WaterWatch opposes HB 2406 – “Son of OASIS”

Please oppose the permanent withdrawal of up to 132,000 acre-feet annually from the Columbia River in violation of existing legal protections of Columbia River salmon.  
Like its failed predecessors in the 2007 session (SB 483/SB 610/HB 3525), HB 2406 would circumvent existing protections for imperiled Columbia River salmon and steelhead. Federal fisheries managers have set minimum needed river flows (“target flows”) that federal agencies, together with state agencies and some irrigation districts are working to meet. Strategies include augmenting river flows in the dry season to help ensure enough water is in the river. Idaho and Montana annually release approximately 1,450,000 acre-feet of stored water to help meet downstream target flows. Oregon has established a number of programs to help protect our Columbia and Snake River fish and the rivers upon which they depend. HB 2406 would undermine or eliminate these protections for these fish.

WaterWatch of Oregon opposes HB 2406. 

1.  HB 2406 would circumvent state rules and programs that protect imperiled salmon and steelhead.  To address recognized dry season flow problems in the river and help recover endangered fish, Oregon adopted rules that limit new water withdrawals to, among other things, ensure no further diminishment of critical seasonal flows in the Columbia system (OAR 690-33, “Sensitive Stock” rules). The Sensitive Stock rules set seasonal limits (April 15 though September 30) on new water appropriations. These limits coincide in time with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s flow augmentation schedule in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. HB 2406 will circumvent these salmon protection rules and allow 132,000 acre feet of water withdrawals (that would not meet the reasonable exemptions of the Sensitive Stock rules) during critical summer months when federal and state agencies in the region are working together to meet target flows needed for fish.

In addition, HB 2406 would undermine the state’s current “bucket for bucket” water mitigation policy that applies to new Columbia River diversions in this region that may affect flow targets set in the Biological Opinion for listed fish under the Endangered Species Act.

2. HB 2406 undermines the collaborative efforts of a coalition of Umatilla Basin water users to appropriate available winter water from the Columbia River for the Umatilla Basin Aquifer Recovery Project. Oregon has determined that water is currently available from the Columbia River during most winter months, when Oregon’s fishery protection rules do not limit withdrawals. In 2008 the Legislature adopted SB 1069, which, in part, directed $750,000 to study the feasibility of the Umatilla Basin Aquifer Recovery Project. The Governor’s recommended 2009-2011 Budget includes the use of Lottery Revenue proceeds to fund this project. A broad coalition of Umatilla water users is on the path to capture winter water in a way that will not undermine fish protections. HB 2406 backers want a “free pass” to Columbia River water during the summer months when withdrawals will harm imperiled fish. HB 2406 undermines the existing collaborative process.

3. HB 2406 will not result in the replenishment of groundwater: HB 2406 boosters state that 1/3 of 132,000acre feet (roughly 44,000 acre feet) would be used to “replenish” groundwater in critical groundwater areas. However, nothing in the bill directs this result. The bill simply allows new Columbia River surface water allocations to groundwater users who have been regulated due to declining groundwater tables in the area. This will not replenish troubled aquifers in the area. Importantly, current law allows aquifer recharge projects that could replenish critical groundwater in the area without any statutory change.

4. Water allocations under HB 2406 are permanent, not temporary. The bill boosters are dubbing this bill the “interim resolution” for groundwater restoration in the Umatilla Basin, and even claim the rights issued under this bill would be “temporary” rights. To the contrary, the bill will result in permanent water rights for 132,000 acre feet from the Columbia that are not affected by any future groundwater recharge projects or statutory sunsets.

5. HB 2406 ignores the significant economic interests and benefits of healthy rivers and undermines recovery efforts for imperiled Columbia River fish. HB 2406 fails to protect the longstanding and significant economic contribution that commercial and recreational fishing provides to the Oregon economy. Recreational fishing is one of Oregon’s fastest growing industries in the 21st century. Columbia River salmon and steelhead are critical to both of these industries. But the native fish of the Columbia River, and also the industries that depend on them, have suffered severe declines in recent decades. In the Northwest, sport fishing contributes 3.5 billion dollars annually to the economies of Oregon, Washington and Idaho. Personal communication Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association (June 10, 2005). Commercial fishing adds another billion dollars. Id. HB 2406 also ignores the economic and cultural value of healthy fisheries to Native American Tribes. Oregon cannot afford to allow HB 2406 to further undermine these interests.

6. HB 2406 proponents fail to tell the whole story. The bill boosters compare Oregon’s Columbia River water usage to that in other Columbia Basin states. They also compare their proposed use to annual average total flows on the Columbia to minimize their demands. Oasis proponents make much of the fact that Washington and Idaho use more Columbia River water than Oregon. Yet simple geography shows why Oregon’s use of the river should be expected to be less than that of either of these states. Before sharing the Oregon/Washington border, the Columbia traverses north through the entire state of Washington, while one would be hard pressed to find any of Idaho that is not drained by the a tributary to the Columbia. Oregon, in contrast, has sizable and important non-Columbia basins such as the Rogue, Umpqua and Klamath that are utilized for agricultural irrigation. The Oasis Project Report fails to provide a meaningful context for its comparative state withdrawal numbers. Proponents also fail to note that Washington requires measurement of Columbia Basin water diversions. For pre-1993 water rights not held directly by an irrigation district, Oregon does not.

The fact that the Columbia discharges, on average, a total amount of 198,000,000 acre-feet of water per year does not help illuminate the potential impacts of withdrawing more water during certain key times of the year.  Average or total flows of a river reveal nothing about critical low flow periods or what the habitat needs of fish are during any specific period on the river. Further, there is never a “flow” of 198 million acre-feet, rather this is the cumulative amount discharged at the mouth over the course of an average year. In fact, on July 16 2001, the daily discharge of the John Day pool was only 156,420 acre-feet of water.

7. The Proposed Oasis Water Withdrawals Would Further Reduce Water Management Flexibility When Climate Change Should Urge the Opposite Goal. 

One of the proponents of the 2007 Oasis legislation, James Anderson, testified before the Oregon legislature that with climate change:

Perpetuating existing flow policies would be even more wasteful than they are currently, and would limit the ability of water managers to allocate water appropriately in a new climate regime.  (March 22, 2007 “Oasis Project Report”).

The new climate regime, Anderson explained, is predicted to include lower summer flows such as those that occurred in 2001.  Id.  Yet, limiting the ability of water managers is exactly what the Oasis proposal would do by allocating yet more summer water from the Columbia River. In its report on Columbia River flows and proposed additional Washington withdrawals, the National Research Council (NRC) made a similar point about needed water management flexibility:

Decisions regarding the issue of additional water withdrawal permits are matters of public policy, but if additional permits are issued, they should include specific conditions that allow withdrawals to be discontinued during critical periods.  Allowing for additional demand, low flows, and comparatively high water temperatures identified in this report would increase the risks to survivability to listed salmon stocks and would reduce management flexibility during these periods.

NRC, Committee on Water Resources Management, Instream Flows, and Salmon Survival in the Columbia River, “Managing the Columbia River: Instream River Flows, Water Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival” (2004) at 197.

The NRC Report also addressed climate change in its Epilogue:

Migratory behavior and survival rates of salmon are also affected by low river flows. This situation is especially troubling because of prospective future climate warming (which could entail not only higher water temperatures but also further decreases in low flows) and demands for additional diversions of Columbia River water during low-flow periods.Further increases in water temperature and further reductions in low flows would exacerbate risks to salmon survival. As this report has noted, the effects of prospective additional withdrawals in July (234,000 acre-feet) could be substantial. July is a period of high demand for Columbia River water. The upper end of the range of prospective additional withdrawals considered in this study would increase July withdrawals from their current value of roughly 6.8 percent of mean Columbia River flows to roughly 8.6 percent. Under minimum July flow conditions, the effects would be greater: the upper end of the proposed range of diversions would increase current July withdrawals from roughly 16.6 to 21 percent of Columbia River minimum flows.

Id. at p. 199, Epilogue.
In the face of climate change, reducing flexibility by allocating additional water without mitigation during low flow periods simply does not make sense. That is precisely what HB 2406 would do.

Contacts:  
John DeVoe, WaterWatch of Oregon (503-295-4039 x1) john (at) waterwatch (dot) org

David Moskowitz, Confluence Consulting (971-235-8953) dmosk (at) confluenceconsultingnw (dot) com