Evaluating Elements of the Yakima River Basin Paper

To prepare to take part in the class activity, you need to learn about the water challenges of the Yakima River Basin and the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan. To do this, you will have several readings. Some will be shared by everyone so we have some common understanding, some will be specific to your stakeholder role.

In any serious effort to promote more sustainable water resource management, one must engage in a long, interdisciplinary, and hopefully inclusive process – one that blends science, policy, politics, values, traditions, etc.

The people in the Yakima River Basin and the Washington State government have long been aware of the water challenges in the basin and have been struggling to come to some compromises to preserve water resources and ecosystems while also accommodating cultural needs, agricultural productivity, and development potential.

Learning about the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan will provide a window into the kind of controversies and decisions that must be grappled with in any region coping with insufficient water to meet demands.

For this assignment, work through the following steps…

Step 1 – Work through the common readings

Step 2 – Do the readings specific to your stakeholder role

Take good notes throughout steps 2 and 3 to help you keep in mind the most significant water-related challenges in the Yakima River Basin, potential solutions to them, and your stakeholder perspectives related to them. To learn more, you can peruse the articles listed in Other Resources, or dive into the readings for other stakeholders.

The Common Readings

1) Inslee, J (2013). Yakima River Basin: Water, Jobs and Fish. 2013 Policy Brief. The Office of the Governor, The State of Washington. http://www.governor.wa.gov/node/9266 or http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2011integratedplan/2013meetings/2013-03-13/3policy.pdf. [A nicely concise overview of the challenges and the proposed actions of the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan.]

2) Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (2010). Yakima Basin Solutions Now and for the Future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q5JEGgvF0 or http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2010workgroup/index.html  [A 10 minute video that provides an overview of the water problems in the Yakima River Basin and the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP), with the personal touch.

As it was produced by the YRBWEP, it naturally puts their plan and process to develop it in the best possible light. Not everyone is such a fan.]

3) Bureau of Reclamation (2012). Executive Summary, in Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan.

http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/reports/FPEIS/summary.pdf or pdf in the 5/22 module of the course Canvas site. [The big graphic just before the table of contents, then pages i-vii]

Stakeholder Specific Readings (citations lacking links are in Canvas in the Readings for 5/21 Module)

1. Senior Water Rights Holders (Anthony Arutyunov, Katie Boyd, Michael Case, Danielle Hufana, Binit Khadka, Bob Lewis, Lauren Mamaghani, Angelica Mendoza, Emily Person)
2. a) Center for Environmental Law & Policy (n.d.). Kittitas County: Water Scarcity and Exempt Wells. http://www.celp.org/archive/kittitas/petition/overview.html
3. b) Bacon, T (2015). State Buying Up Water Rights in Yakima River Basin. Spokane Public Radio. http://spokanepublicradio.org/post/state-buying-water-rights-yakima-river-basin
4. c) Washington State Department of Ecology (2013). Water Rights in Washington. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/961804swr.pdf[As much of the controversy in water allocation in the Yakima Basin (and elsewhere) revolves around water rights, this is a FAQ that can help you get a sense of how water rights are established.]
5. Junior Water Rights Holders (Nora Abdi, Abdullah Alsubhi, Eugene Joo, Alexa Luna, Duha Mohamed, Michael Ngo, Mevin Santhosh, Shawn Smith, Clarissa Teodoro)
6. a) Morrison, S (2013). Letter to the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Work group on behalf of the Yakima Basin Storage Alliance. http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2011integratedplan/2013meetings/2013-03-13/11ybsa.pdf
7. b) Columbia Institute for Water Policy (2007). History of Over-Appropriation in the Yakima River Basin. http://columbia-institute.org/blackrock/backrock/Overappropriation.html
8. c) Columbia Institute for Water Policy (2007). The Black Rock Dam Proposal. http://columbia-institute.org/blackrock/backrock/Proposed_dam.html
9. Government Representatives (Gerardo Apin, Kayla Chamberlain, Highland Edelman, Keegan O’Neill, Juan Pena, Marvin Puna, Melissa Radecke, Anna Strigenz)
10. a) Malloch, S and Garrity, M (2015). Yakima River Basin Integrated Plan: Implementing Basin-Scale Water Management & Climate Adaptation. The Water Report. Pages 1-8. http://swwrc.wsu.edu/documents/2015/05/thewaterreport135.pdf
11. b) There are several comment letters from government agencies in the following report starting on page 522 of the pdf reader (CR-30): U.S. Department of Interior (2012). Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Plan Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/reports/FPEIS/fpeis.pdf
12. c) Benitz, M (2009). Re: Yakima Supplemental Draft. Comment letter to Derek Sandison, Washington State Department of Ecology. First letter in pdf. [See Readings for 6/2 Module in the Canvas site]
13. Environmental Groups (Roni Bass, Kylie Cope, Gloria Gonzalez-Zapata, Emma Hattori, Stephanie Mai, Angelina Monary, Jake Salvador, Ranim Shayko, Audrey Tinnin)

Read the first article by Martin, then at least three of the others taking issue with aspects of the plan:

1. a) Martin, J (2007). Big Growth, Big Fight Over Water. The Seattle Times. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/big-growth-big-fight-over-water/
2. b) Cantrell, S (2009, 2012, 2013). 3 Letters regarding the Bumping Lake enlargement proposal from the Seattle Audubon Society. http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2011integratedplan/2013meetings/2013-03-13/14audubon.pdf
3. c) Evans, B (2009). Re: Comments of the Endangered Species Coalition on Work Group Draft Integrated Plan. Letter to the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Working Group. [pdf available in Readings for 5/22 Module in the Canvas site.]
4. d) Forsgaard, K (2013). Yakima Plan Blunders On. The Wild Cascades. http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2011integratedplan/2013meetings/2013-03-13/12cmaykut.pdf[A pretty scathing assessment of the plan.]
5. e) McGuire, R, Bates, M, Suckling, K, Skinner, S, Bekker, G, Evans, B, Zuber, J, Maykut, C, Pica, E, Adams, C, Town M, Konigsmark, K, and Baldi, G (2012). Re: Proposed National Recreation Areas. Letter to the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Work group on behalf of several environmental groups. [pdf available in Readings for 5/22 Module in the Canvas site.]

Other Resources

Cook, J and Rabotyagov, S (2015). Water Markets: Do Agricultural Sellers Only Care About the Offered Price per Acre-Foot? Evans School of Business. University of Washington. http://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/public/EvansWorkingPaper-2011-06.pdf

Kent, C (2004). Water Resource Planning in the Yakima River Basin: Development vs. Sustainability. Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers 66: 27-60. https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/yearbook_of_the_association_of_pacific_coast_geographers/v066/66.1kent.html#fig01

Martin, J (2007). Big Growth, Big Fight Over Water. The Seattle Times. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/big-growth-big-fight-over-water/

Ulep, AJ. (2013). Water They Doing Right in Yakima? A Qualitative Study in Collaborative Watershed Planning of the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan. Thesis, Goldman Honours Program in Environmental Science, Technology, and Policy, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University.

U.S. Department of Interior (2012). Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Plan Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/reports/FPEIS/fpeis.pdf

Washington State Department of Ecology – Yakima Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (YBIP) http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/YBIP.html [A web page with links to many documents]

Wilkins-Wells, K (2011). Water Rights Markets – Again. Wisdom in Water, Please http://nwksgmd4.blogspot.com/2011/07/water-rights-markets-again.html

Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Columbia-Cascades Area Office – http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/ [A web page with links to many documents]

Yakima Basin Storage Alliance – http://ybsa.org/ [A web page with links to many documents. This alliance promotes the formation of more and bigger reservoirs.]

Yakima Basin Storage Alliance (2012). Why YBSA believes more water is required for the Integrated Plan. http://ybsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Why-YBSA-belives-more-water-is-required-for-the-IP-final1.pdf

Evaluating Elements of the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan

Priest Rapids Dam

Figure 1. From Kent, C (2004). Water Resource Planning in the Yakima River Basin: Development vs. Sustainability. irrigation

Figure 2. From http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5205/figure25.html

Seasonal Irrigation Demand in the Columbia Basin – Historical and Projected

Figure 3. Normandeau Associates (2014). Technical Review: Yakima River Basin Study Proposed Integrated Water Resource Management Plan.

Yakima River Basin Agriculture Stats

• Produces more than $1.8 billion/yr in crops.
• $1.4 billion/yr in food processing sales.
• Supports more than 5,700 jobs.
• Most crops are irrigated.
• Demand for irrigation water by existing users significantly exceeds supply in dry and drought years.
• Water rights in the basin are fully appropriated.
• In a typical year, five reservoirs and stream runoff provide agriculture with 2.7 million acre-feet of water.
• In a typical year at mid-21st century, the amount is forecast to fall an average of 20 to 40 percent.
• The expected losses to agriculture along in the Yakima Valley over the next several decades will be “between $92 million at 2° C warming and $163 million a year at 4° C,” or up to nearly a quarter of total current crop value. (http://ybsa.org/climate-change/ )

YRBIWRMP Role Play Part 1 – Stakeholder Groups Conference

• What are the primary concerns of your stakeholder group with regard to upcoming water resource changes and challenges? (5 min)
• What worries you?
• What will constrain the possibilities for what you hold dear?
• What are the primary interests/goals of your stakeholder group? (5 min)
• What do you want to fight for?
• What are your primary values?

YRBIWRMP Role Play Part 2 – Gauging Support for Specific Plan Proposals

We’ll take them on one by one. Follow the steps below as you work through each decision:

• Articulate your stakeholder perspective on each plan to your group. Be persuasive and give everyone a chance to speak their piece. The Government Representative should serve as the moderator to keep everyone on task and ensure that all stakeholders provide input. (10 min)
• Respond to the prompts on the submission sheet (page 5). Everyone will turn in their own submission sheet, so fill out the blanks as you go. (10 min)
• If your group is done wrestling with the decision/plan on the table, consider the difficulties in coming to consensus. If your group came to a decision to support or not support, but there were dissenters to that decision, why did their perspective not win out? Can you think of some alternative to the plan that could get all stakeholders on board?

1. Bumping Lake Reservoir Enlargement

• Current storage capacity is 33,700 acre-feet (13% of basin’s supply)
• The new dam would expand it to 190,000 acre-feet and inundate 2,700 acres of land

2. Black Rock Reservoir Diversion Project

• The Bureau of Reclamation could divert water from out of the reservoir behind Priest Rapids dam on the Columbia River and pump it several miles uphill (1400-foot elevation gain).
• The Black Rock Reservoir would contain 1.3 million acre-feet of water (423 billion gallons).
• Cost estimates for Black Rock’s pump-pipeline-dam-reservoir-canal construction > $4 billion

3. Targeted Watershed Protection

• Program to acquire and protect sensitive lands.
• Initially, $10,500,000 from the State of Washington would be used to secure an agreement for purchase of 46,000 acres in the Teanaway drainage and ~10,000 acres in the Naches watershed.
• Need up to $135 million altogether.
• This land otherwise is likely to be subdivided and developed

4. Market Reallocation

• Water Rights could be bought, sold, or leased.
• Would allow water transfer between districts.
• Substantial change to existing water law required.
• Currently all or part of a water right is subject to relinquishment if it is unused.
• The proposed plan would allow one to retain a right without using the water so that the right can be used by someone else

Evaluating Elements of the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan

Submission Sheet Name _____________________ Stakeholder Group_________________

1) The primary concerns of my stakeholder group are: ________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

2) The primary interests/goals of my stakeholder group are: ___________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Bumping Lake Reservoir Enlargement Proposal

3) My stakeholder perspective on this alternative is: ________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

4) The consensus decision of my group was: Support Don’t Support Couldn’t Come to Consensus

5) Which of the key forms of natural, social, and economic capital are at risk if the project does go forward? ________________________________________________________________

6) Which of the key forms of natural, social, and economic capital have the potential to be better sustained if the project does go forward? ___________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

7) With regards to questions 5 and 6, what is most important to your stakeholder? _________

______________________________________________________________________________

8) Are your stakeholder values at odds with your own? If so, in what ways? _______________

Black Rock Reservoir Proposal

3) My stakeholder perspective on this alternative is: ________________________________________

4) The consensus decision of my group was: Support Don’t Support Couldn’t Come to Consensus

Targeted Watershed Protection Proposal – Teanaway Purchase

3) My stakeholder perspective on this alternative is: ________________________________________

4) The consensus decision of my group was: Support Don’t Support Couldn’t Come to Consensus

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!