Reply #10: Comments on Columbia River water diversion need comments by 1/5

[eridani]

Columbia River Water Rights - Environmental Impact Study


The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) proposes to deliver more water from the Columbia River to irrigators and municipalities. The “Lake Roosevelt drawdown” proposal is part of a much larger project to build the “second half” of the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project, including:

new dams (Crab Creek Dam, Hawk Creek Dam, Sand Hollow Creek Dam, and others) that drown wildlife habitat and farms, and take private property

increased diversion of water from the Columbia River
massive public subsidies for non-sustainable agriculture.
Comments are due January 5. Send your comments to:

Derek Sandison
Central Regional Director
Department of Ecology
15 West Yakima Ave. Suite 200
Yakima, WA 98902-3452
Or emailed to: Lakeroosevelt {at} ecy.wa.gov

Background: our environmental laws require the Dept of Ecology to seek your input on its proposal to take more water from the Columbia River / Lake Roosevelt. According to the agency's website:

Ecology is preparing a scoping document (setting the parameters) for a supplemental environmental impact statement (Supplemental EIS) for the proposal. The Supplemental EIS will supplement the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Columbia River Management Plan issued by Ecology in February 2007. The Supplemental EIS will provide a more thorough evaluation of impacts associated with additional releases of stored water from Lake Roosevelt than was presented in the Programmatic EIS.
Washington State is spending millions of dollars on reports and studies to divert more water from the Columbia River to irrigate agriculture -- and envisions taxpayers and ratepayers spending billions of dollars for new dams and related infrastructure that will harm the Columbia River and salmon fishery, destroy wildlife habitat, and take thousands of acres of private land and farms by eminent domain. Please take time this week to file your comment.


Points to Make In Your Comments:

(1) Piecemeal Analysis

Taking water out of Lake Roosevelt requires a place to put the water and the infrastructure to convey it. These problems are being looked at via other studies and programs. For example, the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) recently completed an environmental assessment of the “Potholes Feed Route,” an expansion of the water delivery system within the Columbia Basin Project. Both USBR and Ecology have websites regarding the Potholes expansion, but neither website acknowledges that the project depends on taking more water out of the Columbia River. http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/ucao_misc/potholes/index.html
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/cr_potholes.html

By “piecemealing” the different parts of the project, Ecology fails to analyze the total impacts of this new water program, including destruction of habitat and harm to the rivers. To get a sense of the total water project picture, see CELP’s overview of Washington’s dam program - click here. http://columbia-institute.org/ci/citopics/Washington%20Dams.html

>>> Tell Ecology to provide a comprehensive analysis of its Columbia water program and to stop breaking the project into smaller pieces to avoid consideration of big-picture impacts on the Columbia River and salmon fishery, and costs to taxpayers and ratepayers.


(2) Toxic Sediments of Lake Roosevelt - blowing in the wind

The bed and banks of Lake Roosevelt are covered with millions of tons of slag and toxic chemicals, including arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, dioxin-furans and PCBs. This contamination is the legacy of a century of pollution discharges from the Teck Cominco smelter in Trail, British Columbia (10 miles north of the U.S.-Canada border). See the Lake Roosevelt Forum website for more information. As water levels in Lake Roosevelt are drawn down, the toxic metals contained in the exposed sediment become airborne and hazardous to public health. http://www.lrf.org/Env/Env-Sediment.html

>>> Tell Ecology to consider the impacts of new water rights on air quality in eastern Washington, including the disproportionate impact on tribal members and rural citizens.


(3) Conservation Alternative - stop wasting water

To date, the Department of Ecology has failed to consider conservation as an alternative to taking more water out of the Columbia River.

Some of the new Columbia River water rights will be given to the Tri-Cities (Richland, Kennewick, Pasco) for municipal use. But the Tri-Cities have an abysmal record on water conservation – Pasco actually enacted an ordinance forbidding the use of drought-tolerant landscape plants (for more on this scandalous situation, see the CELP article “Pasco Water Waste”. http://www.celp.org/quadcities/waterwaste.html

Some of the new Columbia River water rights will be given to Odessa irrigators, who have depleted their own groundwater through overpumping and shoddy well construction, and who are now looking to the public for a bail-out. http://columbia-institute.org/oa/odessa/Home.html

>>> Tell Ecology to consider a water conservation alternative that is aggressive, mandatory and retroactive, i.e., that applies to all existing water rights and users. No new water rights for water users who waste water!


(4) Our Water Future

The State of Washington lacks a vision to address the future of the rivers of the Columbia Basin. For the state, it’s all about getting water out of stream to new users. Yes, some of the water is supposed to be released to improve instream flows – but it comes at a very high price, both environmentally and economically speaking. The fact is, the State of Washington has NEVER been committed to protecting and restoring the salmon fisheries of the Columbia basin.

Washington state is ignoring some major issues in its relentless quest to take more water out of eastern Washington rivers. These issues include:

• Why is the state rejecting the advice of the National Academies of Science, which recommended that Washington not issue any more water rights and instead retain maximum flexibility to manage the river for fish?
• Why is the state ignoring the Columbia River Treaty between the U.S. and Canada, which expires in 2024, particularly given that Canadians want more control over the Columbia River and the massive reservoirs they built to meet U.S. needs?

>>> Ask Washington State to follow the recommendations of the National Academies of Science http://www.waterplanet.ws/crabcreek/ccrhome/Science.html on managing the Columbia River and salmon fisheries, and to work cooperatively with other states, Indian Tribes and First Nations, and the United States and Canada before taking any more water from the Columbia River.



Your comments are due January 5.
Please take a few minutes to write on behalf of your water future.