News Release
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Bureau of Reclamation gets it wrong by rushing to approve Lake Roosevelt drawdown
Federal agency dismisses concerns over climate change impacts to Columbia River, cost to taxpayers and ratepayers, toxins and public health, water future
Contacts:
Spokane - Today the Center for Environmental Law & Policy (CELP), Columbia Riverkeeper (CRK), and Sierra Club expressed opposition to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (Bureau) decision to approve taking more water from the Columbia River stored behind Grand Coulee Dam to expand the Columbia Basin Project.
"The Bureau dismissed the need for careful analysis in its rush to divert more water from the Columbia River," said Rachael Paschal Osborn, director of the CELP. "With water scarce and a changing climate, this is not 'change we can believe in.'"
On December 1, 2008, CELP and Columbia Riverkeepers represented by Crag Law Center filed suit in federal district court challenging the US Bureau of Reclamation's proposal to allocate water from the Columbia River without first completing adequate environmental analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The Bureau then undertook an environmental assessment, concluding on June 12 that taking more water from the River would have no impacts. The legal challenge to the Bureau's management of Grand Coulee Dam - with its implications for water in the West - remains in federal court.
Five main issues raised in public comment and legal challenges to the Bureau's Lake Roosevelt drawdown are:
the public health and environmental effects of lowering water levels and exposing 100 million tons of toxic slag deposited on the bed and banks of Lake Roosevelt by a zinc smelter located in Trail, B.C., just north of the U.S.-Canada border;
the cumulative effects of the Drawdown when combined with other proposals for new dams and water projects that propose to divert water from the Columbia River (e.g., Lower Crab Creek, Odessa Subarea); and
"Water in the West is precious. Given the uncertainties that climate change poses to our hydrologic systems and future water availability, large-scale water projects need careful scientific and economic anaysis," said Llyn Doremus of Sierra Club's Cascade Chapter. "The Bureau needs to openly and thoroughly disclose the costs and impacts of taking more water from the Columbia River."
The Bureau's Lake Roosevelt Drawdown is the latest salvo in a 50-year effort by the Bureau to expand irrigation to the 1-million acre Columbia Basin Project (CBP), authorized by Congress during the depression and best known for Grand Coulee Dam. The CBP, the nation's largest all-federal irrigation project, is a bellweather for national policy on water policy and agriculture.
"Columbia Riverkeeper regularly comments on federal agency decisions, but the Bureau's short-sighted review of the science here is striking," said Columbia Riverkeeper's Executive Director Brett VandenHeuvel. "Given the size and scope of the Lake Roosevelt Drawdown Project, the public deserves meaningful environmental review that discloses the serious environmental impacts posed by the Bureau's decision."
Additional Background:
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operates Grand Coulee Dam, which creates the reservoir and the electrical power to pump water to the Columbia Basin Project, one of the largest federal irrigation projects in the nation. Although the original boundaries of the Project encompassed about 1.1 million acres, only 640,000 acres are served by the Bureau.
Previous efforts by the Bureau to expand irrigation failed in 1946 when farmers in the eastern part of the CBP voted against receiving "Project" water. Instead, some farmers drilled thousands of illegal "cascading" wells, resulting in severe groundwater declines in the Odessa Aquifer. In 1971 WSU economists predicted 30 years of water remained in the Odessa Aquifer and advised farmers to amortize their investments before the water ran out. Farmers rejected the advice and instead mined the aquifer of "fossil" water dating to prior ice ages. Today the aquifer is dropping 10 feet per year. Farmers are asking taxpayers and ratepayers for millions of dollars to bail them out by replacing groundwater with water from the Columbia River.
During the 1980s and early 1990s, the Bureau halted plans to expand water to the Odessa after WSU economists and a GAO investigation warned of the undisclosed costs to taxpayers and ratepayers. The Bureau is now reviving these previously shelved plans, despite renewed concerns about costs, damage to Columbia River endangered salmon, public health impacts from exposing toxic sediments from Tech Cominco's Canadian lead and zinc smelter, and intensifying international concerns about climate change and water scarcity.
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on Columbia River water management, specifically recommending that water agencies avoid issuing new permanent water rights from the River in order to maintain flexibility to manage water flows for endangered salmon. The Bureau has yet to acknowledge the NAS recommendations.
Links:
Additional background links
Images and Maps
Top Row
(1) Map from the Bureau of Reclamation's “Story of the Columbia Basin Project”.
(2) Map showing the Odessa Subarea To enlarge, click here. (source: Initial Alternative Development & Evaluation, Odessa Subarea Special Study, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sept. 2006)
(3) Grand Coulee Dam, Columbia River. Note pipes for pumping water from reservoir (Lake Roosevelt) to canal, Banks Lake (right upper corner), and on the Columbia Basin Project. (Bureau of Reclamation photo)
Second Row
(1) East Low Canal near the Weber Siphon and I-90 (CELP photo)
(2) East Low Canal (Front cover of “Initial Alternative Development and Evaluation, Odessa Subarea Special Study, Columbia Basin Project”, September 2006, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation)
Third Row
(1) Teck Cominco Smelter, Columbia River (CELP photo)
(2) Chinook Salmon (Gary Gadwa photo)
Fourth Row
(1) Leaving the Columbia Basin Project (CELP photo)
