Long
Lake is not a feasible option for off-stream water
storage, according to studies conducted by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation.
Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area Office on Monday
released its final appraisal of the project, which
studied the storage potential of a narrow valley
west of Upper Klamath Lake.
The
goal was to find an area that could store water to
be used in dry years.
The
study found that water would only be able to be
pumped into the valley once every seven to 10 years,
based on historic inflows and legally mandated
requirements to provide water to the environment.
“The
study findings indicated that the return on
investment is extremely low and does not warrant
further study,” a press release from Reclamation’s
local office said.
The
project cost was estimated between $550 million and
$2.3 billion.
Some
stakeholders were disappointed in the findings, but
others said they think there was still a chance for
building more water storage in the Basin.
“I
think we’ve got real potential,” said Marshall
Staunton, a Tulelake irrigator.
Federal officials have considered Long Lake, just
west of Upper Klamath Lake, as a possible off-stream
water storage site for decades.
County officials have pushed for the project in
recent years because of water shortages and drought
that impacted area irrigators.
Bureau of Reclamation officials say they would
continue to evaluate other possible water storage
areas.
“Plans are to examine smaller off-stream and
on-stream storage options in the Upper Klamath Basin
as well as groundwater utilization options that make
sense for the entire Klamath watershed,” said Sue
Fry, manager of Reclamation’s local office.
State Sen. Doug Whitsett, R-K lamath Falls, declined
to comment on Reclamation’s determination until he’d
had a chance to read the full study on the matter.
State Rep. Bill Garrard, R-Klamath Falls, and
Klamath County Commissioner John Elliott said they
were disappointed in the final findings on Long
Lake.
“I
think a lot of us thought that could be long-term
storage,” Garrard said.
Greg
Addington, executive director of Klamath Water Users
Association, said he feels Reclamation’s report
doesn’t close the door on Long Lake.
But
Elliott was less optimistic, saying Reclamation’s
findings “pretty well close the door on it.”
Staunton said he was glad to see the Long Lake
question finally answered.
He
said he opposed the project, much to the chagrin of
fellow irrigators, because the magnitude of water
needed to make it work was unrealistic
“I
know the irrigators really want storage, but it’s
time to move on,” he said.
Staunton said he’d rather focus on smaller storage
projects that could be developed within the
boundaries of the Klamath Reclamation Project, such
as underground storage and reservoirs.
Side Bar
Upper Klamath Lake and Long
Lake
Upper Klamath Lake
Area: 121 square miles or 77,000
acres
Average depth: 8 feet
Storage capacity: 420,000 acre-feet
Annual water loss from evaporation:
290,000 acre-feet or 4 feet in depth
Long Lake (projected)
Area: 4.5 square miles or 2,000
acres
Average depth: between 160 and 200
feet
Storage capacity: 350,000 to 420,000
acre-feet
Annual water loss from evaporation:
8,000 acre-feet or one-tenth of a foot in depth
Sources:
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Klamath County
Board
of Commissioners
How would Long Lake have been
built?
Long Lake is a narrow valley that
sits west of Upper Klamath Lake and has a higher
elevation.
Water can naturally accumulate on
the valley floor, but only to a shallow depth and
for short periods of time.
Turning the valley into a
reservoir would require several improvements. Water
would have to be pumped into the area to fill it,
likely through the Geary Canal. The floor of the
valley would have to be lined to reduce seepage.
Depending on how much water would
want to be stored, a saddle dike could be built in a
gap on the valley's northeast ridge.
What are the other options?
Bureau of
Reclamation officials said there are numerous
options for water storage in the Klamath Basin.
Here's a list of possible
projects, though officials said some have already
determined unfeasible and likely won't be studied:
- Whiteline Reservoir, just east of
Upper Klamath Lake
- Dredge Upper Klamath Lake or
heighten Link River Dam to increase storage
- Buck Lake, Aspen Lake and Round
Lake, a number of water bodies just west of Upper
Klamath Lake
- Agency Lake/Barnes Ranch
- Williamson River Canyon
- Wocus Marsh
- Caledonia Marsh
- Klamath Drainage District
- Lower Klamath National Wildlife
Refuge storage
- Expand Tule Lake Sump storage
- Swan Lake
- Torrent Springs on the Sycan
- Gerber Reservoir
- Bryant Mountain pumped storage'
- Boundary Dam, where the Lost
River first enters Oregon after exiting Clear Lake
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section
107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml