New WA pipeline a symbol of new water policy

New WA pipeline a symbol of new water policy
The Associated Press

OTHELLO, Wash. -- The federal government is doing what until recently had been unthinkable for the Columbia River: building a new stretch of pipeline so more river water can be used for irrigation.

The small amount of water that initially will flow through the line near Othello won't solve the region's irrigation problems. But The Seattle Times reports that many growers see it as a critical first step for their farms' survival.

Others fear the pipe's large capacity means the state and federal governments are committing to huge new withdrawals from the river before the money has been found and the full environmental effects are known.

The $25 million, 1.7-mile pipeline in central Washington is possible because of a hard-fought compromise among lawmakers, farmers and some environmentalists. It will have the ability to carry large amounts of water from the Columbia, though such withdrawals are still being studied.

Farmers contend the river has plenty of water and taking more simply requires timing and creativity. The federal government and state plan to link the initial small diversion to new releases from Lake Roosevelt behind Grand Coulee Dam, which some environmental groups agree could help both farms and fish.

"The primary purpose of this is just to maintain what we have," said Mike Schwisow, an Olympia lobbyist who represents water users.

Others say that with a major aquifer in the area drying up and climate change and growth threatening to intensify water demand, it might be time to rethink what crops are grown in the region.

"I don't think they should spend public money on a pipeline to nowhere," said Rachael Paschal Osborn, director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy in Spokane. "I think that a lot of farmers need to accept that they may have to revert to dryland farming."

Potatoes are a huge crop in the region - the state's No. 2 crop behind apples and a half-billion dollar a year business. Eastern Washington farmers grow a quarter of the nation's spuds, with most being processed into french fries.

If potatoes don't get enough water, they can turn out deformed and wind up rejected by processors.

Some farmers have switched to dryland wheat or low-water crops like canola, but the gross value of those crops can be 10 percent of what they can earn growing potatoes.

Thousands of farmers in the Columbia Basin get the bulk of their water from the river, but some still draw water from an aquifer that is declining in some places by dozens of feet a year. By one estimate, about 40 percent of wells are in serious decline.

Grand Coulee Dam, completed in 1942, was built not just for hydropower but as a massive irrigation project that aimed to irrigate 1 million acres of basin desert.

The Columbia Basin Irrigation Project was to be built in phases, but financial and environmental costs stalled construction in the 1980s. By then, more people had claims to Columbia River water than the river could supply.

Salmon advocates feared the river couldn't handle more withdrawals, but farmers argued water was getting to only about a third of the 1 million acres envisioned under the project.

Pressure built on Congress and the Legislature, and in 2006 a compromise was reached: The state and federal government would conserve water, but also get more out of the system, some for farms and some for fish, even if it meant building a new dam.

"The major players stopped fighting over whether or not water should be taken from the river and started to focus on developing new supplies," said Dan Haller, with the state Department of Ecology.

Gov. Chris Gregoire agreed to draw down Lake Roosevelt and release billions of gallons - one-third for fish, one-third as drinking water for growing cities, and one-third to flow in a trickle through a new pipe for farmers. This spring, contractors will build 9,000 feet of pipe in two sections to bring water to about 10,000 acres.

As a first step, "it's a fair compromise," said Michael Garrity, with the environmental group American Rivers. "But it doesn't say what the ideal amount of water or ideal combination of irrigated verses dryland agriculture is in that area."

Proposals to bring far more water to the region may be on the way.

"Some people have said you don't need a pipe that big, and the answer, of course, is 'absolutely not,'" said Jim Blanchard, who oversees parts of the project for the Bureau of Reclamation. "But you don't build two miles of little itty-bitty pipe just to get a little bit of water. When you build a facility out here, you build it to its next logical size."

Later this year, the Bureau of Reclamation plans to detail options for getting more Columbia River water to many more farmers. One option calls for drawing 10 times more water, enough to irrigate 102,000 acres and take farmers off declining wells.

Blanchard said that for such withdrawals to work without harming salmon, water would have to come from Lake Roosevelt or somewhere else in early winter when it's not needed, and be "stacked up someplace to be released later for crops."

That could involve building a new dam or reservoir.

Blanchard's agency is still evaluating the costs of the options, but he conceded each would be expensive. "There's no way to build anything cheaply anymore," he said.