The
author: Steve Pedery is conservation program manager for the Oregon
Natural Resources Council.
It isn’t often that the Oregon Natural Resources Council finds itself in
agreement with the Herald and News editorial page. However, your May 21
editorial on water storage correctly noted that the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation’s water bank program is extremely expensive to taxpayers, and
at best represents a stopgap fix for the Klamath Basin’s ongoing water
woes.
Unfortunately, the editorial’s call for more money to be spent on the Long
Lake Project missed the mark. The Long Lake scheme seeks to build a
reservoir in an area that was the center of an earthquake in 1993, and
currently does not hold water. The Long Lake Project would also require
pumping water some 400 feet uphill from Upper Klamath Lake and over a steep
ridge.
Realists have long known that the Long Lake is pie in the sky at best, and,
at worst, a giant waste of tax dollars. Who would pay for the huge annual
pumping costs of this project? Why should American taxpayers spend the half
to three-quarter billion-dollar estimated price tag to build it in the first
place?
Barnes Ranch better deal
For $9.1 million, it is estimated that the purchase of
Barnes Ranch will increase natural wetland storage in Upper Klamath Lake by
45,000 acre-feet, or roughly $200 per acre-foot. In contrast, optimistic
estimates indicate Long Lake storage would cost roughly $1,300 per
acre-foot, excluding the sizable annual costs of pumping massive volumes of
water uphill.
A better, cheaper, and more practical alternative is to invest in regaining
some of the former natural water storage of the Klamath Basin. A good place
to start would be the some 10,000 acres of drained lakebed and former
wetland portions of Upper Klamath and
Agency lakes — in addition to the 2,785-acre Barnes Ranch — that have
been diked off and drained over the years.
The loss of these areas has reduced the overall water storage capacity in
the watershed. By working with landowners to either purchase some of these
lands at fair market value, or enroll them in long-term easements, we can
restore natural water storage, expand wetlands and wildlife habitat, and
improve water quality in a way that is both fair to tax payers and to
farmers.
Another logical place to look for water storage in the Klamath Basin is Tule
Lake National Wildlife Refuge. By ending the practice of leasing lands on
the refuge for commercial agriculture that is of little or no benefit to
wildlife, managers could once again manage the refuge as a lake and
wetlands.
Doing so could allow up to 100,000 acre-feet of winter water to be retained
there, providing water for refuge needs in dry months and taking pressure
off of irrigation supplies. Besides costing a tiny fraction of the Long Lake
proposal, ending the lease land program could also boost rental income to
private landowners in the basin, by removing the unfair competition from the
federal government.
If the Klamath Basin’s water woes are ever to be solved, it will require us
all to get serious and make some hard choices. Unfortunately, Long Lake leads
us away from the path of realistic, cost effective programs. The last thing
the Klamath Basin needs is another expensive, ill-conceived water project that
doesn’t work as advertised.
