintained in a safe and compliant condition pending final cleanup.

Why GAO Did This Study
DOE's Hanford site in Washington State contains thousands of contaminated excess facilities and waste sites that remain to be cleaned up. In May 2017, a partial roof collapse at a waste storage tunnel facility for one of the former plutonium nuclear processing plants raised questions about the S&M of Hanford's excess facilities and how RL prioritizes cleanup of these facilities.

GAO was asked to review DOE's cleanup of Hanford's contaminated excess facilities, including how DOE ensures that the Hanford Site contractor inspects and maintains facilities. This report examines, among other things, (1) DOE's actions to evaluate the causes of the PUREX tunnel collapse, and (2) the extent to which DOE ensures that S&M of Hanford's contaminate excess facilities meet DOE requirements.

GAO reviewed DOE documents, administered a questionnaire to collect S&M information about 18 selected facilities representing the majority of the Hanford facilities cleanup effort, conducted in-depth reviews of selected Hanford facilities, and interviewed DOE and Hanford cleanup contractor officials.

Recommendations
GAO recommends that DOE (1) analyze the programmatic root causes of the tunnel collapse, (2) routinely conduct comprehensive inspections of contaminated excess facilities and take timely action as warranted, and (3) assess RL oversight of S&M of Hanford excess facilities. DOE agreed with GAO's recommendations and stated that it is taking steps to implement all of them by December 2020.

Recommendations for Executive Action

Other	The Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of Environmental Management should direct RL to conduct a root cause analysis to identify any programmatic causes that may have led to the collapse of PUREX Tunnel 1. (Recommendation 1)	Open   When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Other	The Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of Environmental Management, while ensuring the protection of DOE workers, the public, and the environment, should ensure that RL directs the Hanford Site cleanup contractor to explore using robotic or other means to routinely complete comprehensive surveillance inspections of contaminated excess facilities to identify aging degradation and obsolescence of facilities and take timely action as warranted. (Recommendation 2)	Open   When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Office of the Secretary	The Secretary of Energy should ensure DOE headquarters offices responsible for the oversight of EM sites' field offices conduct an assessment of RL's management and oversight of the Hanford Site contractor's surveillance and maintenance activity for contaminated excess facilities. Based on the results of this assessment, DOE headquarters offices should consider whether such assessments should be conducted on a periodic basis. (Recommendation 3)	Open   When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

 

Enjoy!

"A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is innocent, unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty until found effective." - Edward Teller

M. Gibson and M. Campana AWRA MAR Presentations: 1) 'Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and System Dynamics Model...Yakima Basin' 2) Harvesting Glacial Meltwater...with MAR'

1) M. Gibson and M. Campana. Abstract: page 11

Download 2019 AC Abstracts_FINAL

PDF (36 MB) of PPT: Download AWRA_SLC_GIBSON

2) M. Campana and M. Gibson  Abstract: page 14

Download 2019 AC Abstracts_FINAL

PDF of PPT: (14 MB) Download AWRA_SLC_CAMPANA

Download AWRA_SLC_CAMPANA

Enjoy! We did!

"The science of hydrology would be relatively simple if water were unable to penetrate below the earth's surface." - Harold E. Thomas (via groundwater geek)

CRS Report: 'Columbia River Treaty Review' (Updated 21 June 2019)

It is time for an updated (21 June 2019) CRS report by Charles V. Stern is all that in spades: Columbia River Treaty Review, released on 1 June 2018. The US and Canada are involved in a review of the Columbia River Treaty (CRT) and this document provides an excellent updated review of the issues. There is a lot of misinformation about the treaty, and this report will elucidate the facts and issues.

Download CRS_Report_Columbia_River_Trety_Review_21June 2019

Summary
The Columbia River Treaty (CRT, or Treaty) is an international agreement between the United States and Canada for the cooperative development and operation of the water resources of the Columbia River Basin to provide for flood control and power. The Treaty was the result of more than 20 years of negotiations between the two countries and was ratified in 1961. Implementation began in 1964.

The Treaty provided for the construction and operation of three dams in Canada and one dam in the United States whose reservoir extends into Canada. Together, these dams more than doubled the amount of reservoir storage available in the basin and provided significant flood protection benefits. In exchange for these benefits, the United States agreed to provide Canada with lump- sum cash payments and a portion of downstream hydropower benefits that are attributable to Canadian operations under the CRT, known as the “Canadian Entitlement.” Some have estimated the Canadian Entitlement to be worth as much as $335 million annually.

The CRT has no specific end date, and most of its provisions would continue indefinitely without action by the United States or Canada. Currently, either the United States or Canada can terminate most provisions of the CRT with a minimum of 10 years’ written notice. To date, neither country has given notice of termination, but both countries have indicated a preliminary interest in modification of the treaty. If the CRT is not terminated or modified, most of its provisions would continue, with the exception of its flood control provisions (which are scheduled to transition automatically to “called-upon” operations at that time, meaning the United States would request and compensate Canada for flood control operations as necessary).

Perspectives on the CRT and its review vary. Some believe the Treaty should include stronger provisions related to tribal resources and flows for fisheries that are not in the Treaty; others disagree and focus on the perceived need to adjust the Canadian Entitlement to reflect actual hydropower benefits. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bonneville Power Administration, in their joint role as the U.S. Entity overseeing the Treaty, undertook a review of the CRT from 2009 to 2013. Based on studies and stakeholder input, they provided a Regional Recommendation to the State Department in December 2013. They recommended continuing the Treaty with certain modifications, including rebalancing the CRT’s hydropower provisions, further delineating called-upon flood control operations after 2024, and incorporating into the Treaty flows to benefit Columbia River fisheries. For its part, the Canadian Entity (the Province of British Columbia) released in March 2013 a recommendation to continue the CRT with modifications “within the Treaty framework.” It disputed several assumptions in the U.S. Entity’s review process.

Following a two-year federal interagency review of the U.S. Regional Recommendation, the U.S. State Department finalized its negotiating parameters and authorized talks with Canada in October 2016. Between May 2018 and May 2019, U.S. and Canadian negotiating teams held six rounds of negotiations. Additional negotiations are expected in 2019.

If the executive branch comes to an agreement regarding modification of the CRT, the Senate may be asked to weigh in on future versions of the Treaty pursuant to its constitutional role to provide advice and consent. Both houses have also weighed in on CRT-related activities through their oversight roles.

“Patience, time and money accommodate all things.” – Spanish Proverb (tnx @AnnaWSears)