Crab Creek off list 

By Shirley Wentworth

The Othello Outlook, March 3, 2008

The Lower Crab Creek site is off the list — as far as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is concerned.

That’s a decision that relieves the farming families living south of Royal City who would have been forced to move if their area had been chosen as a site to build a reservoir and dam. The reservoir would also have forced a rerouting of Highway 26 between Othello and Royal City.

Bureau officials came to Moses Lake last week to meet with members of the Columbia Basin Development League and give an update on the Odessa Subarea Special Study. Basin farmers want water to irrigate another 140,000 acres.

Project Manager Ellen Beggren said the Bureau reviewed 83 public comments, 70 percent of which were opposed to building a dam and reservoir in the Lower Crab Creek area. Forty-six percent of the comments came from residents, 14 percent from ag interests, 10 percent from recreational interests, 7 percent from environmental interests, and 1 percent from nongovernmental organizations — such as the CBDL — and 23 percent came from “other.”

Of the four proposed alternatives for delivering more water to the Columbia Basin Project, Fish & Wildlife officials preferred Alternative C, which is to enlarge the existing East Low Canal south of Interstate 90, or Alternative D, which uses the current configuration north of I-90. They said that Alternative A and Alternative B would fragment the shrub-steppe habitat too much, making it difficult for various wildlife species to travel around their habitat. Alternative A is the construction of a new East High Canal system north and south of I-90. Alternative B is the construction of a new East High Canal north of I-90 along with enlarging the capacity of the existing East Low Canal south of I-90, and the construction of a 2.3 mile extension.

The state Department of Natural Resources weighed in in favor of Alternatives A or B. Alternative A can deliver water to 140,000 acres and would cost between $2.1 billion and $4.7 billion to build. Alternative B can deliver water for 127,000 additional acres and would cost between $1.9 billion and $3.9 billion to construct.

The agricultural interests said Alternative C, which could deliver water to 70,000 acres and cost between $1 billion and $1.7 billion, and Alternative D, which could deliver water to 40,700 more acres an cost between $377 million and $700 million, would not provide enough water.

Several dryland farming groups, totally opposed the project, saying it was too much money for the federal government to spend.

Five different environmental groups said the Bureau should consider other options such as water conservation, water measurement, water markets, well reconstruction and conversion to dryland farming.

Beggren said the Bureau recommends going ahead and studying Alternative B.

“We felt it balanced the use of existing infrastructure and it has a lot of flexibility — how it might be studied and phased in,” she said.

The Bureau also looked at options for increasing water supply to the CBP that don’t tamper with the Columbia River flow objectives set for endangered fish.

Three involve modification of existing CBP storage facilities: one would be to draw down at Banks Lake, one is to raise the water surface by two feet at Banks Lake, and the third is to adjust water storage timing at Potholes Reservoir.

Three sites were looked at for potential places to build a reservoir and dam: Lower Crab Creek, Rocky Coulee and Dry Coulee.

“We overwhelming heard that from a cost point of view, it’s best to draw down Banks Lake — but we will still have a lot of issues with that and with modifying operations at the Potholes, “ she said.

She also said there was a lot of opposition to the Crab Creek site and that the Dry Coulee site is not ideal from an operational standpoint because it means having to pump Grand Coulee twice to get water to Odessa.

Beggren said the Bureau recommend going ahead with studying the Rocky Coulee area as the possible site for a dam and reservoir, which is less expensive than the Dry Coulee site and has less environmental issues.

Estimated construction cost for Rocky Coulee is between $234 million and $494 million. It can store 126,000 acre-feet of water and serve 46,900 acres, 34 percent of the desired allotment.

Beggren said the Bureau will be looking at a combination of water modifications, and they are still figuring out the ability and willingness of farmers to pay.

The Center for Environmental Law and Policy commended the Bureau for taking the Crab Creek site out of consideration.

“The public spoke and the Bureau listened,” said Rachael Paschal Osborn, executive director of CELP. “We are delighted that this particular threat to Crab Creek has been eliminated.”

The lower Crab Creek site, just below Royal City, includes 19,000 acres of federal and state wildlife refuge land that supports endangered fish, sandhill crane migration stops, and other sensitive species that live only in the shrubsteppe. Osborn considers it one of the richest wildlife areas in the Inland Northwest.

Osborn issued a reminder that Crab Creek is still threatened.

“Unlike the Bureau, the state of Washington continues to identify Lower Crab Creek as its first choice for a damsite under its new Columbia River water supply development program. The state’s approach is a short-sighted one to addressing water supply issues,” she said.

Even though the environmental footprint of the project has shrunk, it still remains enormously expensive, she said, and it’s not clear who’ll foot the bill.