Naiads

Water: law/policy/politics/ethics/art/science

Category Archives: Icicle Creek


by Leave a comment

New Report Debunks Washington’s Dam-Building Program

sandhill-cranes-kathy-admire

Sandhill cranes migrate through Lower Crab Creek, where the Office of Columbia River spent millions studying a new dam that could not be built. (Photo: Kathy Admire)

Over the past ten years the Washington Department of Ecology Office of the Columbia River (OCR) has spent $200 million financed by taxpayer-backed bonds in an attempt to build more dams and increase water supplies in eastern Washington.  OCR is quite adept at touting its achievements, particularly when the legislative budget process rolls around.

However, a new, independent report by Power Consulting of Missoula concludes that the OCR is overstating its accomplishments, and suggests that the Washington Legislature should seek a performance audit of the program before it considers shelling out any more of the public’s cash.  Specifically, the Power Report concludes that OCR has:

  • Misrepresented the amount of water that it has actually put to use in eastern Washington,
  • Failed to acknowledge the need for hundreds of millions more dollars to bring current projects to fruition, and
  • Wasted a lot of money investigating proposed new dams that it should have known could never be built.

The report, Department of Ecology Office of Columbia River: The Last Ten Years, examines OCR’s decade long agenda of studying dam sites and developing water projects, with in-depth review of the Odessa Subarea water project, the Yakima Integrated Water Plan, and the Icicle Strategy .   The conclusions are eye-opening.

For example, OCR claims credit for “developing” nearly 400,000 acre-feet of water for new supply.  Most of this is not “new” water, and instead would be re-allocated out of existing reservoirs.  Of that water, most has not been delivered to water users.  This is because of the enormous and expensive infrastructure needed to move water from the reservoirs to the farms that are the intended beneficiaries.

The Power Report also evaluates the Yakima Basin Integrated Water Plan, and concludes that assumptions about the benefits of its expensive water storage projects are speculative and implausible.  The proposed storage reservoirs could cost Washington taxpayers as much as $2 billion.

The Report builds on earlier studies that conclude the benefits of building more dams in the Yakima River watershed cannot be justified by the costs. A study by WSU’s Water Resources Research Center, “Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan Projects,” concluded that the Yakima Plan’s proposed storage projects would result in economic losses.  However, providing fish passage at existing reservoirs and utilizing water right markets, the Yakima Plan could achieve the goals of the Plan, but at a much improved benefit-cost ratio.

The Power Report also evaluated the Odessa Subarea “groundwater replacement” program which involves pumping Columbia River water into an extremely arid portion of the Columbia Plateau where the potato industry has over-pumped the groundwater system for decades (primarily to produce french fries), and is now seeking a water  bailout at public expense.  OCR claims success, but the Power Report points out that only about 3,000 acres have been switched to surface water, with massive infrastructure – and massive public subsidies – required for the remaining 80,000 acres.

(For background, see studies and reports criticizing the economics of the Odessa Subarea project.)

The Power Report also evaluates the Icicle Strategy – a proposal to pump water from lakes in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness to provide municipal water supply to the City of Leavenworth.  The Report notes the controversial nature of the project, given the extreme popularity of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, and suggests that the problems of water supply be addressed through aggressive water conservation and development of regional water markets.  More information on the Icicle Strategy can be found in this blog’s 4-part series New Dams and Diversions in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness and Icicle Instream Illusions.  Alpine Lakes Wilderness Society (ALPS) also opposes the Icicle Strategy.

The Power Report concludes in pointing out that the OCR has spent millions on studies of dams that were infeasible from the start.  These include the Lower Crab Creek and Hawk Creek dam proposals, which would have flooded substantial amounts of wildlife habitat, and the Shankers Bend dam, which would have flooded into Canada.  The bottom line?  The Office of the Columbia River has wasted substantial amounts of public funding pursuing projects that were doomed from the start.

The Power Report was commissioned by Sierra Club, which has long opposed dam building and dam operations in the Columbia Basin.  Legislative testimony by Sierra Club and ALPS details the concerns about OCR’s 2017 budget request.

 


by Leave a comment

Alpine Lakes Wilderness Comment Deadline: May 11

colchuck-lake (USDA-FS)

Colchuck Lake, Alpine Lakes Wilderness (USDA)

After spending more than three years and a million taxpayer bucks, Chelan County and the Washington Department of Ecology have finally put out an environmental scoping request for the Icicle Work Group’s “Icicle Strategy.”   This document identifies our government’s plan to further dam and drain several lakes in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area for future consumption by Wenatchee Valley developers and irrigators.

Complete details about the impact of the project can be found in the Alpine Lakes Protection Society’s (ALPS) latest newsletter.

People who care about the Alpine Lakes Wilderness –  one of America’s most beautiful and popular wilderness areas – need to speak up.  Comments regarding the scope of the environmental impact statement must be received by May 11, 2016:

  • Mike Kaputa, Director, Chelan Co. Natural Resources Dep’t
  • Via e-mail:  mike.kaputa@co.chelan.wa.us
  • Via snail mail:  411 Washington St., Suite 201, Wenatchee, WA

The SEPA checklist and various descriptions of the Icicle Work Group’s proposal are posted on Chelan County’s website.  Here are a few observations that may guide comments.

The Icicle Work Group is a self-appointed conglomeration of government agencies (federal, state, local, tribal), water resource users (irrigators and municipal water suppliers), and a couple of environmental groups interested in getting contracts to do projects.   The IWG has no members who are advocating to protect the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.*

The IWG’s “guiding principles” establish that whatever comes out of the process must be a “quid pro quo” deal.   Thus, any benefit to the environment will be accomplished only if new water rights are created to fuel development and sprawl in and around the City of Leavenworth, Cashmere, Dryden, etc.   These water rights will extract water from the Alpine Lakes Wilderness: Eightmile, Colchuck, Klonaqua, Nada, Snow, and Square Lakes.  To obtain this water, the cities will have to build dams and other infrastructure, and will inundate Wilderness lands as well as draw down the Wilderness lakes.  You can read the details in the Alpine Lakes Optimization & Automation Study (Table 6, p. 62 provides a handy summary.)

The Icicle Work Group asserts that this plan is environmentally beneficial because it will improve instream flows in Icicle Creek.  This assertion is (largely) false.   There will be minor improvements to streamflow, but most of the water promised to Icicle Creek is interruptible – that is – in water-short years the cities and irrigators will be able to take their full allotments of water regardless of how little is flowing in the creek.  There will not be enough water to protect the endangered steelhead and bull trout that inhabit Icicle Creek.

More analysis of these problems may be found in prior Naiads posts, such as Icicle Instream Illusions, and New Dams and Diversions in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.

Here’s what the IWG needs to hear:

  • The EIS must consider a Wilderness Protection Alternative.  This alternative would promote wilderness values as set forth in the Wilderness Act of 1964, would not allow new water infrastructure or diversions inside the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, and would require all new water supply to be obtained outside the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.
  • The EIS must consider a Water Conservation Alternative.  This alternative would assess using aggressive water conservation measures by Wenatchee Valley cities, including restrictions on lawn watering (as the citizens of Seattle have learned to do).  This alternative should also assess transfer of water rights from irrigation districts to cities, where orchards have already been torn out and replaced with residential subdivisions.  This alternative should also assess agricultural irrigation efficiency, such as replacing open gravity canals with pipes and pumps and other 21st century concepts.  A proposed Conservation Alternative is linked here.
  • The EIS must consider an Irrigation District Water Right Change Alternative, which would fix Icicle Creek’s low flow problem.  This alternative would evaluate moving the Icicle-Peshastin Irrigation District’s water right diversion, which presently takes 100 cubic feet per second out of Icicle Creek, to the Wenatchee River downstream about 3 miles.  This measure, which would permanently fix Icicle Creek’s low flow problem, would convert the IPID diversion from gravity flow to pumping (requiring electrical power). The Icicle Work Group should therefore analyze renewable energy options to supply that power, including solar, wind and in-canal hydroelectric.
  • The EIS must consider a Water Right Relinquishment Alternative.  Removal of water from the Alpine Lakes Wilderness is on the table only because IPID holds water rights that were grandfathered when the Wilderness was created.  And – as IPID will tell anyone who will listen – every year they use what they need.  When the dam at Eightmile Lake fell down decades ago they didn’t fix it because they did not need more water.  When a party doesn’t use their rights, they lose them.  “Use It Or Lose It” – the basic rule of western water law – is controlling.   The EIS needs to analyze this.

The IWG’s plan to exploit the Alpine Lakes Wilderness is a camel’s-nose-under-the-tent proposal.  As climate change alters the hydrology of the western U.S., we can expect to see many attempts to expand water projects that were grandfathered into wilderness areas. Wilderness advocates need to weigh in by May 11, for the sake of Alpine Lakes and for wilderness values in general.

__________________________

*The Alpine Lakes Wilderness Society (ALPS) was invited and declined to participate.  The Center for Environmental Law & Policy (CELP) participated in IWG meetings for two-plus years and then resigned when the operating procedures were changed to gag CELP’s objection to wilderness water projects.

 


by Leave a comment

Icicle Instream Illusions

The Icicle Work Group, about which this blog has posted much, (see below*), has proposed an “Icicle Strategy” for achieving goals to manage water in the Icicle Creek watershed, which originates in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness and feeds into the Wenatchee River.   This quid-pro-quo water management proposal would involve manipulating water levels and building a new dam at the popular Eightmile Lake in the Wilderness.   The alleged benefit is that the water developed by these activities would be used to improve instream flows in Icicle Creek.

We say “alleged benefit,” because if you look at the fine print, you’ll see that improvements to Icicle Creek instream flows are not guaranteed.   The trade-off between harming Alpine Lakes Wilderness and improving Icicle Creek is a smoke and mirrors proposition.  Wilderness and river advocates should not be fooled.

The charts below tell the story.   The blue, red and green bars indicate that of the 77 cubic feet per second (cfs) that the Icicle Strategy would add to Icicle Creek, only 22 cfs is actually guaranteed to be there, while 55 cfs is subordinate or subject to speculation (ie, 20 cfs may or may not be provided by the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery at some unknown point in the future).

Icicle Integrated Projects 10-02-2015 Graphics (2)

Chart produced by Icicle Work (2015).  Click here for larger version.

Also of interest is that the four entities that divert water from Icicle Creek should be required to use water more efficiently and prevent harm to the instream habitat of threatened species (steelhead and bull trout).  This is already required pursuant to state water laws and the federal Endangered Species Act, but these laws are not being enforced.   The benefit to Icicle Creek provided by the Icicle Strategy is illusory.

The four Icicle diverters are Icicle-Peshastin Irrigation District (IPID), Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery, Cascade Orchard Irrigation Co., and City of Leavenworth.    IPID claims it has a legal right to take more water from the various Alpine Lakes, but this is not true.  To the extent IPID has water rights, whatever it hasn’t used has been relinquished.  Use it or lose it – that’s the rule of western water law.

The real purpose of the Icicle Strategy is to take more water out of the Alpine Lakes to serve urban and suburban growth and sprawl in the City of Leavenworth and other communities in the Wenatchee Valley.   For background, see articles linked below.

The Icicle Work Group is holding public meetings regarding its proposed strategy:

  • Seattle, March 30 at 7:00 pm at the Phinney Center
  • Leavenworth, April 20 from 4-8 pm at the Leavenworth Fire Hall
  • Public comments can be sent to mike.kaputa@co.chelan.wa.us, deadline May 11, 2016.

*For more info about the Icicle Work Group see the following posts:

New Dams & Diversion In the Alpine Lakes Wilderness?

Icicle Work Group – An Alternative View discusses the sham process by which the Icicle water management strategy is being created.

Dismantling the Enchantment Lakes by Pick & Shovel discusses the Icicle-Peshastin Irrigation District’s rights to divert water in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.


by Leave a comment

Icicle Work Group: An Alternative View

This article was published in the January-February 2016 newsletter of the Washington Chapter of the American Water Resources Association.  This version contains additional graphics and links to websites and documents. 

Introduction

Washington AWRA members were introduced to the Icicle Creek work group process at the October 2015 dinner meeting and in a follow-up newsletter article. Chelan County Natural Resources Director Mike Kaputa presented on the costly (in both time and money) process that various government agencies, water users, tribes and environmental groups are undertaking with the ultimate goal of diverting more water out of the already over-appropriated Icicle Creek watershed. This article offers a different viewpoint of the Icicle Work Group’s process and goals.

The Icicle Work Group or IWG was established and funded by the Department of Ecology’s Office of the Columbia River (OCR) in December 2012 as a “collaborative process.” The IWG spent a year developing operating procedures based on consensus decision making, along with substantive goals that focused on environmental improvements and developing new water supply while adhering to state and federal laws.

Icicle Subbasin Vicinity Plan (Aspect Consulting Nov. 2012)

Figure 1. Icicle Creek Subbasin Vicinity Map (Aspect Consulting Nov. 2012)

The IWG process targets an already over-appropriated water system. Icicle Creek drains a portion of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area and discharges into the Wenatchee River near downtown Leavenworth. See Fig. 1.  Four entities divert about 150 cfs from the Icicle upstream of the Leavenworth Fish Hatchery; two-thirds of that water is removed completely from the Icicle watershed to serve orchards in the Wenatchee Valley. Flows in some reaches of Icicle Creek are inadequate to support Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed bull trout and steelhead.

Before launching into particulars, a disclosure is appropriate.   On behalf of the Center for Environmental Law & Policy, I was invited to serve on the IWG and did so (along with CELP colleagues) from the outset. At the first meeting of the IWG I voiced CELP’s objection to a central element of the IWG’s strategy:   artificially increased water storage in the Enchantment Lakes, in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area.   In February 2015, concerned that the public was not being apprised of IWG proposals, I published articles about the Alpine Lakes project at www.naiads.wordpress.com (“New Dams & Diversions in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness?”). In June, the IWG proposed to alter its decision process from consensus to majority vote, and adopt a rule that members must screen their opinions with the IWG before publicly airing them. CELP resigned from the IWG when these amended procedures were adopted in July 2015.

Background Conflicts

As with many water resource problems, there is a long back story to water management in Icicle Creek. Four different conflicts inform the work of the Icicle Work Group.

This first conflict begins with the building of Grand Coulee dam without fish passage, an egregious injustice to tribes and the public that has yet to be rectified. To partially mitigate, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in 1938 built the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery. The Bureau still owns and funds the Hatchery, which is operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to produce chinook and coho salmon to meet federal trust obligations to the Confederated Colville Tribes and Yakama Nation. The Leavenworth Hatchery is a dilapidated facility suffering from decades of deferred maintenance, including relating to its water supply system. The Hatchery also blocks passage of ESA-listed steelhead and bull trout to the upper area of Icicle Creek – no small irony given that the USFWS is one of two federal agencies in charge of recovering endangered species.

In addition to its physical infrastructure problems, the Hatchery operates without proper permits and conditions. Wild Fish Conservancy and CELP have brought a number of lawsuits against the Hatchery, including three ongoing cases relating to Endangered Species Act, state 401 Certification, and federal Clean Water Act violations.

A second background issue involves a lawsuit between the City of Leavenworth and the Department of Ecology.   In sum, in processing a water right change application in 1995, Ecology assigned an annual quantity to one of Leavenworth’s older water rights. Leavenworth did not appeal that quantification at the time, but recently sued Ecology to increase the annual quantity. A Chelan County judge ruled that Ecology’s 1995 quantification was a “tentative determination” that can be re-visited by the courts. The case is on hold in the Court of Appeals, a stay being obtained in 2013 based on Ecology’s promise to establish the Icicle Work Group and find more water for the City. The conflict boils down to 800 acre-feet annually, and Ecology is looking to provide that water via new appropriations out of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area.

IPID-LNFH Water Rights Chart (Chelan Co. Grant App) (2)

Figure 2. IPID Water Rights (Chelan County)

This relates to the third background issue – the water rights of Icicle Peshastin Irrigation District (IPID) (technically these are two districts that share a manager). IPID holds rights to store and take water from several of the Enchantment Lakes – these rights were grandfathered when the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area was established in 1976. See Fig. 2.  IPID has installed various structures that control water flow from these lakes (“control” meaning that someone hikes up into the Wilderness in July to turn on the water, and then hikes back up in October to turn it off).

 

Eightmile Lake nonfunctioning dam Sept 15 2013 by Karl Forsgaard

Figure 3. Because of the collapsed dam, Eightmile Lake has long been incapable of storing 2500 acre-feet of water. (Photo courtesy Karl Forsgaard)

When Ecology decided it would rather settle than fight the City’s lawsuit, it began to look at IPID’s wilderness water system as a source for the elusive 800 acre-feet.   One of IPID’s rights is to store water at Eightmile Lake, where the dam structure collapsed so long ago no one remembers when it happened.   See Fig. 3.  If IPID could re-build the dam, and increase the water level of the lake, and if that extra water could be re-allocated to the City – well then, case dismissed and the Chelan County “tentative determination” order vacated.

A final issue involves the Wenatchee River instream flow rule, first adopted in 1983. In 2005, Ecology amended the rule to update instream flows and add reserves to support new water rights in the Wenatchee Valley. These reserves would impair the instream flow established by rule, and are based on “overriding considerations of the public interest” or OCPI, set forth in RCW 90.54.020(3)(a). Alert readers will recall that OCPI reserves are no longer valid following the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Department of Ecology. This effectively squelched the County’s efforts to obtain issuance of new water rights, and has led to (thus far unsuccessful) attempts in the Legislature to revive the Wenatchee reserves.

Wenatchee Peshastin Gage Low Flow Graph

Figure 4. Actual streamflow in the Wenatchee River falls below the rule-based instream flow targets for most of the summer each year. The now invalid reserves would further deplete the Wenatchee River. (Graphic adapted from USGS data)

As an aside, the Wenatchee River and Icicle Creek routinely do not meet the Wenatchee rule’s instream flow targets during summer months.  See Figure 4.  This fact nicely illustrates the Supreme Court’s concerns about reserves impinging on the statutory mandate to preserve flows that support fish, wildlife, recreation and other instream values.

The Icicle Work Group Goals & Projects

With all this in mind, the Icicle Work Group was founded in 2012 as a consensus decision work group. The IWG adopted eight goals that seek both environmental improvements and new out-of-stream water allocations. In 2013, the OCR granted $885,000 to Chelan County to staff IWG with consultants and Ecology, WDFW and Chelan County employees. The IWG also pays $25,000 per year to IPID to fund its manager’s participation. Substantial legislative appropriations were made to support the IWG in the 2015-2017 biennium.

Flow-WUA Chart - IWG IF Comm Presentation 7-20-14

Figure 5. Icicle Work Group Instream Flow Technical Subcommittee recommendations for instream flow in Icicle Creek Reach 4 (adjacent to Leavenworth Fish Hatchery) (2014).

In 2014, the Work Group began to develop “metrics” to meet its goals. Identifying instream flow quantities necessary to meet fisheries needs in Icicle Creek, especially the de-watered reach adjacent to the Leavenworth Hatchery, was one consideration. IWG appointed a technical subcommittee of biologists, which recommended that 250 cfs was needed in order to maintain 100% of habitat for steelhead and bull trout life stages. See Figure 5.

Certain Work Group members however, found these quantities unacceptable. The 250 cfs number was “negotiated” down to 100 cfs in good years, and 60 cfs in drought years.   This would make 80% or less of potential habitat available for ESA-listed fish, a problematic goal by state and federal standards. See “metrics” and Fig. 5.  Some biologists have expressed doubt about the scientific foundations of this compromise, but when questions were raised, the IWG was informed that the decision could not be re-visited.

This process raises fundamental questions about the propriety of agency participation in “collaborative” groups. With consensus, all parties have veto. But IWG rules now require participants to support the metrics and project list. Agency commitment to outcomes in advance of public and environmental review is troubling, especially for regulatory agencies such as Ecology, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, the U.S. Forest Service, and NOAA.

Also problematic is the approach to meeting these compromise flows. The current project list identifies only 22 cfs of “guaranteed” instream flow water – the rest would be interruptible. In a bad year, like the summer of 2015, Icicle Creek flows would plummet and temperatures skyrocket, while human users get the water they need.

Proposals to manipulate storage at Eightmile and other Enchantment Lakes, where IPID insists it has the “right” to expand its wilderness water system, are of great concern to the environmental community. The Alpine Lakes Wilderness is a crown jewel of the federal wilderness system and Eightmile Lake is one of its most popular trails. While the IWG has done some outreach, conservation community responses have had zero impact on development of the project list.

Eightmile Lake Easements (Aspect Nov. 2014)

Figure 6. Eightmile Lake Easements do not cover the entirety of the lake. (Aspect Nov. 2014)

Beyond the failure to address public concerns, neither Ecology nor IPID has easements to flood wilderness surrounding the lakes, nor can the U.S. Forest Service give away public lands. See Fig. 6.  Yet expanded storage in the Alpine Lakes is the IWG’s linchpin project – so important that it changed its rules in order to outvote CELP’s viewpoint. Indeed, CELP was directed to stop asking questions about these issues at IWG meetings.

The most expedient way to put 100 cfs into Icicle Creek is to move IPID’s diversion five miles downstream, from the Icicle-Snow Creek confluence to the Wenatchee River. However, IPID’s board voted to prohibit the IWG from considering this option. These actions raise interesting questions about the scope of water entitlements. Is a water user guaranteed their means of diversion, in this case miles of gravity-powered conveyance, that cause substantial environmental impacts?

Ski Hill Lawn 1

Figure 7. No pear trees here. Former orchard lands in the Ski Hill area of Leavenworth have converted to residential, but are still afforded irrigation water duties for their lawns.  (Photo: Naiads, June 2015)

Prior to resigning, CELP proposed that the project list should focus on rigorous conservation rather than new storage. An informal tour of the Leavenworth area in June 2015 produced a photo album of conservation opportunities, including IPID canal-side phreatophytes, orchard over-irrigation, and excessive residential lawn watering.  See Fig. 7.  Municipal demand has declined, and the City does not project significant need for future customers. Indeed, the City recently approved selling water to the Leavenworth Ski Hill for snowmaking in 2016. While the current IWG project list includes some conservation, IWG water users resist meaningful measures.

Upcoming IWG Process

Chelan County’s IWG website does not reveal when or how the IWG plans to move forward. The IWG was on track to begin SEPA scoping in autumn 2015, but when the legislature allocated IWG another $1-2 million for the 2015-2017 biennium, the process slowed. These funds will easily support the IWG battalion of consultants and agency staff for at least two more years.

State and federal coordination over environmental review (SEPA and NEPA) has also been difficult.   One of the consequences of “integrated planning,” i.e., the lumping together of varied projects, is that affected agencies spend large amounts of publicly funded time to iron out procedures, turf conflicts, and other issues.

A few concluding observations.

First, as a matter of law and of biology, instream flows in Icicle Creek must be returned to more normative, historic levels. It is wrong to use legally required flows as a trading chit to obtain new out-of-stream water rights. This is particularly so given that the target sources are the Enchantment Lakes in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.

Second, the IWG is not a collaborative process. The inability of the Work Group to contend with dissent – and its change in operating procedures to silence particular viewpoints – seriously undermines its legitimacy. Skepticism should be the response when the IWG extols the virtuosity of its group-think process.

Finally, public expenditures for the IWG and its projects should be re-evaluated. Ecology could purchase or condemn 800 acre feet of water for far less than the $64 million dollar tab that the IWG is about to drop on the public.

It is the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation and USFWS to bring Leavenworth Hatchery into compliance with state and federal laws. It is the duty of the four Icicle Creek water right holders to ensure they do not harm endangered salmonids, and to employ 21st century water efficiency practices. It is the mandate of the regulatory agencies to secure this compliance, not negotiate it away.

Ultimately, if an accurate picture is presented, the public will not pay for the sins and omissions of Icicle Creek diverters. Why are we spending millions to get that picture?

 

 


by 1 Comment

Dismantling the Enchantment Lakes by Pick and Shovel

Ski Hill Lawn 1

Ski Hill residences in Leavenworth are served water by Icicle Irrigation District. Inside Leavenworth, the District’s water is growing large and lush lawns, pears not so much.

‘”We have helicopters scheduled to go up to Eight Mile,” [IPID manager Tony] Jantzer said, “We’ll start on Eight Mile, digging that out. We’ll move to Colchuck on Wednesday. I hope to get more water out of those lakes . . .”

All the work will be done the old-fashioned way with picks and shovels.  At Eight Mile Lake Jantzer said they should be able to clear out four or five feet, which should produce another 160 acre feet of water.

The outlet at Colchuck Lake is down three feet.  Once that is dug out, it should produce another 100 acre feet of water . . .’

Ian Dunn, Leavenworth Echo, “Icicle/Peshastin Irrigation Districts struggling to provide enough water” (Sept. 2, 2015).

When the Alpine Lakes Wilderness was designated in 1976, the Icicle and Peshastin Irrigation Districts (IPID) held pre-existing rights to divert water from several of the Enchantment Lakes – and those water rights were grandfathered in.  This month, however, the Irrigation Districts are taking the unprecedented step of helicoptering into the Wilderness to lower the outlets to at least two of the lakes – Eightmile and Colchuck — and take more water.

Ski Hill Lawn 2 (6-18-15)

More Leavenworth lawn irrigated compliments of the Icicle Irrigation District diversions from the Enchantment Lakes. A remnant pear orchard appears in the background.

This project offers multiple ironies.  The largest irony is that, although the Districts do serve water to Wenatchee Valley pear growers, many orchards have been converted into residential neighborhoods as the Cities of Leavenworth and Cashmere have expanded their urban boundaries.  IPID is diverting water out of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness to irrigate not just pears, but also very large expanses of lawn.

The IPID manager acknowledged this in a Sept. 2, 2015 interview with the Leavenworth Echo, where he lamented the difficulty of getting district customers to conserve water.  According to the article, there are:

“1,143 users in the Icicle Irrigation District, the bulk of which is residential.  Over the course of the long, hot summer Jantzer said the Icicle users have been using record[] amounts of water.”

Adding to the incongruities, IPID’s dismantling and de-watering of the Enchantment Lakes is up for funding by the Washington Department of Ecology’s drought-relief funding program.   Ecology originally granted IPID $41,000 to install pumps into Eightmile Lake, but according to a Sept. 3 Capital Press article, the District was unable to rent helicopters of the size needed to implement that project.   Ecology’s website now indicates it is considering granting $12,500 to IPID for the “pick and shovel” alternative.  Thus, the public will likely be paying IPID to inflict its destruction on the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.

Normally an application to take more water out of a lake would require public comment and review, and strict statutory standards to prevent harm to the environment and other water users.  But Ecology’s drought relief funding rule exempts applications from public review and requires expedited decisions – within 15 days.  Questions regarding IPID’s relinquishment of water rights that it has not used for “80 to 100 years” remain unanswered.

Also missing in action is the U.S. Forest Service, which is tasked with managing and protecting the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.  Do IPID’s easements and special use permits really allow it to tamper with these lakes?

There’s a back story too.  Icicle-Peshastin Irrigation District has been eyeing methods for increased access to Alpine Lakes water for some time.  As described in Naiads’ February 2015 four-part series, “New Dams and Diversions for the Alpine Lakes,” IPID, Ecology, and several other public agencies formed the Icicle Work Group in order to “bargain” for more water out of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.

IPID Ditch 4 (6-18-15)

IPID’s canal transports water from Icicle Creek to its customers. Several miles of the canal are only partially lined, and leak enough water to support a robust but artificial riparian zone.

The Center for Environmental Law & Policy resigned from the Icicle Work Group in July 2015 because of onerous new rules converting the IWG from consensus to majority rule.  The new rules require IWG members to support the decisions of the majority and prohibit public dissent.  (Full disclosure:  CELP was represented by the author of this post.)

Before resigning, CELP circulated a Water Conservation Potential Report, describing IPID’s inefficient operations and proposing alternative methods to “solve” upper Wenatchee Valley water supply problems.  Chief among these is reduction of lawn irrigation in the Ski Hill residential zone.  Another solution is to line IPID’s leaky canal, which as shown in the photo at right, is supporting a substantial amount of phreatophyte vegetation.

Rather than take the “soft path” of water conservation, however, IPID has chosen the hard path of pick-axe and shovel.   Apparently, during drought, no water resource is safe – even waters in federally protected wilderness.

 


by Leave a comment

Part 4: New Diversions & Dams in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness?

Part 4:  The Alpine Lakes Automation-Storage Project

Enchantment Zone Icicle ID Instream Flow Options Report (7-25-14)

Alpine Lakes Wilderness region where automation and new storage is proposed.

This is the fourth of a four-part series regarding proposals to re-build a dam and increase water diversions from as many as seven lakes in the Enchantment Lakes region of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.  Part 1 describes the genesis and functioning of the Icicle Work Group, the entity which is proposing the water projects. Part 2 examines the Eightmile Lake Restoration-storage project, and Part 3 examines the Upper Klonaqua Lake Pipeline proposal.

In a nutshell, the Department of Ecology’s Office of the Columbia River has funded Chelan County to investigate how to solve water problems in the Wenatchee River watershed.  The primary focus of the effort is to increase water storage and diversions from seven lakes in the Enchantment Lakes region of the Alpines Lakes Wilderness.

This article discusses the proposal to automate existing diversions from the Alpine Lakes to increase efficiency and potentially drain the lakes.

The IPID and Hatchery diversion methods are primitive:  drain holes and gates at the lakes are manually opened and closed at the beginning and end of the irrigation season by IPID and Hatchery staff who hike into the Wilderness.

Icicle Subbasin Vicinity Plan (Aspect Consulting Nov. 2012)

Icicle Creek Subbasin Vicinity Map (Aspect Consulting Nov. 2012). This map shows lakes proposed for storage and added diversions, and existing diversion points on Icicle Creek.

The Alpine Lakes Automation/Optimization Appraisal Study (A/O Study) evaluates the potential to install telemetry equipment at each of the seven lakes to allow IPID and the Hatchery to remotely control the water release structures from their offices.  Rather than uncontrolled drainage, automation would allow the water users to fine tune the quantities of water they remove from the lakes to meet both consumptive use and instream flow requirements.

The original concept for the study was to evaluate more efficient use of water and refill rates.

However, the scope of the A/O Study has expanded to include analysis of increasing storage at Snow and Eightmile Lakes.   The study evaluates increasing storage at Upper & Lower Snow Lakes by 5 feet and drawing down Lower Snow by an additional 3 feet.  The study also evaluates two options at Eightmile Lake.  The first involves rebuilding the dam to its original height (adding 4 feet to current pool); the second adds another 1 foot above that.  Both options also evaluate lowering the Eightmile Lake outlet by 19 to 22 feet below current drawdown levels.

The A/O Study then evaluates the water supply opportunities should six of the seven IPID/LNFH lakes be fully drained each year. (At present, IPID diverts from the four lakes to which it holds rights on a rotating basis.)

The proposals to install automation equipment, manipulate lake levels, and increase diversions from the lakes seem likely to require approvals from the U.S. Forest Service (which manages the Alpine Lakes Wilderness) and the Department of Ecology (which manages water rights).  To date neither agency has indicated their positions regarding these proposals, although as discussed in Part 1 of this series, Ecology’s Office of the Columbia River has provided substantial funding to study new dams and diversions from the Enchantment Lakes.

 


by Leave a comment

Part 3: New Dams & Diversions in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness?

Part 3:  The Upper Klonaqua Lake Pipeline Proposal

Upper Klonaqua Lake (Aspect Nov. 2014)

Upper Klonaqua Lake (Aspect Consulting, Nov. 2014)

This is the third of a four-part series regarding proposals to re-build a dam and increase water diversions from as many as seven lakes in the Enchantment Lakes region of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.  Part 1 describes the genesis and functioning of the Icicle Work Group, the entity which is proposing the water projects. Part 2 examines the Eightmile Lake Restoration-Storage project, and Part 4 examines the Alpine Lakes Automation-Storage project.

In a nutshell, the Department of Ecology’s Office of the Columbia River has funded Chelan County to investigate how to solve water problems in the Wenatchee River watershed.  The primary focus of the effort is to increase water storage and diversions from seven lakes in the Enchantment Lakes region of the Alpines Lakes Wilderness.

This article discusses the preliminary proposal to divert water out of Upper Klonaqua Lake.  The only study for this project released to date is the draft Bathymetry and Topographic Survey of Upper Klonaqua Lake and Conceptual Release Options (Aspect Consulting, Nov. 2014).

Topo map of Klonaqua Lakes

As with all of the Alpine Lakes proposals, the search is on for new water to supply downstream uses in the Icicle Creek and Wenatchee Valley.

The Upper Klonaqua Lake concept involves installing a siphon or pump or blasting a tunnel  from Lower Klonaqua into Upper Klonaqua Lake, draining it into Lower Klonaqua Lake, and then allocating that water for uses further down in the watershed.

Upper-Klonaqua-Lake-Conceptual-Review Graphics (Nov. 2014)

Upper Klonaqua Lake Bathymetry Synopsis (Aspect Consulting, Nov. 2014) Draft

In September 2014, Gravity Consulting LLC conducted a study of the depth and contours of Upper Klonaqua Lake.

As discussed in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, the Icicle and Peshastin Irrigation Districts (IPID) hold some form of water rights and easements for several Alpine Lakes, including the Upper and Lower Klonaqua Lakes.  IPID has never accessed water from Upper Klonaqua, and according to the report, has used only 1,600 acre-feet of its 1926 2500 acre-foot water right from Lower Klonaqua Lake.

Nonetheless, the Upper Klonaqua Study evaluates the natural storage capacity of Upper Klonaqua, including how much water could be obtained by drawing down the lake.

Issues with this proposal include that any new water project in a wilderness area would require approval of the U.S. Forest Service (and, according to the Wilderness Act of 1964,  possibly the U.S. President).

And, because this proposal  would involve diverting increased quantities of water from the Klonaqua Lakes, the Department of Ecology would have to evaluate relinquishment, and issue new water rights to accomplish the goal.

To date, neither the Forest Service nor the Department of Ecology have expressed opinions about the viability of these proposals.


by Leave a comment

Part 2: New Dams & Diversions in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness?

Part 2:  The Eightmile Lake Storage Proposal

This is the second of a four-part series regarding proposals to re-build a dam and increase water diversions from as many as seven lakes in the Enchantment Lakes region of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.  Part 1 describes the genesis and functioning of the Icicle Work Group, the entity which is proposing the water projects. Part 3 examines the Upper Klonaqua Lake Pipeline proposal, and Part 4 examines the Alpine Lakes Automation-Storage project.

In a nutshell, the Department of Ecology’s Office of the Columbia River has funded Chelan County to investigate how to solve water problems in the Wenatchee River watershed.  The primary focus of the effort is to increase water storage and diversions from seven lakes in the Enchantment Lakes region of the Alpines Lakes Wilderness.

This article discusses the proposal to rebuild a dam at Eightmile Lake and make more water available for the City of Leavenworth and other downstream uses.

Eightmile Lake nonfunctioning dam Sept 15 2013 by Karl Forsgaard

Nonfunctional dam at Eightmile Lake in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness (Photo: Karl Forsgaard)

The Eightmile Lake Restoration-Storage proposal evaluates the ability to increase water storage in Eightmile Lake by increasing the pool level and/or drawing the lake down further.

The original dam and control works for the lake have collapsed and current usable capacity is 1,375 acre-feet of water.

The Eightmile Lake Restoration Draft Appraisal Study (Nov. 2014) evaluates four options for increasing storage capacity: 2,000, 2,500 (2 options), and 3,500 acre-feet.  All four options include re-building the dam to its original height, or higher, as well as drawing down Eightmile Lake pool below its current, semi-natural outlet.  The Eightmile Lake proposal is based on assumptions about water rights and easements held by the Icicle and Peshastin Irrigation Districts (IPID), which actively manage four of the Alpine Lakes to serve water to about 7,000 acres of orchards and converted lands in the Wenatchee Valley.

IPID holds water rights dating from 1926 that allow the district to store water in and divert from the lakes.  The Eightmile Lake water right was adjudicated in 1929 at 2500 acre-feet annual volume, and 25 cfs rate of diversion.   However, the Eightmile dam collapsed at some point in the past and IPID has not used the full (artificial) storage capacity for many years.  There are questions about relinquishment of water rights over and above what IPID needs and has used in the past.  At a minimum, the Department of Ecology would have to issue water rights for new and increased uses.

Eightmile Lake Easements (Aspect Nov. 2014)

Eightmile Lake easements held by IPID are shown in blue (Aspect Consulting, Nov. 2014)

IPID holds easements that allow it to “store” water in several of the Alpine Lakes, although the scope of the easement for Eightmile Lake does not cover the entire lake.  As described in a Review of Eight Mile Lake Storage Authority (Aspect Consulting, 3-5-14), IPID’s easements cover only  a portion of the lake.

Any increase in storage capacity would require, at a minimum, U.S. Forest Service approvals.  Section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 requires Presidential approval to establish and maintain reservoirs within wilderness areas.

The appraisal study hypothesizes that the easement language will allow and perhaps even require the Forest Service to approve an expansion of the reservoir:  “In performing maintenance, repair, operation, modification, upgrading and replacement of [Eightmile Lake] facilities, [IPID] will not without prior written consent of the Forest Service, which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld, materially increase the size or scope of the facilities.”

Min & Max Inundation for Option 2 (Aspect Nov. 2014)-2

Minimum and Maximum Inundation Levels for Eightmile Lake Restoration, Option 2 (Aspect Consulting, Nov. 2014)

The Eightmile Lake proposal raises questions about the scope of impacts on riparian zones and wilderness surrounding the lake, including trails, campsites and other public amenities.

Trout Unlimited has published a study evaluating increase in storage at Eightmile Lake to provide water to improve instream flows in Icicle Creek.  That study includes a brief review of impacts to campsites and trails around the lake.

Eightmile Lake is one of the most popular trails and destinations in the Icicle Creek region of the Alpine Lake Wilderness, partly because of its easy accessibility.  To date, however, the U.S. Forest Service has not provided a public position regarding proposals to expand or draw down Eightmile Lake.

 


by 1 Comment

New Dams & Diversions in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness?

PART 1:  Genesis of the Icicle Work Group

Enchantment Zone Icicle ID Instream Flow Improvement Options Analysis (7-22-14)

Enchantment Lakes targeted for new dams and water diversions (Graphic from Icicle Irrigation District Instream Flow Improvement Project (Forsgren Assoc. & Trout Unlimited, 7-22-14)

The Department of Ecology’s Office of the Columbia River is funding and sponsoring proposals to increase water diversions from seven lakes in the Enchantment Lakes region of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness that flow into Icicle Creek:  Colchuck, Eightmile, Upper and Lower Snow, Nada, Upper Klonaqua and Square Lakes.

This post is Part 1 of a 4-part Naiads series describing the Alpine Lakes proposed projects.  Part 2 discusses the Eightmile Lake Restoration-Storage project.  Part 3 discusses the Upper Klonaqua Lake pipeline proposal.  Part 4 discusses the Alpine Lakes Automation-Storage project.

In 2012, the Office of the Columbia River funded Chelan County to form a “collaborative work group” to address Icicle Creek water quantity issues.  Ostensibly the purpose of the Icicle Work Group (IWG) is to solve instream flow problems in Icicle Creek while obtaining more water from the system for out-of-stream uses.

The impetus for creating the work group comes from a lawsuit filed by the City of Leavenworth against the Department of Ecology regarding its quantification of the city’s water rights.  The Chelan County Court decision was issued in 2011.  The case is on hold in the Court of Appeals while Ecology uses the IWG process to attempt to find water for Leavenworth (see Settlement Position Paper, Initial Status Report, 2nd status report and 3rd status report).  If the effort fails and the lawsuit moves forward, a court decision could undermine Ecology’s authority to quantify water rights that pre-date the 1917 water code.  The statewide implications are substantial; presumably Ecology would prefer to settle and vacate the lower court orders.

Funding the IWG

To implement the Leavenworth settlement efforts, the Office of the Columbia River entered into a $700,000 contract with Chelan County Natural Resources Department to run the IWG and pursue water development projects.

Chelan County subcontracted with Aspect Consulting (Dan Haller, principal) for $506,000 of investigations and Dally Environmental Service (Lisa Dally Wilson, principal) for  $16,000 of meeting facilitation.   Also subcontracted is Cascadia Law Group (Jay Manning, principal) ($$ unknown) and the Icicle Peshastin Irrigation District ($25,000 per year for two years).

The Office of the Columbia River is now seeking another $3.5 million to continue the IWG work into the 2015-17 biennium.  (Gov. Inslee has proposed a smaller budget for the OCR, but details relating to the IWG are not available.)

Icicle Work Group Goals

In addition to finding water for Leavenworth, the IWG process has several goals embodied in its Operating Procedures.  These include improving instream flows in Icicle Creek, helping create a sustainable Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery, protecting tribal rights to fish at the hatchery, improving water reliability for agriculture, and improving ecosystem health.

All this must occur while achieving compliance with state and federal laws, including the Wilderness Act  –  no small feat.

The IWG is a “quid pro quo” process.  This raises the question whether ecosystem benefits, including water quality improvements and restoration of instream flows for endangered species, may only be achieved if new water supply is provided for Leavenworth (along with other IWG goals).  This in turn raises questions about whether and to what extent state and federal laws (for example, Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act permits) may be superceded by a stakeholder-based collaborative process.  What is the role of the Department of Ecology and NOAA Fisheries, agencies who are tasked with issuing permits for the Leavenworth Fish Hatchery, for example?

Overview of the Alpine Lakes Water Projects

According to IWG studies, the primary source of water supply for new municipal/domestic/agricultural uses will come from the seven lakes in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.

Eightmile Lake forest at west end Sept 15 2013 by Karl Forsgaard

Forested west end of Eightmile Lake. Proposals for raising the lake pool have not studied the impacts on riparian and wilderness resources. (Photo: Karl Forsgaard)

At present, three proposals relate to the Alpine Lakes:  (1) the Eightmile Lake Restoration-Storage project; (2) the Upper Klonaqua Lake pipeline proposal; and (3) the Alpine Lakes Automation-Storage project.  These projects are discussed in Parts 2, 3, and 4 of this series.  The latest studies can also be found on the Chelan County NRD website.

The Icicle-Peshastin Irrigation District (IPID) holds grandfathered easements and water rights that allow it to store and divert water from the Alpine Lakes. Leavenworth Fish Hatchery (owned by US Bureau of Reclamation, operated by US Fish & Wildlife Service) also holds a water right for Snow & Nada Lakes.  The scope of these interests is a matter for evaluation as well.

The Alternative Conservation Proposal

Rather than divert additional water from the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, water solutions for Icicle Creek could be found through more sustainable approaches.  Approximately 117 cfs of new instream flow could be added to a 6-mile length of Icicle Creek (downstream of Snow Creek) by moving the Icicle Peshastin Irrigation District’s take-out point downstream to the Wenatchee River.

Water conservation opportunities are substantial.  Rather than looking to the Alpine Lakes as the first option, the City of Leavenworth should adopt an aggressive water conservation plan, as should other users in the valley.  These actions, combined with promoting water markets that facilitate selling and trading water rights, could supply future water uses.  However, these approaches have received minimal consideration to date.

Public Outreach & Environmental Study Processes

Manipulating lake levels and allocating new water rights from the Alpine Lakes is likely to impact the public’s interest in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, and could be controversial.  Although the IWG was asked to create a Wilderness Advisory Group to solicit immediate input on these proposals, that idea was eliminated without discussion at the Dec. 2014 IWG meeting.

Chelan County did hold a public meeting in Seattle in 2012, from which the perception arose that the environmental community is not concerned about the Alpine Lakes water storage and diversion proposals.  A similar meeting may be held in January 2015.  Meanwhile, scoping under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) will be scheduled for spring or summer 2015.  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes are unknown at this time.

In addition to the Alpine Lakes storage and water right proposals, the Icicle Work Group is evaluating several other projects to improve instream flow and habitat in Icicle Creek.  There is also movement afoot by other water users in the Wenatchee Valley to capture Icicle Creek (including Alpine Lakes) water for downstream uses.

The ultimate “package” of projects will involve trade-offs that require public scrutiny and input.

For more information about the Icicle Work Group, see the Chelan County website, and read Parts 2, 3 and 4 of this series.