Will taxpayers be taken for a ride on new state irrigation plans?
There's a lot of revision going on to make the numbers support irrigation expansion in Eastern Washington. While environmentalists worry, the state plunges forward under a 2006 law.
(Page 2 of 3)
In response, the state Department of Ecology got farmers to agree that they'd deplete the water table by only 10 feet a year. That clearly wasn't a long-term solution. Basically, no one expected the water to last even this long. But the state gave the farmers permits to pump. And nobody stopped pumping.
Now, the Columbia-Snake River Irrigators have come up with a way for the state to save at least some of them. But can they get to one? If you listen to the irrigators, of course the answer is "yes."
After the irrigators' study came out, the Sierra Club and the Center for Environmental Law and Policy commissioned a review by Norman Whittlesey. According to Whittlesey, the answer is "no," the project cannot get to a break-even point.
Although the question has varied somewhat over the years, this isn't Whittlesey's first "no." Back in the presidency of Ronald Reagan, with federal money for Phase 2 of the Columbia Basin Project uncertain at best, some people wanted the state to jump-start the process. In 1984, the state Senate voted to issue $100 million worth of bonds. But then, Paul C. Pitzer writes in his 1994 book, Grand Coulee: Harnessing a Dream, Whittlesey "dominated the hearings subsequently held by the House." He "accused local people in the area, sprinkler dealers, bankers, and professionals, of backing construction only because they hoped to benefit financially." The state House rejected the bill.
Federal money was still theoretically an option. The Bureau of Reclamation came up with a favorable cost-benefit analysis for Phase 2, but in the mid-1980s, Whittlesey and other WSU and University of Idaho economists shot it down. In the Bureau's analysis, “the costs were understated and the benefits overstated,” the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) concluded at the start of 1986. Among other things, the Bureau of Reclamation had omitted the cost of the energy needed to pump the water out of Lake Roosevelt and the cost of the energy foregone because that water wasn't turning turbines. With the deck stacked, the Bureau had calculated that the U.S. Treasury would contribute nothing at all. The university economists — and other independent reviewers — calculated that the Treasury would pick up 80 percent of the tab. A lot of farmers didn't want the water anyway. Phase 2 didn't get off the ground.
In his analysis of the new Coluimbia-Snake River Irrigators' study, Whittlesey wrote that " the present value analysis should be revised to reduce the stream of irrigation benefits by at least 40% to 45%. These two corrections would reduce the benefit/cost to around 0.3 in the State-Federal alternative and to something less than 0.5 in the State-private alternative."
Whittlesey also found — shades of the old federal calculations for Phase 2 — that "the energy costs of irrigation development" — that is, the actual cost of pumping the water up out of the river, which would not be borne by the irrigators, and the opportunity cost of kilowatts not sold because the water never flows through the turbines — "are significantly understated."
Looking at the irrigators' estimate of jobs and other secondary impacts,Whittlesey found that the "figures and terms used to describe [such] secondary impact analysis are misleading and subject to gross misinterpretation by any of the general public or the state legislature. Such information properly explained and interpreted should never be implied to be sustained over a long time period. All such secondary impacts are transitory and are quickly (two to five years) reduced to zero as capital and labor resources are relocated and reemployed."
Unless the state issues revenue bonds or otherwise shoulders the whole public portion of the load, not much surface water will reach the Odessa area without a big infusion of federal money. The feds don't have a lot of spare cash.
The fact that eastern Washington's own Doc Hastings currently chairs the U.S. House of Representatives' Natural Resources Committee may improve the odds somewhat. But Sandison of the state Columbia River office acknowledges that in the realm of federal funding, "the competition for available dollars is extraordinarily high. However, he says, "My sense is that if we do a good enough job of packaging these projects and . . . do it in a way that's not asking for a staggering amount of money in one fiscal year," getting the money may be plausible. For the Odessa project, he adds, "we're really pushing the private financing. . . . Odessa won't be possible unless there's significant financial participation by the irrigators themselves."
Critics complain that state and federal governments have already started splitting the project up in ways that hide some of the costs. To get new water from the existing canals to the acreage currently being irrigated with groundwater south of Interstate 90, the project needed a second barrel for the Weber Siphon, a little east of Moses Lake. In the normal course of events, building a new Weber Siphon barrel would have required competing for federal approriations and preparing an EIS. But those considerations — and any question about whether or not building a new siphon made sense — became moot three years ago, when Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that $50 million in stimulus money would be authorized for the project.
With actual expenditures of $36 million, the new siphon barrel should be completed this year. It is large enough to carry all the water that would be needed to complete the Columbia Basin Project. The cost of the siphon has been taken out of the calculations for the Odessa subarea bailout and for the project as a whole. Now, the projects have become that much cheaper. It has therefore become somewhat easier to get to one. "If you pay for things on the side, they don't have to go into the cost column," says John Osborn of Center for Environmental Law and Policy. "That's what the Bureau and the Department of Ecology did with the Weber Siphon."
"It's important to recognize that . . the state funding an agricultural lobby group doing an economic analysis is really just part of a larger story," Osborn says. In his view, "since the 1940s, the Bureau has had as an objective the expansion of the canal infrastructure. . . . This is just the latest round."
Sandison says the state does not support the irrigators' proposal. "Separating [the Odessa bailout] into two projects to us is not wise." He explains that "since the infrastructure is in place north of 90, if you take the lands that are easily served by a canal that is already at full capacity, you've skewed the economics." Then, the area south of I-90 ends up being the higher-cost part of the project and suffers in the cost calculations.
On its own, the southern part would never get to one. Even in the never-never land of federal water projects, cherry-picking the cheapest part of the area "dooms the southern part," Sandison says. And even the northern part wouldn't be a slam-dunk. The irrigators' proposal would use federal water, flowing through federal canals. Therefore, Sandison explains the feds would "have to start a new EIS on this different project." This might take a while.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Feb 15, 5:09 a.m. Inappropriate
Once again, anti government handout people get their government handout. All through that part of Eastern Washington, when you listen in on breakfast conversations in rural cafes you hear complaints on “welfare bums,” lazy people getting a free ride from the “guvmint” and all sorts of other anti government early morning whining.
Yet, they all want free water paid for by that nasty “guvmint” for their own usage. Dry land farming is the proper use of that area. If the farmers want water, let them pay for it themselves. The argument is not about feeding America; the argument is about obscene profit.
Posted Wed, Feb 15, 6 a.m. Inappropriate
"How did a special-interest group get taxpayer money for a study that served its own interest?"
Yeah, THAT never happens. Ever hear of the "non-profit" sector, Daniel? Think it is exploding on willing donations?
And if you think the 1:1 cost:benefit ratio is bad, how about the "no net impact" (not even one molecule!) standard that "environmentalists" have squeezed into state water policy. Does this mean we somehow (magically?) design projects with ZERO environmental impacts. No, silly! It means we pay extortion costs to the established cartels (tribes, environmental groups) to not further increase costs through litigation. Speaking of environmental groups... How DO those special-interest groups get taxpayer money for studies that serve their own purpose? (I think Crosscut's recent story on Norm Dicks and the Puget Sound Partnership might provide some clues for you, Dan).
Posted Wed, Feb 15, 10:30 a.m. Inappropriate
BlueLight:
Puget Sound Partnership is a governmental body. Please do inform us of even one actual environmental NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) nonprofit that has received government money to perform a study that they benefitted from, other than the contract for the study. I haven't heard of an environmental NGO performing a study justifying cutting trees that they or their buddies own, catching fish, pumping water, etc. If you have, then tell us. Otherwise, BlueLight, you are just one more obfuscating industry shill.
Posted Wed, Feb 15, 11:17 a.m. Inappropriate
The Puget Sound Partnership - and many "governmental bodies" - routinely transfer public money to allied non-profits. Here's a few, Steve.
People for Puget Sound
Skagit River System Cooperative
The Nature Conservancy
South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group
Hood Canal Coordinating Council
Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group
The list goes on and on, Steve. I am surprised you even deny the practice. Are you a non-profit/government shill?
Posted Wed, Feb 15, 12:40 p.m. Inappropriate
Very informative and interesting article about a complex subject, where "garbage in, garbage out" studies have been the norm for years.
This isn't the only attempt by eastern Washington irrigators to fleece the taxpayers. Several proposed pumped storage projects near Yakima would make even the project described in this article look sensible. And the half to three quarter billion dollar proposal to expand Bumping Lake for benefit of Yakima irrigators would be hugely expensive not only in money, but would destroy one of the premier surviving old growth forests of the Cascades.
All this for crazy things like subsidizing the growing of hay for the Japanese racehorse industry. The days when this was about feeding the nation are long past. Obviously, we are still a long ways away from making rational decisions about irrigation projects in this state. The irrigators are undisputed masters of feeding (though I guess one should say drinking,) from the public trough.
Posted Wed, Feb 15, 2:59 p.m. Inappropriate
Good article. Thank yu.
Posted Thu, Feb 16, 8:43 a.m. Inappropriate
The potential Bumping Lake expansion is part of a much larger proposed package of water management and environmental restoration and protection actions that would leave the ecology and economy of the Yakima Basin a lot better off on the whole.
The Odessa project, on the other hand, will only make it harder for water and dam managers to meet flow targets for threatened and endangered Columbia River salmon and steelhead -- targets they already miss on a regular basis.
Posted Thu, Feb 16, 9:23 a.m. Inappropriate
"The Odessa project, on the other hand, will only make it harder for water and dam managers to meet flow targets for threatened and endangered Columbia River salmon and steelhead -- targets they already miss on a regular basis."
State mandated instream flow levels are designed to be missed on a regular basis.
Posted Fri, Feb 17, 12:18 a.m. Inappropriate
Wouldn't this extra crop production help feed starving people around the world? How is that a bad thing?
Posted Fri, Feb 17, 10:13 a.m. Inappropriate
They should be looking at the economics of artificial aquifer recharge, which I suspect would be a lot cheaper. Mother nature has already provided a water distribution system with the aquifers. I have yet to see a good technical discussion of why aquifer recharge was not pursued, or at least seriously examined.
Posted Mon, Feb 20, 9 p.m. Inappropriate
No water, no food. Less water, less food. More water, more food. According to the President of the College of Agriculture at WSU, we must, between last year and 2050, produce as much agriculture as has been produced since the domestication of agriculture, some 10,000 years ago. We are on target for 9B population by 2030; 11B by 2050.
We are being pressed by ever increasing demand for more food and a greater variety of food for fast growing emerging nations amidst weather conditions that sometimes make food production so "iffy" that the United States exported rice to China last year.
Those of you who think we farmers are laying around scooping up "guvmint" (we spell it "government" and pronounce it the same) goodies need to know the following: The total Farm Bill costs Americans 1/4 of 1% of the total annual Federal Budget. Eighty percent of the Farm Bill goes to feed people with programs like SNAP (food stamps), WIC, School Lunch, Seniors meals, etc. No guarantee that this 80% goes to American farmers, btw.
Of the remaining 20%, less than 3% goes to market price stabilization funding to help keep farmers cope with the wide, unpredictable swings in market prices that are characteristic of agriculture. So, that's 3% of 1/4 of 1% which helps keep farmers producing the food that supports your life. The remaining 17% covers the loan program (loans are repaid, and that, plus services USDA provides that must be paid for by producers guarantees a refund back to the general budget at the end of each Farm Bill cycle); consumer services, food safety inspection and quality grading and services, and conservation programs like CRP, SAFE, CREP, EQIP, NRCS, etc; disaster relief, as well as research, including research on organic farming and making small farms more productive, and statistical recording including NASS and ERS.
In the nineteenth century, a philosopher-economist named Malthus made the following observational prediction:
Food supplies grow arithmetically. Populations grow geometrically. Inevitably, population will outstrip the food supply significantly. Thus far, we have avoided meeting the Malthusian Proposition head on by significantly increasing the production of food. Given the agricultural impacts of global climate change, will we be able to continue doing so?
Particularly taking into consideration the fact that the United States is losing 2 acres of farmland per minute, 24/7/365.
If we weren't growing our own food, I'd be worried. How are you at supplying your own foodstuff? Why do you think farmers should continue feeding rude, uninformed, arrogant ingrates like you who will happily put billions of dollars into taxpayer supported sports arenas, but begrudge farmers a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of that amount while they and/or their families more often than not work off-farm to support their farm production.
Posted Tue, Feb 21, 2:37 p.m. Inappropriate
A return of 91.7 cents on the dollar is a bargain compared to the return we tax payers will get on President Obama’s $80 billion clean energy program. The government has already lost 535 million on the failed Solyndra solar project. Even irrigations worst case plan of a return of 39.6 cents on the dollar is a better return than Solyndra.
Before we cast aside the Odessa Sub Area irrigation plan, a review of President Obama’s buddy - buddy clean energy program is in order. Read the article published in the Washington Post on Feb 14, 2012 titled, Federal funds flow to clean - energy firms with Obama administration ties. It is documented by Carol D. Leonning and Joe Stevens . You can find it here.
–
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/venture-capitalists-play-key-role-in-obamas-energy-department/2011/12/30/gIQA05raER_print.html
Maybe Mr. Chasan could do an in-depth study of the cost benefit ratio of some of Obama’s clean energy investments.
Now we could promote the Irrigation plan as part of Obamas clean energy program to convert water to ethanol. All you have to do is develop the irrigation plan and grow 100,000 acres of corn and process the corn to ethanol. This will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and make everyone happy.
wreckxxon
Posted Wed, Feb 22, 8:44 a.m. Inappropriate
The critics are unaware – The world has changed.
A few quick and critical oversights:
1. 40% of the world’s food supply comes from irrigated agriculture. It would take 36 additional Iowa’s to replace that production. There are not 36 more Iowa’s.
2. The lion’s share of crop production research is now focused on drought tolerance.
3. We know that each person requires about 1,000,000,000 gallons of water each year. Most of that water is required to grow and prepare the food for each person.
4. Large amounts of irrigated farm land are converted and not replaced by urban development.
5. Large quantities of irrigated Agriculture water are converted to urban water supplies every year.
6. Citizens in developing countries now have resources available to purchase a balanced diet.
7. Most Important – there very few areas worldwide that have adequate water, climate and land that can be developed into productive irrigated agriculture.
Everyone knows that our Federal and State governments have already spent the resources that could be used for irrigated agriculture development. The future will produce new ways to accomplish the same objective. The above article is only about jumping through the environmental hoop – an enormous waste of resources.
Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!!
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.