ONRC
wrong about Long Lake, relies on outdated study data
By
JOHN ELLIOTT Guest columnist
The
author
John Elliott is
a Klamath County commissioner and has been active in the effort to develop
Long Lake for water storage.
I’m not sure I would start with even a tacit agreement with the Oregon
Natural Resources Council’s June 11 commentary about Long Lake.
Most, if not all, of Steve Pedery’s “facts” are erroneous: The 45,000
acre feet of water storage is the combined total of both Barnes and Wood River
Ranch.
If it were true, then the depth of Barnes would be in the neighborhood of 16
feet. The total acreage of Wood River Ranch and Barnes is approximately 9,500
acres.
The net gain from Barnes is only about 12,000-15,000 acre-feet, which puts the
$9.1 million cost at about $600 to $760 per acre foot. Additionally, this
storage creates nothing for late summer flows. It keeps nothing in reserve,
when most of the watershed has its greatest need.
As the lake level drops, so will the Barnes storage. The Bureau of Reclamation
has been conducting geological examinations of Long Lake, including core
sampling, during the past two years.
While not final, the preliminary opinion of Long Lake as a reservoir has been
favorable. Indeed, Long Lake currently holds water in the northern half, which
in itself is remarkable, given that its watershed area extends no further than
the immediate ridges surrounding the lake.
Ignores value of cold water
The ONRC commentary fails to mention that Long Lake, with
no additional impoundment structure, will hold approximately 350,000 acre-feet
of water at a 200-foot depth. At that depth, the water is cold.
By contrast, Barnes only offers more shallow, warm water evaporation.
Interestingly, the surface area of Barnes and Long Lake is about the same.
However, given the tremendous additional storage offered by Long Lake, the
percentage of evaporative loss is significantly less and can be demonstrated
at home. Take a drinking glass and fill it with water. Pour the same amount
into a pie pan and set them both out in the sun and watch which evaporates
sooner.
I would have more respect for the ONRC’s comments regarding Barnes Lake if
the organization would describe it as habitat, not storage. That, coupled with
the removal of livestock from one of the best grazing areas on the West Coast,
is driving their advocacy. Storage is a smoke screen.
The ONRC’s cost estimate is far from reality and is based on costs developed
in 1987, which called for a series of dams and tunnels associated with the
interconnection of Aspen, Round and Long lakes.
Long Lake was never studied in isolation as a reservoir. Of the three, it
showed the lowest permeability and, thus, the highest ability to hold water.
The Bureau of Reclamation has indicated it is going to revisit its cost
estimates, which are most likely to be far less than the $500 million the
Bureau originally stated three or four years ago.
The only point of agreement in the ONRC article is the costs associated with
pumping. Even here, the ONRC overstates its case and would have us believe
that every drop pumped would have to go 400 feet up over a ridge.
Actually, the elevation at the Geary Canal is 4,132 above sea level, and the
ridge is at 4,438 feet, a difference of 306 feet. However, by boring a tunnel
through the ridge, the head to be pumped will be between 100 feet (the height
of the floor of Long Lake valley above Geary Canal) and 300 feet (estimated
high water mark above the Canal and 200 feet above the valley floor).
In addition, the ONRC makes no mention of the electrical generation that could
be achieved when the water is returned to the canal, thus partially offsetting
the cost of pumping.
The purpose of Long Lake is to provide the necessary “stretch” in the
water availability to Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River flows. At
present, the only way to provide balance to the system is to curtail water to
the Klamath Project, the Klamath River, or both, if the biological opinion for
the short nose sucker has precedence.
The ONRC seems to have no problem with the farmer or rancher shutting down
some or all of their operations to augment flows through the water bank, but
has difficulty expecting the taxpayer to fund a storage project which will
meet the needs of the biological opinions mandated by those same taxpayers’
representatives in Congress, Salem and Sacramento.
