Media Center

There isn't as much water as we may think

Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0700

There isn't as much water as we may think

Editorial
Skagit Valley News, July 3, 2011

For all its seeming abundance in the Skagit River basin, water is a finite resource.

We have long taken the availability of 'this life-giving substance for granted.

But no more. It will take a careful balancing act to distribute water equitably to preserve fish, serve agriculture and the growing urban demand.

South of Mount Vernon is a small basin that drains the Carpenter and Fisher creeks. On June 27 the basin was closed to further well drilling for domestic and agricultural use.

The state Department of Ecology declared the basin's ground water supply to be tapped out. No new wells, no new building permits unless new development is supplied with water piped in from the Skagit Public Utility District.

Ecology was applying terms of the minimum flow rule for some 25 creek basins considered to be valuable salmon habitat. The agency and Skagit County government arrived at an agreement in 2006 that regulates water use in those drainages.

Once the limit for water use is reached in a basin, Ecology will close it to new well drilling.

The Carpenter-Fisher basin is the first drainage area in the Skagit River watershed to be closed. It might not be the last.

Ecology is continuing its study of the impact of well pumping on stream flows in 27-square-mile Carpenter-Fisher utilizing data from the U.S. Geological Survey.

The USGS data was used to build a computer model that can be used to study the relationship between groundwater and, streams throughout the Skagit watershed.

It is information that is needed to make more informed judgments about our use of well water, especially if we are serious about wanting to support the productivity of Skagit salmon habitat.

The river supports five species of salmon, with runs spread across the calendar. It also accounts for about a third of all salmon emerging from Puget Sound streams.

At certain times of the year - particularly in summer - the Skagit can run below 10,000 cubic feet per second, which is considered a minimum for salmon.

It is ironic that there are other times when we struggle to keep the river from washing over us. The 1990 flood that took out Fir Island levees was estimated at 151,000 cfs.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that a 100-year flood on the Skagit River would hit 228,000 cfs, although some dispute that figure.

The ability of the river to sustain its salmon runs is heavily dependent on the health of its tributaries where the fish spawn, thus is Ecology's focus on key creek basins.

The Carpenter-Fisher closure calls attention to the limits of our precious water resources as Skagit County doubles in population over the next 50 years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Editorials reflect the consensus opinion of the editorial board and are written by its members: Publisher L. Stedem Wood and newsroom editors Dick Clever and Colette Weeks. Signed columns reflect the authors' viewpoints.

MVID decision

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:00:00 -0700

Okanogan Court issues landmark water right decision regarding efficiency and waste.

Click here for court decision.

News Release
July 16, 2007

Contact: John Arum, Attorney, Ziontz Chestnut Varnell Berley & Slonim
206-448-1230 (office)
Rachael Paschal Osborn, Center for Environmental Law & Policy,
509-328-1087 (office)

Spokane – Okanogan Wilderness League (OWL) today announced a legal victory in a decision issued by Okanogan County Superior Court. The decision finds that Methow Valley Irrigation District has been wasting water along its ditch and must upgrade its facilities in order to protect instream flows in the Methow River.

“The Methow River and endangered salmon will benefit from this important decision,” said Rachael Paschal Osborn, attorney for OWL and director of the Center for Environmental Law & Policy, a group that works on water law issues in the Columbia basin. Osborn continued, “The law is clear and re-affirmed by the judge: water right holders may never waste water.”

In 2002, the Washington Department of Ecology issued an enforcement order directing MVID to stop wasting water. Nearly 80% of the water diverted by MVID from the Twisp and Methow Rivers was being lost through leaky canals. In a tortuous set of appeals, MVID appealed the department’s enforcement order. OWL also appealed, arguing that the Department had not gone far enough. OWL prevailed and in December 2004, Ecology issued a second order further reducing MVID’s water right diversion. MVID again appealed. Today’s decision resolves the second appeal.

MVID’s diversion of water has de-watered the Methow and Twisp Rivers, creating fish passage problems for endangered salmon and steelhead. The water diversions also deplete flow downstream, limiting water availability for other water users in the Methow Valley.

In his July 13, 2007 order affirming the administrative order, Judge Jack Burchard of the Okanogan County Superior Court states:

[In 1993] our Supreme Court clearly defined the essential water rights concepts of “beneficial use,” “reasonable usage,” “water duty,” and “waste.” The law concerning the waste of water can be summarized in four principles:
1. No appropriation of water is valid where the water simply goes to waste.
2. An appropriator who diverts more water than is actually needed for the appropriators’ actual requirements and allows the excess to go to waste acquires no right to the excess.
3. A particular use must not only be of benefit to the appropriator, but it must also be a reasonable and economical use of the water in view of other present and future demands upon the source of supply.
4. While customary irrigation practices common to the locality are a factor for consideration, they do not justify waste of water.

OWL challenged Ecology’s original enforcement order because it failed to require that MVID any make capital improvements to its leaky, unlined canal system, despite the availability of extensive public funding for irrigation efficiency improvements. Arum said “We are pleased that Court has reaffirmed that MVID must bring its antiquated system into line with modern irrigation practices. This will provide benefits for both people and fish in the Methow Valley.”

“Given the water supply crisis that is being precipitated by climate change, it is essential that all water users be as efficient as possible,” said Osborn, continuing, “This decision confirms that water efficiency is mandatory, not optional.”

- end -

U.S. Bureau’s analysis for expanding irrigation is flawed

Wed, 30 May 2007 00:00:00 -0700

News Release
May 30, 2007

U.S. Bureau’s analysis for expanding irrigation is flawed
Documents fail to disclose full impacts on fisheries, water quality, taxpayers

For information: Rachael Paschal Osborn

Spokane – Today the Columbia Institute and the Center for Environmental Law and Policy submitted comments on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Potholes Feed Route.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation claims that supplemental conveyance facilities are needed to increase water deliveries to the southern end of the Columbia River Project. After reviewing alternatives, the Bureau proposes to select an alternative that would inundate Upper Crab Creek year round, turning the stream into a canal. What the Bureau does not say is that the feed route frees up space in the East Low Canal, the eastern boundary of the Columbia Basin Project. Extra capacity in this canal is needed to expand irrigation to the Odessa Subarea.

The Columbia Institute and CELP identify three problems with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation proposal.

1) “Piece-meal environmental review of taking more water from the Columbia River for expanding irrigation on the Columbia Plateau violates state and federal law,” noted Osborn. The Bureau of Reclamation and Washington State are segregating decisions in a way that hides the larger decision to bring Columbia River water to the Odessa Subarea. Some of the government’s analysis is scattered in the programmatic environmental impact statement for the Columbia River Management Program issued in February. Some is in the Bureau’s current analysis. “All of the analysis should be consolidated into the Odessa Subarea Special Analysis special study that the Bureau of Reclamation should be conducting,” said Osborn. “A comprehensive analysis would ensure all environmental and economic impacts are studied together.”

2) The Bureau intends to continue using Crab Creek as a sacrifice zone, and that must end. “ Crab Creek is one of the longest streams in the world,” said Osborn. “We need to work to restore this stream, not plan its continued destruction.”

3) The Bureau of Reclamation’s Environmental Assessment fails to thoroughly assess environmental impacts, especially damaging impacts on water quality and wildlife.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operates the Columbia River Project, one of the largest government irrigation projects in the nation. “The Potholes Project would, fundamentally, pump more water from the Columbia River. But nowhere does the federal government disclose this to the public,” noted Osborn. “Salmon need this water. This proposal subverts the federal government’s Columbia River Biological Opinion and flow requirements for endangered salmon.”

Links:

Comments on the draft Environmental Assessment for the Potholes Supplemental Feed Route Project

Supplemental Feed Route for the Potholes Reservoir (US Bureau of Reclamation). A study of new or expanded routes to increase water supply to the southern portion of the Columbia Basin Project and serve water to the Odessa Subarea.

Overview of Washington State’s Dam Building Program (Columbia Institute)

EPA sparks Washington-Idaho water pollution fight

Thu, 17 May 2007 00:00:00 -0700

EPA sparks Washington-Idaho water pollution fight
EPA Permits for Spokane River in Idaho violate Washington pollution limits

News Release: May 17
PEER, Center for Law and Policy, Sierra Club, Center for Environmental Law and Policy

Olympia -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is poised to award water pollution permits in Idaho that cause further environmental degradation of the severely impaired Spokane River as it flows through Washington, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the Sierra Club and Center for Justice. If the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permits are approved, the Spokane River will continue to exceed maximum pollution limits.

"EPA is supposed to resolve interstate water quality problems, not cause them," stated Washington PEER Director Sue Gunn. "The Spokane is already one of the most polluted rivers in Washington. EPA is making the job of restoring it to the Clean Water Act 'fishable and swimmable' standards that much harder."

Since Idaho does not have federal delegation to administer the Clean Water Act, all water pollution permits in Idaho are handled by the EPA rather than by the state. In that capacity, EPA has proposed to issue municipal wastewater discharge permits to the cities of Coeur D'Alene, Post Falls and the Hayden Area Regional Sewer Board that would allow discharge of pollutants capable of decreasing dissolved oxygen (by 0.2 mg/L) in the Spokane River without considering pollution from Washington dischargers.

Without adequate oxygen in the water, fish struggle to survive. In addition, the river and Lake Spokane currently suffer from too much phosphorus and other nutrients that act as fertilizers which, in turn, promote algae growth and other aquatic weeds that use up the oxygen in the water when they decompose.

"The Idaho sewage permits are bad science, bad policy and bad law," said Bonne Beavers, attorney with the Center for Justice based in Spokane that represents Sierra Club. "These permits will not protect the Spokane River and Lake Spokane."

Under the proposed permits, the Idaho wastewater discharge begins within 14 miles from the Washington border. There are seven major discharges (four in Washington and three in Idaho) that contribute to the pollution in the Spokane River. The controversy is that EPA proposes to set permit limits for Idaho without regard for the cumulative impact of other dischargers on the river.

"Idaho's pollution doesn't stop at the state line," said Rachael Paschal Osborn, executive director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy. "EPA and all other jurisdictions will need to work together to restore the Spokane River. EPA needs to correct the mistake it made with the Idaho sewage permits."

Because the Washington standards for dissolved oxygen in the river are stricter than those in Idaho, the law requires EPA to meet Washington's standards. Pollution from both states exceeds the standards set to protect Lake Spokane. The permits allow pollution up to the limits in Idaho but create a water quality violation in Washington as soon as the water crosses the border. Once it crosses the border, the river travels another 62 miles, to the end of Lake Spokane, where it also causes violations of the lake standards.

Public interest organizations are asking EPA to divide the total allowable pollutant load equitably between the two states, as well as cooperate with the ongoing efforts by Washington to set total maximum daily load limits which allow recovery of the Spokane River to a healthy state.

"Something smells bad in the Spokane River and it's sewage politics," said John Osborn, a Spokane physician and chair of the Upper Columbia River Group, Sierra Club. "People love the Spokane River and want it cleaned up. With such dramatic growth in the region and increased loading of sewage treatment plants, we will eventually have to stop discharging to the Spokane River."

###

Read the PEER letter of protest

Read Sierra Club comments

For more on the Spokane River Project, see Waterplanet.ws

New Walla Walla River Rule Leaves Fish High and Dry

Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:00:00 -0700

New Walla Walla River Rule Leaves Fish High and Dry
Proposed Instream Flow Falls Short for Bull Trout and Steelhead Salmon

Press Release
March 26, 2007
Contact: Sue Gunn [PEER] Wapeer@peer.org
Rachael Paschal Osborn [CELP] rosborn@celp.org

Olympia —A proposed rule to protect water sufficient to preserve fish and wildlife in the Walla Walla River Basin does not provide the protections necessary, according to comments filed by the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, WaterWatch of Oregon and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) with Washington’s Department of Ecology (Ecology).

Despite efforts in recent years to retain water instream to protect endangered bull trout and steelhead, Ecology has promulgated a rule that opens the basin to new water extractions that will lower stream levels. The rule lifts current restrictions and opens the basin for water extraction in April and May, two critical months for migrating fish.

Furthermore, the rule creates zones in the basin where unlimited amounts of new wells, capable of withdrawing up to 10,000 gallons per day, are allowed.

“This rule has the potential to undermine the limited water now flowing through the natural system by opening the basin to new withdrawals,” said Sue Gunn, Washington State Director of PEER. “We need to get real about the resource problem if we are going to realistically manage it.”

Zones described in the rule would allow wells to be developed in regions adjacent to the mainstream of the Walla Walla River and its tributaries. Wells will tap water derived from groundwater sources that are hydraulically connected with water flowing in the river. Hence pumping groundwater will only dry up the river faster. This will affect both stream flows and existing water users.

“Water is a public resource, and in a basin like Walla Walla there’s not enough to go around. Vigilance is required and this rule simply doesn’t provide that,” said Rachael Paschal Osborn, executive director of the Center for Environmental Law & Policy, a group dedicated to protecting Washington’s rivers and aquifers.

The rule allows for pumping from both deep and shallow regional aquifers, repealing an existing closure of the deeper, basalt aquifer.

PEER and CELP have both called for closure of the basin from April through November. The two groups have also recommended that no new water withdrawals be allowed unless they are mitigated for “bucket for bucket” prior to use.

###
Links:

Read the groups’ comments on the Walla Walla Instream Flow Rule

View Ecology’s proposed rule