4‐1

SESSION 4

Regional Challenges Water Quantity

“We forget that the water cycle and

the life cycle are one.” Jacques Cousteau

Spokane Falls by WHWise

SESSION GOALS

To better understand the regional challenges and some successes in resolving competing needs for water.

To become acquainted with major water management areas of the Pacific Northwest.

To learn about various water policies aimed at managing the region’s finite water supplies.

REFLECTION QUESTION

What is a competing demand for water resources

in your community? Who manages or resolves the demand?

Reminders to Facilitator: The Reflection Question moves quickly.

Each participant gives a brief answer without questions or comments from others. Also, there is a homework assignment for Session 5 at the end of this session.

4‐2

SESSION INTRODUCTION Throughout our existence the availability of fresh, clean water has determined the success or failure of the human experiment. History shows that civilizations have evolved only with access to adequate water resources. When water supplies have been interrupted, populations have secured new sources, migrated to areas of greater abundance, or simply collapsed. Within our region, the realities of expanding population and economy, impact of changing climate, and heightening competition for water are shifting the public viewpoint from an assumption of abundance toward a realization that we must manage water demand. How we plan for and take action on this imperative will strongly influence the odds for continuing prosperity in the Pacific Northwest. The opening article, Water Footprint, surveys water consumption by agriculture and industry in different parts of the world. The next laptop or roll of aluminum foil will likely enter the U.S. from abroad. An estimated 19 percent of the average American’s water footprint falls outside the U.S. What we do locally impacts our world. We are connected. The subsequent article outlines the relative size of agricultural, industrial, and municipal water use in the four regional states of the Pacific Northwest. With the exception of Alaska, agriculture consumes the lion’s share of water in Idaho, Oregon and Washington, making water use for food production critical to overall water supply. This session follows with three articles, Oregon’s Water Issues Run Deep, Death by 1,000 Wells, and Columbia River Basin, depicting the complex demand on water resources across Oregon and Washington and some of the impediments to resolving water conflicts. Closing this session, Alice Outwater’s “Water Solutions” shows the frustration and then the promise of working together to find solutions to our competing needs for water. None of these stories come with easy resolution. All illustrate the messiness inherent in the process of meting out shrinking water resources in the face of expanding demand. The question of how we as a society cope with these challenges is open, evolving, and worthy of our thoughtful consideration.

4‐3

Water Footprint? The Indirect Use Of Water In Agriculture And Industry by Petitjean Olivier This article appeared on partagedeseaux.info in October 2009. First publication: December 2008. Consumer goods and other industrial products, food and other agricultural products, energy etc.: there are few economic sectors that do not involve massive water consumption. All too often, industrial processes and economic models were developed without taking the need to conserve water into consideration. Some sectors are well known for using a lot of water. This is particularly the case of irrigation in agriculture, household and leisure use such as car-washing, golf courses, swimming pools... We are less aware of the amounts of water used in agricultural or industrial production. In the countries of the South, agriculture often uses 80% of the available water resources. In Europe, on the other hand, industry consumes 54% of water resources, far ahead of agriculture, which uses 33%. The energy sector also uses enormous amounts of water (read Climate Change and the "Water-Energy Nexus"). With the impacts of climate change, consumers are starting to worry about their carbon footprint, that is to say the amount of greenhouse gas emissions involved in transport and products that they buy. In like manner, advertising the “water footprint” of all products sold can prove to be particularly edifying. Dutch researchers launched a Water Footprint network, dedicated to calculating the water footprint of various products, sectors and countries and promoting water saving. This information is available on their Internet site at http://www.waterfootprint.org. Some agribusiness multinationals, especially Coca-Cola, whose impact on water resources has been seriously challenged in recent years, have recently launched marketing campaigns designed to "greenwash" their image in this area. Unilever announced that their tomato sauce for pasta now uses tomatoes from farmers who only use drip irrigation. This gesture is all the more significant as the company buys at least 7% of the global tomato production. In April 2009, the Finnish agribusiness, Raiso, became the first company in the sector to include the water footprint on the packaging of their products. The American chain, Wal-Mart, which is the biggest in the world, stated that they intend to develop a universal system of labelling for their products that states both the carbon and the water footprint. Coca-Cola now declares itself to be a “water-neutral” company (based on the expression “carbon-neutral”), in spite of their well-documented waste, on the pretext that they are involved in programmes restoring rivers or promoting rainwater harvesting. Although the concept of water footprint is relevant, that of “water neutral” appears more like a marketing gimmick, even more than that of “carbon-neutral”, which is already being seriously abused. Nevertheless most sectors are based on economic and industrial models that treat water as though it were a limitless resource – and the introduction of these new concepts does mark a limited form of progress.

4‐4

The use of water in agriculture Apart from the many other pitfalls, industrial agriculture uses a particularly high amount of water. It takes 180 litres to produce a single battery-farmed egg. Making one kilo of bread requires 1000 litres. One kilo of wheat needs 625 litres of water (555 million litres per hectare grown), one kilo of rice uses 3,000 litres and one kilo of meat requires even more (some sources talk of 25,000 litres, others 100,000 litres). The question of saving water are thus linked to our dietary regimes: according to the experts from the Worldwatch Institute, every 10 grammes of meat protein needs 5 times the amount of water required for 10 grammes of rice protein. If we compare the calories, the difference is even more remarkable, because it takes 20 times more water to produce 500 calories of meat than 500 calories of rice. It also takes 8 times more water to produce a given quantity of sugar compared with the same quantity of wheat. Of course the amount of water involved in making a product depends on the conditions where it is grown: making a litre of orange juice involves 22 litres of water in Brazil, and 1000 in the United States, where orange groves have to be irrigated. But on the other hand transporting Brazilian orange juice to the markets of the North, with the operations involved (concentrating and deep-freezing it) also consumes a huge amount of water. Fish farming also consumes a lot of water. Shrimp farming in India requires 50 times more water than growing rice. It involves intensive pumping of water that can lead to real quakes due to land caving in. This farming has become less profitable than rice farming, which has been abandoned in many regions. The use of water in industry Industry involves steam as well as using water to clean things, for air conditioning, cooling and freezing systems, and transport. Oil refineries, agribusiness, metallurgy, chemical industries as well as those manufacturing paper pulp and many others use vast quantities of water. The same holds true for mining activities, particularly gold mining. It takes: 18 liters of water to make 1 litre of petrol 13 000 liters of water to make one 6 inch wafer of silicone, an element used in making many electronic devices 400,000 liters of water to make a car 750,000 liters of water to make 1 ton of newspaper 8 tons of water per ton of final product are required for treating sand and bitumen in Morocco or Canada This massive use of water by industry also leads to very severe pollution by heavy metals, solvents and polychloride biphenols, oils, over and above any possible recuperation that can be carried out. In terms of saving water and developing a more rational use of the resource, industry is where the greatest efforts need to be made. The processes used are obviously the key. Between 1950 and 1990, industry in the United States reduced its water consumption by a third, although the

4‐5

volume of goods produced increased four-fold. Considerable progress has also been made in Sweden and Germany. The Worldwatch Institute quotes the instance of several companies that have launched ambitious water-saving plans. IBM is reputed to have saved 375 000 cubic meters of water in one year by more efficient use of water, and a further 315 000 by recycling. Columbia Steel economized 63 million cubic meters by rainwater harvesting and redesigning their cooling towers to recirculate water. As a final example, Unilever reduced their water consumption between 1998 and 2002 from 6.5 to 4.3 cubic liters per tons of products manufactured.

Nevertheless, specialists foresee that industrial use of water will double by 2025. The countries of the South that are in the process of industrialization, need to make greater progress in saving water. In China, it takes between 23 and 56 cubic meters of water to make one ton of steel, whereas the average in Germany, in the United States or in Japan is only 6 cubic meters.

To conclude, the quantitative aspects are of course decisive in evaluating the water footprint of a product or a process, but are not in themselves enough. It is also necessary to take at least the qualitative aspects into account (at least the degree of pollution of the waste water) and the geographical dimension (in which region of the world the water is being extracted and used). Water footprinting is an instrument that speaks for itself, but it is limited in what it can accomplish.

Water Use Information

Idaho Water Facts Information from http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/WaterManagement/WaterRights/wateruse.htm

The ability to calculate the typical amount of water needed for a specific task is important in water management planning. Water rights are limited to the quantity of water that can be beneficially used. Here are some water use standards used by IDWR to evaluate water right applications and claims.

Stock Watering * Cattle, Other Than Dairy - 12 gallons per day per cow * Dairy Cattle - 35 gallons per day per cow * Horse - 12 gallons per day per horse * Mule - 12 gallons per day per mule * Hog - 4 gallons per day per hog * Goat - 2 gallons per day per goat * Sheep - 2 gallons per day per sheep * Chickens - 5-10 gallons per day per 100 chickens * Turkeys - 10-18 gallons per day per 100 turkeys

4‐6

Overview Of Water Use In The Pacific Northwest These charts appeared on US EPA REGION 10: The Pacific Northwest in 2009. It is important to understand the relationship across the four states: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and the 267 tribes comprising EPA Region 10. The following charts depict fresh groundwater withdrawals within each of Region 10 States. The size of the circles shows the relative groundwater withdrawals between the states. Within each circle, the major uses: public supply, domestic and commercial, agriculture, industrial, thermoelectric power and mining. Alaska, with its smaller population, is enlarged to enable the withdrawal segments to be more easily read.

Alaska Total withdrawals 63 million gallons per day

ALASKA enlarged version:

Agriculture

Agriculture

Agriculture

Public Supply

Public Supply Industrial, mining, power

Domestic /Commercial

Domestic /Commercial

Industrial, mining, power

Public Supply

4‐7

Take

Oregon's Water Issues Run Deep By Les Zaitz, The Oregonian, April 25, 2009 © 2009 The Oregonian. All rights reserved. Used with permission of The Oregonian. SALEM -- Lobbyist Craig Campbell was chasing a favor when he phoned Gov. Ted Kulongoski in early 2007. The eastern Oregon farming interests who hired Campbell wanted a private meeting with the governor. Campbell once served on the governor's personal staff and knew Kulongoski would take his call. He dialed the governor's cell phone, and soon the executives and their high-powered lobbyists were face to face with Kulongoski. They were after one thing: water. The fact that water would trigger such an adroit use of political access underscores an issue sneaking up on most Oregonians. In a state that boasts about webbed feet, access to water is increasingly contested. The state estimates that in the coming years, demand will grow by 1.2 million acre-feet; we use about 9 million acre-feet now. Whoever controls the limited supply will control new housing and industry and how farming expands. Water is measured in acre-feet -- the amount that covers an acre to a depth of 1 foot -- and gallons. Oregonians use about 70 million gallons a day to drink, bathe and cook. Portland uses 136 gallons a day per person.

Who is the largest user of water in your watershed? Estimate their annual use.

Water Use in Idaho “Idaho is the second-largest water user in the United States, consuming 22.3 billion gallons per day. Only California uses more. On a per capita basis, Idaho is the nation's top water user -- 22,000 gallons per person daily. Idaho is also the country's fourth largest user of groundwater. Groundwater comprises only 22 percent of Idaho's total water use, but it accounts for nearly 95 percent of our drinking water.”

Source: “Idaho’s Water Resource” by Mahler and Van Steeter http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/wq/wqpubs/cis887.html

4‐8

Every product made in the state, from canned peaches to silicon wafers, takes water. The state lights up on power generated thanks to water. And now fish have arrived as a demanding customer. Powerful interests from federal judges to national environmental groups insist that more water be left in rivers for fish. That means less water for some at a time when people are demanding more. There's not much to divvy up. In summer, every gallon of water in every stream is already claimed. Aquifers, vast underground reservoirs, are proving a less reliable source for wells, and no one's sure how much water is there. "Every time we turn on a pump, we mine a certain amount of water," said Todd Jarvis, associate director of Oregon State University's Institute for Water and Watersheds. Rationing is replacing Oregon's use-all-you-want tradition. The state restricts well use in 14 areas in seemingly water-rich western Oregon. In one, the Victor Point zone east of Salem, all new groundwater pumping has been barred. Eastern Oregon has nine restricted areas. Haves, have-nots The farm executives who met with Kulongoski two years ago know big money is at stake when the state cuts off water. In the Umatilla Basin, farmers can grow about $150 worth of wheat on an acre of dry ground. If they can get an extra foot or two of irrigation water, they can switch to peas or potatoes or mint worth up to $3,500 an acre. Multiplied over thousands of acres in the basin, water can boost farm sales by millions. "An extra foot of water is very, very valuable," said Chester "Chet" Prior, who owns Eagle Ranch near Echo. That extra water has been harder to get since hydrologists concluded farmers were pumping too much out of the ground. The state overrode water rights dating back decades, ordering reduced pumping. South of Hermiston, farmers now get 10 percent of the groundwater they once were entitled to. Oregon has a history of clashes between the haves and the have-nots. "Water is up there with religion" in importance in settling the West, said John DeVoe. He leads the environmental group Oregon WaterWatch. Klamath County remains a poster child for what happens in modern water wars. The fight between fish and farmers got national attention, prompting intervention by then-Vice President Dick Cheney. For safety, federal scientists removed government plates from their vehicles before driving into the Klamath Basin. Water issues also emerged in central Oregon, where the Deschutes River was running far too low to properly support fish. The exploding growth in the area was pushing out farming, and new developments required more water.

4‐9

A coalition formed that included environmentalists, Native tribes, farmers, irrigation districts and cities. They agreed on a plan to restore flows to the Deschutes while allowing development to continue. Under the regional solution, now a national model, farmers sold off water rights and cities embarked on ambitious conservation programs that sent more water to the river. A "water bank" helped trade water, substituting irrigation water for underground water, and allowing more water to flow to the Deschutes. The prized Deschutes flows more fully than it has in years. "We're not creating water. We're moving water around," said Tod Heisler, executive director of the Deschutes Water Alliance. Umatilla Basin In the northeast corner of the state, public officials faced their own water challenges. Initially, Umatilla County authorities proposed a moratorium on new home wells. That would freeze development, but telling people they couldn't have a well at home struck some as un-American. "The guns started coming out. These were real fighting words," said Dennis Doherty, Umatilla County commissioner in Pendleton. Anticipating a big crowd, the Umatilla County Planning Commission moved its hearing on the freeze into the National Guard Armory in Hermiston. More than 500 people showed up for the October 2003 session. Facing withering opposition, the county retreated. Instead, county officials decided to more thoroughly identify the water problem -- and then fix it. An eclectic mix of local residents met as a task force month after month, learning about geology, hydrology and more. Farmers watched the work with keen interest. The Umatilla Basin, stretching from the river plateaus at Boardman east to the rolling hills around Pendleton, provides some of the country's most productive cropland. Sediment deposits over eons left a soil suitable for many crops. "Just add water," farmers say. And they have, cultivating more than 200,000 acres with water drawn from the Columbia River and tributaries or from wells tapping the deep water trapped in layers of basalt. The agriculture industry in the area devised the pivot irrigation system that spits out water in carefully measured doses. Farmers in the Umatilla Basin are considered among the most water-efficient on the planet.

4‐10

But signs emerged in the 1960s that irrigation wells were taking water out of the deep aquifers more quickly than nature could put it in. In 1991, the state had a line around 63,500 acres of farmland and ordered immediate reductions in pumping. Farmers had to find a way to replace nearly 70 percent of the 190,000 acre-feet they had a right to pump. Columbia River The county's task force hoped to find a way to replace that water. It was kept on task by Kent Madison, an innovative farmer from Echo. Madison's operation was hurt when the state ordered well reductions. He was better off than some, though, because he had rights to tap the Columbia River, the last farmer in the area to get such a right before the state put that source off limits. Madison was convinced the river could solve the basin's water problems. He couldn't imagine that taking a fraction of the daily flow would do any harm. But fans of fish thought otherwise. Key federal agencies have long insisted the Columbia River couldn't be touched from spring until fall, when fish were hatching and traveling. Another powerful force stood between Madison and the river -- the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla. The tribes also insisted no harm come to the river, where they hold historic treaty fishing rights. Most leaders in the region understood there never would be a water deal if the tribes weren't part of it. And those on the task force wouldn't be hurried. They had to boost water supplies in a way that would sell politically in the basin -- and in Salem. By all accounts, they surrendered personal ambitions for that grander goal. "They were working together. They were doing the right thing for the right reason," said Doherty, the county commissioner. The effort caught attention in Salem. "It's powerful when you have all these interests sitting together saying, 'This is the direction we want to go,'" said Phil Ward, state Water Resources Department director. The task force was struggling for solutions when a well-known utility executive asked for time on the agenda. Steve Eldrige, general manager of the Umatilla Electric Cooperative, sat before the task force in January 2007. Without warning, he laid out an elaborate and surprising plan to get more water. Stunned task force members sensed trouble ahead. They were right.

4‐11

For first time, Oregon looks to future of water supply Oregon is one of only two states in the nation without a plan for the future of its water supply. The state's power to control water dates back 100 years to a law that declared the public owned every gallon, no matter the source. The state took charge of handing out the right to use water, issuing certificates for years with little restraint. State officials gave away more water than existed. They could do so because a water right, despite its name, was no guarantee. When water levels drop in a river, the last person to get water rights must step away, yielding to those who were first. That happens regardless of who most needs the water. The calendar, not the state, dictates water use. That explains why in a century of water management, the state Water Resources Department didn't plan for the future of Oregon's water supply. It's using the first-ever forecast of state water needs to change that. Alaska is the only other state without such a plan. Leaders and organizations, many from the west side of Oregon, have banged the pans to draw attention to the state's looming water issues. The Oregon Business Plan laid out an aggressive blueprint to better manage water, warning that factors such as climate change and more people will strain what we have. "All of Oregon faces major challenges to its ability to supply safe, sustainable water services to agriculture, businesses and citizens," the Business Plan concluded last fall. The report was written by Gail Achterman, a Portland attorney and natural resources authority. Separately, the League of Women Voters of Oregon examined the status of water for months. In its report in February, the league hoped the public would conserve and "protect our scarce water resources." "A lot of people turn on the tap and don't think much about where it comes from," said Marnie Lonsdale, who helped lead the league study. In 2007, business and environmental groups normally at political war set aside their differences. The groups told legislators that though they rarely agree about water, they were united in supporting a bigger budget for the state Water Resources Department. They testified that the agency is essential to "guiding Oregon through a time when the demands for water exceed the available resources and water is becoming critical to the long-term economic and environmental success of the state." The Legislature approved a modest increase. State Sen. Jackie Dingfelder, D-Portland, who has worked on water issues in her legislative career, said every Oregonian must understand that demand will outstrip supply. "With climate change and increasing demand, it's just a matter of time," Dingfelder said.

4‐12

Death by a Thousand Wells Unregulated wells strain short water supplies in Washington’s Yakima Basin and throughout the West By Cally Carswell, High Country News, October 26, 2009

Joe Peck would rather go to jail than close his city's water tap. But every time drought parches the dry side of the Cascade Mountains, the state of Washington orders him to shut its valve. Peck is water superintendent for Roslyn, Wash., a community of about 1,000 residents in upper Kittitas County, high in the Yakima River watershed. In dry years, Roslyn's 1908 rights to Domerie Creek aren't senior enough to keep its toilets flushing. The first time the state ordered Peck to shut the water off, in 2001, he leased water from the nearby resort Suncadia. That kept Roslyn's faucets flowing that summer and again in 2004 and 2005. But Peck still had to curtail water use. As Roslyn's lawns turned brown, he bristled, watching new homes and subdivisions -- some within sight of town -- continue to water their plush grass. Such development, much of it built within the last decade, flies under the regulatory radar because it relies almost exclusively on permit-exempt domestic groundwater wells. Under a 1945 state law, wells drawing 5,000 gallons a day or less for household use don't require a permit. Neither do wells for watering a small lawn or garden, livestock or minor industrial use. Under the doctrine of prior appropriation, in which the oldest claims are first in line for water, domestic wells, like all groundwater rights, should fall behind surface water rights. But while Washington law recognizes that groundwater and surface water are connected, the state restricts groundwater withdrawals only if their impact on more senior rights can be shown. Such connections are especially hard to prove for exempt wells, which are scattered and individually draw small amounts of water. So they operate unrestricted even during extreme droughts, while Roslyn must cut back. "There's no equity in that," says Jeri Porter, Roslyn's mayor. The Washington Department of Ecology agrees. In a presentation to the Western States Water Council this August, Ecology's then-director, Jay Manning, called exempt wells "water management's Achilles' heel." Every Western state except Utah has some version of Washington's domestic well exemption. The original logic was basically this: Domestic wells didn't consume enough water to have a measurable impact on existing water rights, so putting homesteaders through a cumbersome permitting process was more trouble than it was worth. But with exempt wells lubricating rapid residential development in river basins where water is already completely spoken for –– from Washington's Yakima Basin to the Gallatin Basin in Montana to the Mimbres Basin in New Mexico –– whether that's still true is up for debate. In Montana, for example, nearly 30,000 exempt wells were drilled between 2000 and 2008, 70 percent of them in the state's four fastest-growing counties. "We know by hydrologic principle that it's a problem, but we can't say this river is dry because of it," says Laura Ziemer, director of Trout Unlimited's Montana Water Project. "By the time you get to the point where you can conclusively measure it, it's too late."

4‐13

Drilled Wells on Record with Ecology: Water Well Logs per 40 Acres Source: www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/wells

4‐14

Kittitas County has also boomed. It was the third-fastest-growing county in Washington between 2000 and 2007. Building in the rural upper reaches surged around 2006, significantly outpacing development in the lower county. New water rights haven't been available in Kittitas for more than 15 years, so most of that growth was supported by exempt wells. Some 3,000 have been drilled since 1998. Many of those supply water to multiple homes or even entire subdivisions, and not always legally, according to Tom Tebb, regional director for the Department of Ecology's water resources program. In 2006, Kittitas County had authority from the state to approve group use of a single exempt well for up to 14 homes; larger subdivisions required a water permit. But developers sidestepped the rule by clustering multiple 10- to 14-lot projects, each under a different limited liability company, or LLC, together. In one case that year, the county signed off on four 14-lot developments as if they were unrelated, entitling each to pump 5,000 gallons of water a day from an exempt well. All four parcels bordered one another, would share a single road, and were originally owned by the same man, who in one day sold them all to different LLCs, three of which he had a stake in. To Ecology, this was one development, and required a water permit under a 2002 Supreme Court decision that said a single subdivision can't pump more than 5,000 gallons of water a day from exempt wells. Ecology challenged the county's approval of three of the developments, and none were built. Still, they raised red flags for a few activists, who petitioned the agency in 2007 to impose a moratorium on all new groundwater withdrawals in the county, noting particular concern about the proliferation of exempt wells. Ecology opted instead to negotiate well limits with county commissioners. But almost two years later, no agreement had been reached. "(The county) is unwilling to confront the water adequacy issue," says Rachael Paschal Osborn, executive director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, a supporter of the petition. "They're extremely conservative, very pro-growth. They don't care that the rural values they purport to enshrine are actually being lost because of the land-use policies they endorse." So this July, Ecology took unprecedented action, declaring a 120-day emergency ban on new wells in upper Kittitas County. The agency was concerned "that an already water-short basin is being stretched to the breaking point," Director Manning wrote in Ellensburg's Daily Record. Columbia River Basin Program develops new water supplies, serves as model for future water management By Joye Redfield-Wilder, Communications Manager, Ecology Central Region Ecology publication #09-11-008

Serving as a model for how water may be managed in the future, a comprehensive approach is being taken to develop new water supplies in arid Eastern Washington. Authorized by the 2006 Legislature and supported by a broadbased coalition of stakeholders, the

4‐15

Columbia River Basin Program makes $200 million available to develop water supplies that enhance stream flows for fish and meet the out-of-stream needs of cities, farms, and industry in the Columbia River Basin. The program seeks to get water to where it is needed when it is needed and does so by a formula that recognizes both economic and environmental values. It encourages conservation, explores innovative storage alternatives, and examines current and future water demands. “These projects provide an array of opportunities to develop new water supplies along the Columbia River,” said Jay Manning, director of Ecology. “They will help us to manage our water more efficiently and in turn make water available to support growing communities and declining fish runs. It’s a winning formula for the many competing interests along the river.” Piping unlined irrigation canals, storing water both above and below ground, recharging declining aquifers and making existing water delivery systems more efficient are among the ways saved water will be made available for new water rights or released to the river when fisheries need it the most. The program is: • Tapping into storage behind Grand Coulee Dam to bring water to as many as 100 small cities,

deliver replacement water to farmers in the Odessa Subarea where aquifers are declining, and provide stream flow enhancements for fisheries.

• Exploring projects that capture water in the winter and store it underground in basalt formations

or wells to make it available in the summer for cities and fisheries. Projects are underway for the city of Kennewick, Boise Cascade at Wallula, the city of White Salmon, and the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie.

• Funding projects like one in Benton County at Barker Ranch that will make water delivery

more efficient by converting open ditches to a closed pipe system. The result: less water diverted from the Yakima River, adding as much as 6,436 acre-feet, or 2 billion gallons of water, to stream flows when fish need it the most.

• Making $1 million available to the Washington Conservation Commission to identify viable

conservation projects in coordination with local conservation districts to develop regional water supplies.

• Investigating potential aquifer storage, storage of surface water off of river and stream

channels, and pump exchange projects that will increase stream flows in critical reaches while providing water for farms and communities. Projects in Chelan, Stevens, Benton, Yakima, and Walla Walla counties are among those being explored.

For more information on the Columbia River Basin Program go to: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/crwmp.html

4‐16

Water Solutions: Saving the Klamath How the tribes of the Klamath River stood up for the salmon—and won. by Alice Outwater , YES! Magazine, Summer 2010 It was a dramatic scene in a classic Western water war: Thousands of dead fish, washed up on the shores of the Klamath River. A move meant to help farmers—using Klamath water to irrigate crops—triggered a loss for Indian tribes and the salmon. That was five years ago, when a detente in the battle was nowhere in sight. As with many Western rivers, irrigators own nearly all of the water in the Klamath. The river, which straddles the border between Oregon and California, irrigates fields and generates electricity, but it also serves as fish habitat. The Klamath River was once the third largest salmon fishery on the West Coast, producing roughly a million salmon a year. The upper reaches of the Klamath were migrating along the Pacific Flyway, a nursery for tens of millions of fish, and home to two unique species of suckers. The conflict between Klamath-area farmers and fishermen has lasted for decades, complete with lawsuits and public relations campaigns, a disastrous political intervention, and a thrilling finale. But this year, after 15 years of meetings, an agreement was forged to allow the parties to share water; a related agreement calls for removing four dams. The linchpin? The Yurok and Klamath tribes. Indian treaties from the 19th century give the Yurok and Klamath the right to speak for the salmon. Through these treaties, the tribes established the salmon’s right to water and required that the river be managed with the health of migrating salmon in mind. Since Indian treaty rights predate the farmers’ rights, salmon have priority over crops. In 1994, the Yurok formed a fisheries program to develop the legal, political, and biological expertise to restore the Klamath Basin. “We’re salmon people,” says Yurok tribal member Troy Fletcher. “The existence of the Yurok people depends on the health of the Klamath and its fisheries. This is something the creator provided the tribe, and it is the responsibility of the tribe to have healthy fisheries.” But first, a deal had to be made. How the Water Was Won Water is scarce in most Western states, and the laws governing its use date all the way back to the mining days of the 1800s, when mine owners diverted the high mountain streams to power mills that crushed ore; open-pit miners also used water to separate gold from gravel. But rather than allow one person to divert the entire stream, individual mining camps divided the flow into water rights based on the location of the diversion, the amount of water taken, and the date the right was established. Water courts, set up shortly after Western territories became states, enforced these rules. A water right keeps its original date no matter how many times it’s bought and sold; earlier rights have priority.

4‐17

When ranchers and farmers moved in, salable water rights worked as a way to cope with low rainfall. Farmers without a stream running through their property, for example, could buy rights to use water from a neighbor’s stream. Ranchers and farmers own between 75 percent and 95 percent of the surface flow in Western states, while government-funded dams have helped provide water for holders of more recent water rights—cities. By the 1960s, most Western rivers were dammed, and irrigators with frontier-era water rights drained many rivers. Since then, fish populations have crashed, and rivers have become battlegrounds for fishermen, farmers, ranchers, tribes, utilities, businesses, environmentalists, and recreationists. With modern irrigation systems, farmers can cultivate the same acreage using much less water. But according to mining-era laws, you lose rights to water you don’t use. So across the West, farmers grow wet-weather crops on arid land with inefficient irrigation methods in order to avoid losing their water rights. Meanwhile, cities run dry. In a reasonable world, some of a river’s flow would be diverted for agriculture, and some of the flow would remain in the river to nurture the fish. But when water is privately owned, those management decisions are more difficult. Take the Klamath Basin, where farmers own 93 percent of the surface water. Starting in 1905, the federal government began draining much of the Klamath Basin wetlands and lakes for farmland. Today, farmers there cultivate about 500,000 acres of irrigated cropland adjacent to six national wildlife refuges, which serve as a stopover for migratory birds and shelter the largest wintering population of bald eagles in the contiguous United States. The Bureau of Reclamation built two dams on the Klamath and dammed many of its tributaries, while utilities built three others downstream. Upstream farmers divert most of the water to irrigate crops, and manure and fertilizers contaminate the river’s reduced flow. Dams slow the flow, the water heats up, and pollutants breed algae that color the river a bright pea green every summer. The river is so badly damaged that the Klamath’s coho salmon face extinction. Indian treaties from the 19th century give the Yurok and Klamath the right to speak for the salmon ... Since Indian treaty rights predate the farmers’ rights, salmon have priority over crops. Enter the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Native American treaty rights. The ESA protects the habitat that endangered plants and animals need to survive. The Lost River sucker and the shortnose sucker, two species of formerly plentiful lake fish in the Klamath Basin, were listed as endangered in 1988; the Klamath coho salmon was listed in 1997. According to the ESA, these fish have the right to survive and need water for habitat. And by treaty, the Yurok and Klamath tribes have the right to catch them. When the Yurok treaty was ratified in 1855, the tribe retained its right to fish for salmon. In 1864, the Klamath tribe was granted a federally reserved fishing right. Since water rights are based on prior appropriation, the Indian treaty rights to fish trump the farmers’ rights to irrigate. During the drought of 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shut off the irrigation water from Clear Lake to protect endangered suckers and was sued by a group of farmers and ranchers from the Langell Valley. More lawsuits followed. In 1995, U.S. Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., assembled the Klamath Basin stakeholders and asked them to resolve the water impasse. Local businesses, farmers, ranchers, utilities, conservation groups, the commercial fishing industry, and the tribes were represented in the working group,

4‐18

and Hatfield promised that if they came up with a solution, he’d make it happen. He retired two years later, but the meetings continued. In 2001, the Klamath Basin received half its normal rainfall, and a group of environmentalists and the fisheries industry sued the Bureau of Reclamation to limit water deliveries to farmers. Scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service concurred, and the Bureau of Reclamation cut off water to the 1,200 farmers in the Klamath’s upper basin. The farmers lost their crops, for which the government compensated them $36 million. The next year was dry as well but the farmers had no intention of losing their water a second time. The Klamath Bucket Brigade, a grassroots organization of farmers, had a message for Washington, D.C., from rural America: They claimed that the Endangered Species Act threatens the nation’s economic health, and rural property rights were being abused. Their plight struck a chord with the Bush administration, and the irrigators got their full measure of water in 2002. Interior Secretary Gale Norton flew in to open the ditch gates herself. By the end of the summer, low water and high temperatures triggered a bacterial infection that left at least 34,000 dead salmon rotting in the Klamath River. The waste of those tens of thousands of chinook salmon—some of the last Klamath salmon on Earth— shocked all the parties involved into recognizing that even though farmers held rights, what was happening was wrong. Everyone was “totally frustrated,” said Fletcher, who helped negotiate the agreement for the Yurok. “They were broke, and beat up by Congress and the administration. All of the parties tried litigation. All tried political routes. And in the end, it turns out that the communities in the basin are the ones who know best how to solve the problems they’re faced with.” On Feb. 18, 2010, all 28 parties signed an agreement to restore the Klamath Basin. “The Klamath River, which for years was synonymous with controversy, is now a stunning example of how cooperation and partnership can resolve difficult conflicts,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in announcing the agreement. The 369-page plan includes habitat restoration and flow management. Water is provided for agriculture, but the levees around the lakes will be breached, wetlands restored, and, according to the companion agreement, four dams removed to allow salmon access to hundreds of miles of spawning streams while improving water quality. The plans amount to a compromise; no interest group got all it wanted. And federal money still must be set aside. It’s a daunting task, Fletcher said. “Now we have to make it happen.” Alice Outwater wrote this article for Water Solutions, the Summer 2010 issue of YES! Magazine. Alice is a writer based in Durango, Colo. She is the author of Water: A Natural History and co-author of The Cartoon Guide to the Environment.

4‐19

POSSIBLE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Water Footprint? takes the concept of water footprint from the personal arena to industry

and agriculture. What are the hidden components of our collective water footprint from the products and food we consume? How much water does it take to support our lifestyle?

2. Agriculture, manufacturing, hydroelectric power, environmental and domestic needs all use fresh water. Looking at water use in the Pacific Northwest, what do you think of the current balance of water use by these competing needs?

3. Who are the large water users in your community? Based on what you have learned, do you believe there is an ample supply of water in your community to support these needs?

4. “Oregon's Water Issues Run Deep” by Les Zaitz and “Columbia River Basin” demonstrate the complexity of water issues facing all of us in the Pacific Northwest. What demands are felt within your community?

5. “Death by a Thousand Wells” presents a tough choice, continued economic development or preserving water for current water users. What happens when you say, “no more growth”?

6. Alice Waters “Water Solutions” shows both the frustration and the promise of working together to find solutions to our competing needs for water.

7. Who manages your local watershed, how is it done, and what are the hot buttons? ASSIGNMENT FOR SESSION 5 – Facilitator please note.

Please bring a local article (news, research or other) that pertains to water quality in your watershed or neighborhood for discussion at Session 5 “Regional Challenges Water Quality”. FURTHER READING & RESOURCES EPA Region 10: the Pacific Northwest: Water and Watersheds

Website: yosemite.epa.gov/R10/ Bonneville Power Administration

Website: bpa.gov/corporate University of Idaho: Idaho Water Resources Research Institute

Website: .iwrri.uidaho.edu Oregon State University: Institute for Water and Watersheds

Website: water.oregonstate.edu

This curriculum contains material reprinted with permission. Opinions expressed within articles are those of the authors and may not represent those of Washington State University Extension. Articles are presented to promote discussion of topics related to water use. Issued by Washington State University Extension and the U.S. Department of Agriculture in furtherance of the Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914. Extension programs and policies are consistent with federal and state laws and regulations on nondiscrimination regarding race, sex, religion, age, color, creed, and national or ethnic origin; physical, mental, or sensory disability; marital status or sexual orientation; and status as a Vietnam-era or disabled veteran. Evidence of noncompliance may be reported through your local WSU Extension office. Trade names have been used to simplify information; no endorsement is intended.