The gates have closed at Post Falls dam to ensure that Lake Coeur d’Alene water levels are maintained for boaters.
Meanwhile, flows have dropped nearly 2,000 cfs in the last 24 hours for the Spokane River. The theory is that redband trout fry have emerged from their redds, and so there is no impact on fish. These flows are fully controlled by Avista.
Link here to watch Spokane River flows in real time, and pray for the river.
: 
This is Part 2 of a series on Whatcom Water Insanity, covering illegal use of water in the Nooksack River basin. See Part 1 here. See paragraph at bottom for two post-publication corrections.
______________________
Nooksack River wrapping around farms near Ferndale, WA. (Image: Landsat.com)
Just as California drought provides compelling lessons about the price – economic, social, and environmental – being paid for water mismanagement, we also have examples in Washington State.
Whatcom County is notorious as one of the most lawless water basins in Washington State. For years, illegal water diversions from the Nooksack River have been reported in articles, conference presentations, legislative testimony and more.
And what’s crazy is that this illegal use has actually become an accepted modus operandi. Nevermind that diverting water without a permit is a misdemeanor, or that stealing water causes systemic harm to the environment, including endangered fisheries and water quality. Rather, there appears to be widespread agreement that illegal use of the waters of the Nooksack watershed is nothing more than business as usual.
No one has done anything about it – until now. Unfortunately, what’s being done is dead wrong.
The Department of Ecology has claimed (for years) that it lacks the resources to identify and enforce against unpermitted water use in Whatcom County.
Nooksack Chinook running the gauntlet of low flows (Image: NWIFC)
In 2013, the Lummi Nation decided to assist on the data collection side of the matter. Tribal staff floated the Nooksack River in the vicinity of Deming, Washington. GPS readings were taken wherever a water diversion pump was found, then compared with the state water rights database. Thirteen “unpermitted” users were identified.
Lummi Nation staff provided their data to Ecology. Reasonable minds would expect Ecology to order these malefactors to cease pumping and pay penalties. This seems particularly important in the Nooksack basin, where a clear signal needs to be sent to end water thievery.
But Ecology did not issue orders or penalties.
Instead, Ecology has decided to reward the illegal diverters by giving them permits.
Ecology has drafted a template to issue water rights to the Nooksack Nine. Click here to view it.
This approach would be wrong in almost any circumstance, but it is particularly egregious given the condition of the Nooksack River. The illegal users will be required to curtail their use whenever Nooksack River flows drop below what’s required in the Nooksack Instream Flow Rule. As shown in the graph at right, during the irrigation season that happens between 50-75% of the time.
To ensure that water users comply with the terms of their permits, ie, curtail their use 50-75% of the time, requires enforcement. But lack of resources is the very reason Ecology claims it cannot identify, much less stop, illegal water use in the Nooksack basin. How is it that Ecology now has the capability to police these permits?
Ecology’s general lack of enforcement capability – particularly in the water resources realm – is well documented. See, for example, Dan Chasan’s 2000 study, “The Rusted Shield,” or the Center for Environmental Law & Policy’s 2002 white paper, “Dereliction of Duty.”
Just this year, Ecology acknowledged on its website that its poor record of water rights enforcement is dissolving into non-existence. For the last three years the Washington State Legislature has converted the state Water Resources Program into a permit factory, requiring it to process at least 500 water right decisions per year or lose $500,000 in budget. As a result, “Ecology staff have needed to reprioritize and temporarily defer some work in other water rights categories including permit management, plan review, seasonal changes, enforcement, and technical assistance.”
So, Ecology will actually get credit for issuing permits to the Nooksack illegal users.
Even more problematic is that the illegal users will be taking water that is needed for fish. The instream flows established in the Nooksack Rule, adopted in 1985, are out of date and scientifically unsupported. These rule-based flows, even when met, are not adequate to protect salmon and other species.
Pursuant to the Nooksack (aka WRIA 1) watershed planning process, to which Ecology has contributed about $800,000, studies demonstrate that higher flows are needed for fish. The graph at right compares the appropriate biological flows (in green) with the flows set forth in the rule (in red).
These flows are derived from studies that Ecology funded and concurred in. So why is the agency issuing new permits conditioned only on meeting the lower flows?
The bottom line is that the Department of Ecology should not be issuing water rights that will drive the river toward the red line flow, and fail to preserve the ability to restore water to the green line flows. Ecology especially should not be issuing new water rights to scofflaws who for years have stolen the public’s water.
This situation reveals the unseemly essence of Washington state water resource policy. Every drop of water that can be justified as available – even under the thinnest of pretexts — will be allocated for out-of-stream use. We see it not just in the Nooksack, but in river basins throughout the state.
The state’s “water grab” policy — combined with exercise of unused municipal water rights, water thievery and waste, and the depleting impacts of drought and climate change — will destroy the public interest and values in Washington’s rivers. You don’t have to look to California to see the devastating consequences of a state mismanaging the public’s water.
This is the second article in a series focusing on water resource issues in Whatcom County, Washington. Part 1 addresses the City of Lynden’s efforts to get the Legislature to change the law and “fix” its illegal usage. Readers should also check out the superlative water & land use blog, Get Whatcom Planning.
We’ve made two corrections to this article since original publication. First, the tribal survey of illegal diversions occurred in the Deming reach of the Nooksack River (not the Ferndale reach). Second, the Department of Ecology contributed $800,000 toward watershed planning, not $2 million. The other $1.2 million has been spent on post-planning technical work and instream flow negotiations.
Nooksack Watershed Map (Dept of Ecology)
This is a story, the first of many, about water resource issues in Whatcom County. Whatcom County is well known as a place where a lot of people and farms and companies steal water. One of the water thieves is the City of Lynden.
Bald eagles fishing for salmon in the Nooksack River (Photo Seattle Times)
By water thieves, we mean farms, dairies, cities and anyone else who takes water out of the Nooksack River (including tributaries and connected groundwater), without a water right. This is wrong – it is stealing. It hurts the river and its salmon and steelhead and the shellfish beds in the bay. However, for decades, rather than bring enforcement action to halt water stealing in Whatcom County, the state agency in charge – the Department of Ecology – has hesitated, stumbled, apologized and pretty much done everything it can to avoid dealing with the problem.
With respect to Lynden, the city’s latest plan to stop stealing water is not to actually stop stealing, or to adopt aggressive water conservation, or to purchase and transfer existing rights, or any other water budget neutral solution. No, instead Lynden wants credit for the wastewater that the Darigold powdered milk plant is already putting into the Nooksack River a mile downstream of the City’s water treatment plant.
The problem with this scheme, however, is that it too is illegal.
Given all this illegality, Lynden is now asking the WA Legislature to make it all good. And amazingly, the Legislature is complying. Senate Bill 5298 sailed through the Senate, and was heard in the House Ag & Natural Resources Committee on March 24, 2015 – and could pass out of the committee and on to a floor vote sometime soon.
So, just to review. A city that has been stealing water and harming flows in the Nooksack River has asked the Legislature to change the law to allow it to get credit for wastewater that is already being put into the River. And the Legislature is prepared to do it.
So, why is water stealing such a big deal?
Redline – WA state’s take on flows to protect Nooksack River instream values Greenline – Flows actually need to protect instream values.
First, there’s the river. In 1985, the Department of Ecology adopted an instream flow rule for the Nooksack River. However, these instream flows were a compromise and not adequate to protect fisheries. The graph at right shows what flows are needed (green line) versus what flows are protected under the law (red line).
Fascinating graph showing how often the rule-based instream flows are not met throughout the year.
And that red line is not reality. The flows that are supposed to be protected in the instream flow rule are in fact often not achieved. So water stealing by Lynden (and others) really does hurt the river and its fish.
Second, the Legislature is rewarding a scofflaw. And this is really bad policy, because there are quite a lot of water thieves in Washington – in Whatcom County and elsewhere. If the Leg gives in on this one, where does it end?
Third, is the “foreign water” concept – the idea that the mitigation water from the Darigold plant is adding new water to the Nooksack River. In western water law “foreign water” means water that is imported from another watershed.
But here, the Department of Ecology has determined that Darigold wastewater is foreign because it comes from the cows. In other words, the cows drink Nooksack River water, and they produce milk. But once the milk comes out of the cow, it’s foreign water.
Once you’ve had a good laugh about that, feel free to call your legislator and ask that they stop rewarding water thieves, including the City of Lynden, and oppose SSB 5298.
More laughs and lots of good information about water and land use in Whatcom County can be found at Get Whatcom Planning.
The idea of salmon above Grand Coulee dam is getting a lot of attention these days, both artistic and scientific. Naiads readers are encouraged take two actions: (1) view the movie and (2) comment on the proposal. Details below.
Naiads has previously reported on the intrepid Columbia River paddlers who traveled from Astoria, Oregon to Canal Flats, B.C. in the summer and fall of 2014. They have just released a new film that examines the potential for salmon restoration through the lens of their journey. The 35-minute movie, Treaty Talks: Paddling Up the Columbia River for People and Salmon, takes the viewer up the river and into the lives of the Spokane and Colville Tribes kids who carved the dugout canoes, along with many others who dream about and are dedicated to salmon restoration.
The Columbia Canoe Journey was undertaken by Voyages of Rediscovery, aka Adam Wicks-Arshack, Xander Demetrios, John Malik, and Jay Callahan. It’s an inspiring and beautiful film.
The film was sponsored by Upper Columbia United Tribes or UCUT, a consortium of five tribes in the Upper Columbia basin that serves to protect and restore the natural resources of those tribes – covering 2 million acres and lands and waters located within the states of Washington and Idaho.
UCUT has been instrumental in promoting a serious policy discussion about salmon reintroduction above Grand Coulee dam. See related posts on this blog discussing the Columbia River Treaty recommendations and other documents.
UCUT has now released for public comment the Phase 1 Plan for the Upper Columbia Basin Fish Passage and Reintroduction Project. Comments on the plan are welcome and due to UCUT on February 27, 2015. It’s a well-constructed plan that will
UCUT’s Phase 1 Plan follows on the NW Power & Conservation Council’s October 2014 adoption of the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Program. The program plan calls for a phased approach to study and implement reintroduction of anadromous fish (salmon, steelhead, eels and other species) to areas where fish migrated historically, but which are now blocked due to dams and etc.
Part 4: The Alpine Lakes Automation-Storage Project
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 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.
Part 3: The Upper Klonaqua Lake Pipeline Proposal
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 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.
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.
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 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.”
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.
Eightmile Lake campsites and trails affected by lake elevation changes (from Forsgren Associates & Trout Unlimited, Icicle Irrigation District Instream Flow Options Analysis, July 2014)
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.
PART 1: Genesis of the Icicle Work Group
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.
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.
Spokane River at Low Flow
As reported in a previous post, the Washington Department of Ecology commenced formal rulemaking to create an instream flow rule for the Spokane River. Public comments are needed by November 7th, and a public workshop and hearing will be held on October 22nd.
As with many of the Department of Ecology’s efforts, the Spokane River rule is both good news and bad news. Instream flow rules create a “water right for the river” that prevents allocation of future water rights that harm streamflows. It is important and necessary that Washington state create such a water right for the Spokane River.
But Ecology has low-balled the proposed instream flow numbers, proposing to protect no more than 850 cfs below Monroe St. dam in summer months. This proposal fails to give the Spokane River the real protections that it needs.
There are several issues around the numbers Ecology has picked. First, these flows (which change with the seasons) are not sufficiently protective of the important redband trout fish that live in the river. Ecology and the Dept of Fish & Wildlife have offered some excuses along the lines of “fish need less water.” Don’t believe it.
These flows also fail to recognize the Spokane River’s popularity as a recreational resources for boaters. Ecology engaged in zero research or outreach as to what kind of flows boaters and paddlers need.
Second, Washington and Idaho are slowly building toward an interstate dispute over how much water each state is entitled to use (both instream and out of stream). By picking low numbers, Ecology is giving away the barn, the horses, the tractors, and the hay. It is not clear why our state public servants feel they have the authority to make such a giveaway. Who’s in charge here? This is an important interstate sovereignty issue that has received no attention whatsoever from Governor Inslee’s office.
Finally, Ecology’s instream flow scientists recently reported on the methods they use to establish instream flow numbers. The bottom line – in all other watersheds in Washington, Ecology is using very conservative numbers that protect flows in rivers nine years out of ten. Not the Spokane though, where the flows give 50% or less protection. Why, particularly given the interstate issues, is the Spokane singled out for LESS protection than other rivers around the state?
Citizens who care about the Spokane River need to get involved. Keep an eye on this blog and www.celp.org for more information about how to comment and act to protect the Spokane River.
Salmon Chief sculpture at Spokane Falls. Artist Smoker Marchand. Photo by Luke Wiley Photography, http://law.aminus3.com/
Not just sockeye, but wild sockeye, are returning to the Washington and British Columbia Okanogan country in record-breaking numbers, right now. Lynda Mapes tells the wonderful story in yesterday’s Seattle Times, “On Columbia, ‘just add water’ seems to be working.”
Water flows are critical to salmon’s ability to get up the river, around the dams, and home to natal spawning grounds. For Okanogan sockeye, the water spills at Columbia River dams ordered by Judge Redden, as part of the epic Columbia hydropower system Endangered Species Act lawsuits, are proving their merit this year with sockeye’s return. And just as critical, the Native Nations of the Okanogan Nation Alliance have been the leaders in calling the salmon home — through hard work, collaboration, negotiation, and faith.
When will salmon — in this case Chinook and steelhead — return to the Spokane River? The “calling home” has begun, with official discussions of fish passage at Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph dams, with the Spokane City Council’s endorsement of the NW Power Council’s proposal for return of salmon to the Upper Columbia, and even with the Salmon Chief sculpture installed at the base of the Spokane Falls in May.
And maybe, just maybe, the Washington Department of Ecology will come to understand its role to ensure enough water in a critical spawning and rearing area for our future salmon, when it adopts an instream flow for the Spokane River later this year. So far, Ecology has not seen its place in this calling of the salmon home.
But it’s not too late.
Salmon will return to the Spokane. People with vision, please visit here.
Naiads 