OK - compare the costs

Klamath Falls Herald and News - Letter to the Editor

June 15, 2006

It isn't often that I find myself even in partial agreement with the Oregon Natural Resources Council, and that was again generally the case after I read the column by ONRC's Steve Pedery about Long Lake June 11.

However, parts of Pedery's treatise on Long Lake actually provide an important insight into costs associated with implementing measures that actually enhance water supplies in the Klamath Basin.

Pedery and other so-called “realists” advocate drowning more farmland - this time, Barnes Ranch on Upper Klamath Lake - over development of new, offstream deep storage such as Long Lake.

He justifies his position, in part, based on a per acre-foot cost estimates on the proposals.

Pedery claims that Barnes Ranch storage will cost $200 per acre-foot, based on an associated storage volume of 45,000 acre-feet.

It should be noted that this amount of water can only be provided in certain water year types, and with many other caveats that Pedery chose not to address.

 

In contrast, he concludes that Long Lake's “optimistic” storage costs would be roughly $1,300 per acre-foot.

 

While other information suggests that Pedery's Long Lake cost estimate is inflated, let's assume he's correct. In 2001, Pedery (then with WaterWatch), ONRC and other anti-farming interests floated a proposal to buy out “willing sellers” in the Tulelake area at $4,000 per acre.

 

That land generally consumes around 2 acre-feet per acre, and the theory here was that water previously used for irrigation would somehow be freed up and find its way to the Klamath River. Let's see - $4,000 per acre divided by 2 acre-ft per acre. That comes up to $2,000 per acre-foot of “new” water. This makes construction of Long Lake - even with Pedery's inflated cost estimate - look like a bargain in comparison. Pedery deserves our thanks for the reality check.

 

Dan Keppen

Executive Director

Family Farm Alliance

Klamath Falls