Yakima River
Washington State Chapter
Yakima River Basin Irrigation
Water Withdrawal and Voluntary Conservation
Yakima water rights were divided by a 1945 Federal District Court Consent Degree into non-proratable (Senior water rights) and proratable (Junior water rights):
Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan DPEIS, page 3-20, Table 3-7 (BuRec/Ecology, November 2011).
There is plenty of water for Senior irrigation districts and that the Roza Irrigation District and Kittitas Reclamation District, along with the Kennewick Irrigation District, are the most vulnerable because they have NEVER been entitled to water during a drought year.
The history of the Yakima Basin has been to ignore water conservation/water banking opportunities and to waste time and taxpayer money lobbying for new storage dams for those irrigation districts with Junior water rights.
SUMMARY
•There are ongoing (voluntary) water conservation measures taking place under the 1979/1994 Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project. This is included in the "no-action" alternative (meaning that ongoing programs would continue because they are considered the status quo, not that no action at all would take place).
•The Yakima Plan focuses on Enhanced (voluntary) Water Conservation that are above and beyond those taking place under YRBWEP.
•The early action implementation list does not include any funding for enhanced water conservation. (The dam funding buckets are full, the enhanced water conservation bucket is empty. Not all buckets are moving forward (due to the lack of effort by the AR/NWF reps on the Workgroup).
•ALL water conservation proposals, whether under YRBWEP or the Integrated Plan remain VOLUNTARY.
BACKGROUND
See Yakima Timeline: http://www.washington.sierraclub.org/uppercol/ucr/yakima/timeline.html
In 2012, the Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec) and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) issued a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for a Yakima “Integrated Plan.” This plan includes seven elements, including two new dams for irrigators (Bumping Lake and Wymer) costing billions of dollars, as well as an “Enhanced Water Conservation Element.” The Enhanced Water Conservation Element is projected to save approximately 170,000 acre-feet of water during average years, with an additional 30-60,000 acre feet of water available through the Market Reallocation Element. Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan DPEIS, page 2-35 (BuRec/Ecology, November 2011). [For more information on Water Banking in Washington see Ecology’s 2004 report to the Legislature: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0411030.pdf ]
The Yakima Integrated Plan Enhanced Water Conservation Element is VOLUNTARY “because Reclamation and Ecology do not have the legal authority to require water conservation measures.” Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan FPEIS, page CR-11 (BuRec/Ecology, March 2012).
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/reports/FPEIS/fpeis.pdf
It is important to recognize that this water savings is in ADDITION to water savings that was supposed to have been carried out under the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP) passed by Congress in 1979 (See below).
Prior to construction of BuRec dams, in 1902, about 121,000 acres were irrigated in the Yakima River Basin. Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, Washington DPEIS, page 6 (BuRec, April 1998). Now, approximately 450,000 acres are irrigated from the BuRec Yakima Project. Five BuRec reservoirs (Keechelus, Kachess, and Cle Elum on the Yakima River; Bumping Lake on the Bumping River and Rimrock on the Tieton River (tributaries to the Naches River) have a total capacity of 1,065,400 acre-feet (30 percent of average annual runoff). Snowmelt provides the majority of spring and summer runoff. The total April through September “entitlement diversions” for Yakima irrigation districts is approximately 2.41 million acre feet. Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan DPEIS, pages 1-7; 1-11; 3-19 (BuRec/Ecology, November 2011).
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/reports/DPEIS/DPEIS.pdf
Yakima water rights were divided by a 1945 Federal District Court Consent Degree into non-proratable (Senior water rights) and proratable (Junior water rights).
Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan DPEIS, page 3-20, Table 3-7 (BuRec/Ecology, November 2011).
It is apparent from the above table that there is plenty of water for Senior irrigation districts and that the Roza Irrigation District and Kittitas Reclamation District, along with the Kennewick Irrigation District, are the most vulnerable because they have NEVER been entitled to water during a drought year.
The history of the Yakima Basin has been to ignore water conservation/water banking opportunities and to waste time and taxpayer money lobbying for new storage dams for those irrigation districts with Junior water rights.
1979 YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
For the BuRec it has always been about dams and storage. During the late 1960s and 1970s, the BuRec lobbied hard for Congress to authorize a new 450,000 acre-foot Bumping Lake Dam, southwest of Goose Prairie, WA within the then Wenatchee National Forest (now Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest). Environmental and conservation organizations, with the help of then-Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas waged a major campaign against the proposed BuRec project. Instead of passing bills introduced in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to build a new Bumping Lake Dam, Congress passed the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP) (P.L. 96-162). Phase I of the YRBWEP involved installing fish screens and fish ladders at water diversions in the early 1980s. The BuRec also studied 35 potential new storage dam sites.
1994 YRBWEP PHASE II
In 1994 Congress passed P.L. 103-434 (Title XII) establishing a voluntary water conservation program for the Yakima Basin (also called YRBWEP Phase II) to alleviate water shortage in the Yakima River basin. Under Phase II:
• Water conservation measures2/3 water conserved goes to instream flow, 1/3 to irrigation entity
• Federal cost ceiling is $115 million in 2007 dollars
2/3 to be federally funded, 1/3 state and local entity funded
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/images/pdf/ppt_files/anchor-ppt.pdf
A YRBWEP Basin Conservation Plan was published in October 1999. Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan DPEIS, pages 1-17 to 1-18 (BuRec/Ecology, November 2011).
The Basin Conservation Plan does not appear to be available on the BuRec website. However, a November 2002 Interim Comprehensive Basin Operating Plan with historical information is available at:
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/reports/operatingplan/finaliop.pdf
Under Title XII, the BuRec prepared a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on the YRBWEP in April 1998. According to the BuRec, the Basin Conservation Program had a goal of achieving 165,000 acre-feet of water savings in eight years. Of this, water savings on the Wapato Irrigation Project would be 50,000 acre-feet. Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, Washington DPEIS, page 33 (BuRec, April 1998).
Anchor Environmental prepared an “Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study” for Ecology, dated March 3, 2008. It was designed “to determine what an aggressive program of water conservation could accomplish for meeting water supply needs in the Yakima basin without a new storage reservoir.” It examined water conservation by irrigation districts, on-farm, municipal, commercial and industrial water users, and pumping from the Columbia River. It included more conservation measures than those to be implemented in YRBWEP.
The study estimated potential conserved water under the YRBWEP to be 157,200 acre-feet/year with instream flow benefit estimated to be 84,700 acre-feet, and irrigation water supply benefit estimated to be 42,500 acre-feet/year. The report identified an additional 229,200 acre-feet/ year from an enhanced irrigation water conservation program, which included 64,500 acre-feet/year from pumping water from the Columbia River.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/images/pdf/ppt_files/anchor-ppt.pdf
In 2009, eleven years after the Basin Conservation Plan was published, Ecology issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement on a “Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Alternative, to evaluate a new Black Rock Reservoir, and two versions of a new Wymer Dam. As part of Ecology’s alternative analysis, Ecology identified 223,596 acre-feet of additional enhanced water conservation measures on the Yakima River, and 20,003 acre-feet of enhanced water conservation measures on the Naches River. Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Alternative, pages 2-51 to 2-53, Tables 2-3 and 2-4 (Ecology, June 2009).
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0912009.pdf
In summary, the YRBWEP has identified approximately 157,200 acre-feet/year of water conservation savings. The Integrated Plan has identified an ADDITIONAL 243,599 acre-feet/year of (voluntary) water conservation. This means that because water conservation has remained VOLUNTARY since 1979, there appears to be over 400,000 acre-feet/year of water conservation yet to be carried out in the Yakima River Basin. How did the Yakima Workgroup address water conservation?
Yakima Workgroup March 14, 2012
At the March 14, 2012 Yakima Workgroup meeting, the BuRec released a summary of the YRBWEP voluntary “accomplishments.” After nearly 20 years, water conservation consisted of:
Diversion Reductions
o Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District (Phase I)-installed 30 automated check structures
and built three reregulation reservoirs resulting in 19,450 acre-feet (54cfs) of water left in the Yakima River for the 2014 irrigation season(@ $28.5 million in YRBWEP funds FY04-FY12) [Most of this water, 17,078 acre-feet, is available for target flow enhancement in the 20 12 irrigation season.]
o SDBOC Phase I Diversion Reduction Agreement-Gives Reclamation control of 9,712 acre-feet (27cfs) to enhance Yakima River instream flows.(@ $8.0 million in YRBWEP funds FY10-FY13) [7,563 acre-feet of this water is applied to target flows already in the 2012 irrigation season.]
o Benton Irrigation District -converting from open canal and laterals to a new pumping plant and pressurized pipe system; created a downstream change in the point of diversion; will keep 21,000 acre-feet (58cfs) in a 72 mile stretch of the Yakima River and will reduce overall diversions by about 5,500 acre-feet (15cfs) at the completion of the project in 2014. (@ $22.2 million in YRBWEP funds; FY09-FY13)
o Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District (Phase II ARRA)-converting from open lateral to a closed piped system; will reduce diversions by over 3,810 acre-feet (llcfs) in the Yakima River(@ $21.4 million in American Recovery and Restoration Act (ARRA) funds). The project includes installing nearly 49 miles of pipeline to irrigate 11,800 acres. [3,404 acre feet of this water is applied to target flows already in the 2012 irrigation season.] ARRA cost share.
o Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District (Phase II B) -Five year three-party agreement between Reclamation, Ecology and SDBOC to begin a 20 year project converting 65 open ditch laterals to a closed piped system; will reduce diversions by over 13,130 acre-feet (36cfs) in the Yakima River(@ $52.0 million in YRBWEP funds)
Yakama Nation
o Wapato Irrigation Project-YRBWEP funds (@$6.1 M FY05-FY11) have been granted to the YN for construction of ramp flume measuring devices in the WIP canals and drains and installation of flow monitoring equipment to provide for improved management of irrigation water.
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2011integratedplan/2012meetings/2012-03-14/6accomp.pdf
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2011integratedplan/2012meetings/2012-03-14/5summ.pdf
2006 Department of Ecology Dam Building Legislation
Instead of focusing on the hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water conservation that had not been achieved since 1979, in 2006 the Washington State Legislature, with the help and support of the Washington Environmental Council and American Rivers, passed a bill creating for the first time a dam building agency, the Office of Columbia River (OCR), within the Department of Ecology. This legislation established a Columbia River Basin water supply development account in the Capitol Budget, where two-thirds of the moneys placed in the account must be used to support the development of new storage facilities and pump exchanges. Governor Gregoire has proposed adding an addition $400 million to this account to help fund dam building. RCW 90.90.090(2)(b). http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/cr_overview.html
The OCR Policy Advisory Committee members (as listed on the OCR website) include: Lisa Pelly, Washington Rivers Conservancy (now with Trout Unlimited); Michael Garrity, American Rivers, and Mo McBroom, WEC (now with the Nature Conservancy), all organizations that have come out in support of new Yakima irrigation dams costing billions of dollars.
As a result, the Department of Ecology is also now all about dams and storage. Between 2006 and 2009, the Department of Ecology and Governor Gregoire spent millions of dollars on studying a Black Rock storage project east of Yakima involving transfer of water from the Columbia River to the Yakima River, as well as funding for the development of the Pine Hollow Reservoir in the Ahtanum area of the Yakima Basin, and on other dam studies.
http://www.washington.sierraclub.org/uppercol/ucr/yakima/media/Entries/2005/3/18_Entry_1.html
The 2009 BuRec/Ecology Yakima Workgroup
When none of Ecology’s proposed projects passed the laugh test, in 2009 the Governor and Ecology resurrected two projects that the environmental community had long opposed, a new Bumping Lake dam and a new Wymer Dam, which even the BuRec could not muster support for in 2008.
In 2009, Ecology and the BuRec created a Yakima Workgroup. Rather than being established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Workgroup became an ad hoc decisionmaking body in order to close subcommittee meetings to the public and avoid meaningful public participation opportunities.
The BuRec participated as part of a bill promoting new storage dams to address climate change passed by Congress in March 2009, the Secure Water Act (P.L. 111-11, Subtitle F).
“Congress found that adequate and safe water supplies are fundamental to the health, economy, security and ecology of the United States. Additionally, global climate change poses a significant challenge to the protection and use of water resources in the United States due to an increased uncertainty with respect to the timing, form, and geographical distribution of precipitation, which may have a substantial effect on the supplies of water for agriculture, hydroelectric power, industrial, domestic uses and environmental needs.
Congress found that Federal agencies conducting water management and related activities have a responsibility to take a lead role in assessing the risks to water resources of the United States, including the risks posed by global climate change, and to develop strategies to mitigate the potential impacts of these risks. This effort is necessary to help ensure that the long-term water resources management of the United States is sustainable and will continue to ensure adequate quantities of water. Congress also found that continued and expanded research and monitoring efforts are needed to improve the understanding of the variability of the water cycle, to efficiently manage water resources, and to identify new supplies of water capable of being reclaimed. This study of water use is vital to the understanding of human impacts on water and ecological resources, and to assess whether surface and groundwater supplies will be available to meet future needs.
The Yakima River Basin is part of the Columbia River system, which is a major Reclamation river basin, as defined by Congress in Public Law 111-11(12)(A). As such, the Yakima River basin is subject to Section 9503, Reclamation Climate Change and Water Program. Section 9503 requires the Secretary to establish a climate change adaptation program to assess the effect of and risk resulting from global climate change with respect to water resources. It also requires the Secretary to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that strategies are developed at the watershed and aquifer system scale to address potential water shortages, conflicts and other impacts to water users. The required elements of Section 9503 are outlined in Section 9503(b). The elements include an assessment of risks to water supply, an analysis of the extent to which these risks could affect water uses, and strategies to mitigate the potential impacts.” Yakima Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan – Addendum (BuRec, August 2011)
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2011integratedplan/plan/addenvol1.pdf
June 30, 2009 Yakima Workgroup
From the beginning the focus of the Workgroup was storage first with water conservation a secondary concern. At the first Workgroup meeting on June 30, 2009, a handout was distributed entitled, “Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study Process.”
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2009workgroup/meetings/2009-06-30/ecology-flowchart.pdf
Yakima Workgroup July 15, 2009
At the second Workgroup meeting, July 15, 2009, Anchor QEA, an Ecology/Bureau consultant, made a powerpoint presentation documenting potential water conservation savings from Irrigation, municipal, industrial, and commercial water conservation measures based on their March 3, 2008 report (see above). This includes Lining, Piping, Re-regulation Reservoirs, On-farm Conservation, Pump Exchange, Water Management, Municipal and Industrial Water Conservation. 47 projects were identified with a total estimated cost is $406M and an estimated water savings of 229,200 acre-feet annually. Anchor QEA also concluded that because water conservation does not result in an increase in water supply during drought years, water conservation did not meet the Yakima Workgroup goal of supplying Junior irrigation districts with 70 percent of their water supply during drought years.
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2009workgroup/meetings/2009-07-15/ppt-conservation.pdf
Yakima Workgroup November 11, 2009
Water conservation was put on the backburner until the November 2009 Workgroup meeting when a one page summary of water conservations related to the ongoing and separate Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project was distributed.
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2009workgroup/meetings/2009-11-09/16conservedwater.pdf
Yakima Workgroup November 23, 2009
A one page sheet was produced for the Workgroup on municipal/domestic water conservation predicting 15,400 acre-feet of water savings with 75% participation.
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2009workgroup/meetings/2009-11-23/06conservationsumm.pdf
Yakima Workgroup August 25, 2010
Other than municipal and domestic water conservation analysis, the workgroup did little on irrigation water conservation until producing a short report on Proposed Action for Agricultural Water Conservation Program Yakima River Basin Study/Integrated Plan (Task 4-12)
No specific water conservation programs were identified.
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2010workgroup/meetings/2010-08-25/agwaterconservrec.pdf
Yakima Workgroup November 19, 2010
An unidentified powerpoint presentation on Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources
Yakima River Basin Study Task 4.12 was made without references, identifying between 50,000 – 110,000 acre feet of water from interdistrict water trading and between 90,000 – 230,000 acre feet of water from intradistrict water trading.
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2010workgroup/meetings/2010-11-19/8yrb-mktreallocation.pdf
In March 2011, Anchor QEA produced an Agricultural Water Conservation Technical Memorandum listing possible irrigation district water conservation projects. In addition, this Memorandum provided a description of the type of irrigation by district. Unfortunately, Anchor QEA failed to differentiate between sprinkler and drip systems:
“Tables 6 and 7 of the Volume 2 technical memorandum, Water Needs for Out-of-Stream Uses, provides estimates of irrigation type by district in the Yakima Project. They include the following:
• Roza Irrigation District – 90 percent of total acreage in sprinkler or drip systems.
• Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District – 68 percent sprinkler or drip irrigated. But they are currently installing new piped lateral systems that will deliver pressurized water to much of their acreage, which will facilitate conversion to higher-efficiency irrigation systems.
• Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District – More than 90 percent sprinkler irrigated, which corresponds to the percentage of acreage in orchards that typically use higher-efficiency irrigation systems.
• Wapato Irrigation Project (WIP) – An estimated 55 percent sprinkler or drip irrigated. However additional water conserved on-farm in WIP may not result in a corresponding reduction in diversion requirements because return flow is a supply to other WIP farmers. Diversions would be reduced by only about 0.2 acre-feet per acre with improved irrigation techniques – a total of 11,375 acre-feet for 55,750 acres improved (NRCE 2002). During drought years, the water savings would be even less because less water is applied to fields.
• Kittitas Reclamation District (KRD) – Only 20 percent sprinkler or drip irrigated. However return flow from KRD farms flows back to the Yakima River and is a source of supply for water users downstream from the Kittitas Valley. A reduction in seepage on KRD farms would not improve water supply in the basin.
• Outside of the Yakima Project – An estimated 75 percent of irrigated acreage is sprinkler or drip irrigated. Approximately 95 percent of the gravity (rill)-irrigated acreage outside of the Yakima Project is located in Kittitas County, and return flow from that acreage is a source of supply for water users downstream from the Kittitas Valley. A reduction of seepage on those farms would not improve water supply in the basin. However, on-farm water conservation improvements in the Kittitas Valley could have large benefits to instream flow in tributaries.”
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/reports/tm/4-10%20agcon.pdf
Over the next year water conservation dropped off the Workgroup table to such an extent that when an updated “Early Action Items for Funding Status” update was presented to the September 25, 2012, Workgroup meeting with 11 items, no water conservation measures were included. The “Early Action” list was specifically requested by Secretary of Interior Salazar in September 2011 during a meeting with the Yakima Workgroup, PRIOR to the release of the Draft Programmatic EIS.
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2011integratedplan/2012meetings/2012-06-20/3newip.pdf
2012 YAKIMA INTEGRATED PLAN FPEIS
Enhanced Water Conservation Element
The March 2012 Yakima Integrated Plan FPEIS, unlike its detailed description of dam storage projects provided only a bare minimum information on water conservation:
2.4.8 Enhanced Water Conservation Element
The Enhanced Water Conservation Element is an aggressive program of water
conservation measures that would improve basin water supply and instream flows. The
element includes conservation measures for irrigation district infrastructure
improvements, on-farm conservation and irrigation efficiency improvements, as well as a
program for commercial, industrial, municipal and domestic conservation. The scope of
this element is intended to supplement, but not duplicate the conservation activities
funded under YRBWEP Phase II (Section 1.7.2). This enhanced conservation program
includes agricultural conservation projects for Yakima Project irrigation districts as well
as projects outside the authority of YRBWEP Phase II, including irrigation districts
outside the Yakima Project and municipal and domestic program. The conservation
projects included for Yakima Project districts are projects that have not been funded
under YRBWEP Phase II.
2.4.8.1 Agricultural Conservation
Agricultural water conservation measures include lining or piping existing canals,
automating canals, constructing re-regulating reservoirs on irrigation canals, improving
water measurement and accounting systems, installing on-farm water conservation
improvements, and other measures. In order to model the conservation potential, a
preliminary list of projects was developed for the Basin Study (Reclamation and Ecology,
2011l). [Note it appears that the reference should have been to 2011r.] The modeling estimated that the agricultural water conservation program would conserve approximately 170,000 acre-feet of water in good water years and substantially less in drought years. Projects that would actually be implemented under this program would be selected through detailed feasibility studies and evaluation by the existing YRBWEP Conservation Advisory Group. Entities eligible for project funding include federally and non-federally-served irrigation districts, private irrigators, and individual landowners.
Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan FPEIS, pages 2-35 to 2-36 (BuRec/Ecology, March 2012).
The FPEIS (BuRec/Ecology, March 2012) does not appear to contain any specific list of water conservation projects for the Workgroup, BuRec/Ecology, or Congress to consider. On the contrary, such projects are to be selected at a later date by a separate YRBWEP Conservation Advisory Group. Unlike the BuRec/Ecology Yakima Workgroup, the YRBWEP Conservation Advisory Group is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, but has not produced a report since 2005 and its minutes and membership is not posted on the BuRec website.