Kathy Admire photo

Sandhill cranes need our help to block plans to dam Crab Creek

By Estella Leopold and Rachael Paschal Osborn

Special to The Seattle Times, October 2, 2007

(click here for original)

Sandhill cranes dance and honk by the hundreds and thousands each spring in a place called Crab Creek, near the very center of Washington. State officials propose to build a dam that will destroy this place: Lower Crab Creek tops the list for new dams in Washington.

Quietly, state officials are moving the decision to Washington, D.C., where Congress may soon decide whether to fund studies to commit taxpayers to billions of dollars in new dam construction. So, let's spend a moment on Crab Creek.

Where is Crab Creek? From Seattle, drive Interstate 90, cross the Columbia River at Vantage, take the exit and drive south for eight miles. Here, Crab Creek — more than 140 miles long and draining a vast area — flows into the Columbia, near Beverly and Schwana, Grant County.

If your image of Crab Creek is sterile Eastern Washington desert, reconsider. Lower Crab Creek is among the Northwest's richest wildlife habitats: 19,000 acres designated as Columbia National Wildlife Refuge and Washington state Lower Crab Creek Wildlife Area.

The Columbia National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1944 as a feature of the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project "for use as an inviolate sanctuary ... for migratory birds" and "as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife," including more than 150 species of birds.

Crab Creek also provides important habitat for migrating salmon. As the Northwest Power and Conservation Council writes: "Crab Creek Subbasin offers enormous opportunity to conduct fisheries enhancement to help mitigate for other fisheries that have been lost." Crab Creek provides spawning habitat for a summer/fall chinook salmon population that "returns to spawn in Red Rock Coulee year after year." Endangered summer-run steelhead also spawn in Lower Crab Creek. Rainbow trout are present throughout the creek and provide high-quality fisheries.

Washington's proposed Crab Creek Dam would cost $2.7 billion and flood tens of thousands of acres of wetlands, streams, lakes and shrub-steppe habitat. The dam would also flood up to 8,600 acres of existing farmland, requiring the state to use its eminent domain powers to condemn private property.

Why are elected officials pushing new dams? Their stated purposes are to provide water to industrial farms along the Columbia River; and, "augment" streamflow in the Columbia River for the benefit of endangered salmon.

Flooding farms in Lower Crab Creek to provide water to farmers elsewhere makes no sense. Nor does it make sense to flood out critical fishery habitat under the guise of helping migrating salmon — not to mention the water-quality problems that would occur when solar-heated, chemical-laden slackwater from Crab Creek Reservoir is released into the Columbia.

More than 500 people attend the popular Othello Crane Festival every spring and the town of Othello gets an economic lift from this marvelous gathering of thousands of sandhill cranes. These folks (kids, too) will be sick at heart if we build a huge dam that floods the Crab Creek wetlands. Where will the cranes go then?

With a $2.7 billion price tag, Crab Creek Dam is a bad deal all the way around. Farmers will never be able to pay the dam's cost, so you, the taxpayer, will pay.

A dam at Crab Creek would result in a tragic loss of wildlife, including the dancing and honking sandhill cranes. Wildlife can't talk to Congress. You can. Pick up the phone and tell your representatives to oppose new dams in Eastern Washington.

Estella Leopold is an emeritus professor with the University of Washington Department of Biology. She is the daughter of Aldo Leopold, considered the father of wildlife management and the country's wilderness system. Rachael Paschal Osborn is executive director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, with offices in Spokane, Seattle and Olympia.

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

John Osborn photo  

Bring Back Our Falls

by Rachael Paschal Osborn

The Pacific Northwest Inlander, May 14, 2008

(click here for original)

Imagine a hot summer day and a free-flowing waterfall in downtown Spokane, in the middle of a public park with a half-dozen walkways along the riverbanks and spanning the falls. Imagine the sound, the spray, the cooling presence of water.

Spokane has all the ingredients but one — the water. And it is not because the water isn't there. Sad to say, Upper Spokane Falls are dry in summer months not because nature made them that way, but because Avista Corporation is diverting all of the water into its Little Yellow Powerhouse, adjacent to the YMCA.

A free-flowing, central and accessible waterfall could be worth a lot to Spokane. It would certainly be a tourist attraction, something the Convention and Visitors Bureau could take to the bank. It would give proof to Spokane's motto, Near Nature Near Perfect. But sorry, no water. (Unless, of course, someone is making a movie.)

Dry falls look bad and do not provide economic benefits. So this river of water that Avista diverts into the Little Yellow Powerhouse must be quite valuable. Surely we would not squander the opportunities presented by a vibrant waterfall, right in the middle of our premier downtown park at the height of tourist season, unless it was worth a lot. Right?

Wrong.

In summer months, when river flows are low, the powerhouse contributes 2 to 3 megawatts (MW) to the grid. That translates to less than 1 percent of Avista's overall generating capability. The company's two Clark Fork dams are rated at 700 MW; Grand Coulee (for comparison) at 6,800 MW. The 2 MW of foregone power needed to restore Upper Spokane Falls are minuscule in the scheme of Northwest energy production.

Thankfully, the Department of Ecology has seen the light — or water. As part of the re-licensing of Upper Falls Dam, the agency has said "enough" to a dry riverbed. For the first time in a century, Upper Spokane Falls will flow during summer months.

But how much water? Avista has convinced the agency that the Little Yellow Powerhouse must never shut down. Hence, the proposed allocation of 300 cfs to the waterfalls will not fully restore scenic values, but will keep the turbines running. As the photo illustrates, 300 cfs creates a trickle in the north channel. While Ecology could require Avista to restore the falls, will the agency do it? Or will half-measures carry the day as usual in Spokane?

This need not be a zero sum game. Certainly Spokane is more than capable of conserving 2 to 3 megawatts of power in order to restore Upper Falls. How about "Buck-a-Block" for the waterfalls? This could be a component of the city's new sustainability campaign.

The opportunity to restore Upper Spokane Falls will not come again for 30 to 50 years. It was 1972 when Upper Falls Dam was last licensed and Avista bequeathed dry falls to our fair city. If you think we can do better, visit www.celp.org and send a message to the Department of Ecology, asking them to "free the falls." If you are willing to conserve energy to restore the waterfalls, let us know that, too.

___________________

Rachael Paschal Osborn is executive director of the Center for Environmental Law & Policy, a public interest group dedicated to restoring the rivers and aquifers of the Columbia River watershed. She can be reached at rosborn@celp.org or (509)-209-2899

Copyright © 2008 The Pacific Northwest Inlander

Kathy Admire photo

Sandhill Cranes, Crab Creek - site of proprosed dam.