Editor’s note: This is one in an ongoing series of
stories about various issues with the Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement and how it might impact local
residents. County residents will vote this coming
general election on an advisory measure concerning the
KBRA and dam removal agreement.
Al Switzer says he’s
heard a number of reasons why
more water storage
hasn’t been built in the Klamath Basin or isn’t included
in the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.
Some argue
feasibility studies aren’t complete, there wouldn’t be
enough water to fill a new storage facility, or the cost
of building new storage would be far too much in
relation to its value.
Construction of
additional water storage in the Basin has been discussed
for years, with proponents saying it could help meet
water demand for fish and irrigators. Voters should care
because meeting that demand could mean fewer years where
water users go without water due to shortages. Fewer
water shortages means more stability in the local
agricultural economy.
Federal officials
still are considering building such a facility,
specifically at Long Lake, but the process is separate
from the implementation of the KBRA, leaving those
desiring more water storage waiting and hoping.
“(Long Lake) would
be a true water bank,” Switzer said.
Authorities considered Aspen, Round and Long lakes
northwest of Klamath Falls for water storage decades
ago. Early proposals called for linking the lakes but
studies showed the lakes couldn’t store as much water as
necessary.
The U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation in the last
few years has begun
studies looking at the Long Lake valley alone as a
storage facility. It would have a much smaller surface
area than Upper Klamath Lake, and authorities have said
it could hold approximately the same amount of water —
between 390,000 and 420,000 acre-feet — after some
modification.
Switzer acknowledged
the project would be expensive and that it wouldn’t
solve all the issues surrounding water in the Basin.
However, being able to put water aside every few years
would be worthwhile, he said, especially when
considering the $600 million agriculture pumps into the
regional economy each year.
“It isn’t foolproof
but it makes a lot of sense,” he said.
Some hurdles to conversion of valley
Jon
Hicks with the Bureau of Reclamation said there are
hurdles to converting the Long Lake valley into water
storage. He and others are conducting economics studies,
and there is a concern the project would cost too much
even with the benefits considered.
There
are also logistical concerns. Water would have to be
pumped into Long Lake to fill it, likely from Upper
Klamath Lake. Much of that water has been spoken for in
recent years, either for fish or irrigators, leaving
little left to be stored in another facility.
Hicks
said while the Basin can have wet periods, those often
lead to only short-lived influxes of water.
“You
have one month or less to pump in large quantities of
water,” he said.
Getting
clearance and funding for the project are other issues.
Hicks said building Long Lake for storage has to be
considered separate from the Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement and also would require Congress to provide the
money.