The Deschutes Basin Board of Control (DBBC) has prepared a document addressing recent statements and questions related to the Habitat Conservation Plan and other conservation initiatives.
STATEMENT
Some have alleged that irrigators want the public to be distracted by what they term a false dichotomy of "frogs versus farmers," when instead, in their view, the "real" choice is a healthy river system and efficient irrigators versus waste. This point of view relies on the asserted premise that there is currently enough water in the system to take care of the needs of both the species and “efficient irrigators” if Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) would just stop wasting water and allow water sharing.
RESPONSE
The premise for this viewpoint is seriously flawed. First, it assumes that COID patrons are wasting water. This is false. While the technology around water use will always improve over time, just because a landowner has not purchased and implemented the latest state-of-the-art technology, it doesn't mean that they are wasting water. They're still putting water to beneficial use, just as they've done for the last 100 years.
Second, the viewpoint is flawed because it assumes COID is responsible for its patrons' water use efficiency, and that COID can somehow force its patrons to become more efficient. State law doesn't give irrigation districts the authority to do this. At the same time, however, state law does enable COID to make its overall delivery system more efficient.
Third, the viewpoint is flawed because it assumes there is currently enough water in the system for COID, North Unit Irrigation District (NUID), and fish and wildlife. There's simply not, without large scale piping projects by the districts, which can be combined with voluntary efforts by landowners who undertake on-farm improvements.
And finally, the viewpoint incorrectly assumes COID is not allowing sharing. That's also false. COID currently delivers an average of 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water (conserved by COID through previous piping projects) through the Pilot Butte Canal and to the North Unit Main Canal.
COID is currently working with the Deschutes River Conservancy, Summit Conservation, and AMP Insights on a water marketing program. The pilot project would allow water right sharing between water users. The goal of the pilot project is an additional 5 cfs during the 2020 irrigation season, with a total goal of delivering 50 cfs through water sharing and on-farm programs. The program, which is expected to launch in 2020, is being funded through a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation WaterSmart grant.
STATEMENT
Critics allege the irrigation district conservation plans are flawed in relying on “expensive big piping” to reduce water use when “far cheaper approaches” are available such as piping private ditches, eliminating flood irrigation, and offering incentives to use less water.
RESPONSE
The districts are employing a variety of conservation tools including:
The districts are focused on updating the antiquated irrigation infrastructure in a way that does the most good for farmers, the community, and the environment. Many of the districts are stuck with wildly inefficient systems that were built over 100 years ago. Due to their design, it’s estimated that up to 50% of all irrigation water in unimproved systems is lost before it ever makes it to the farm. By replacing leaky, open canals with closed pipes, districts can help farmers do much more with less. Water saved from seepage below and evaporation above can now go to the farm or stay in the river to help support wildlife conservation, while the gravity-pressured water eliminates the need for farmers to maintain costly pumps in many situations.
In 2017, COID completed a thorough analysis of on-farm as well as private lateral water loss inefficiencies. The study showed that with a substantial investment, there is certainly the potential for significant water savings from on-farm improvements.
At the same time, the cost to convert COID-owned canals to fully pressurized systems costs about the same as converting less-efficient farming practices, but would save almost twice the water lost to seepage.
In order to achieve the on-farm efficiencies with the current canal system, farmers currently using flood irrigation would need to buy irrigation systems, install electricity, and pay energy costs. It is important to note on-farm improvements are voluntarily conservation measures by landowners and not something the districts can control or mandate.
As an example, once COID is piped and pressurized, the cost to farmers converting from flood irrigation to more efficient irrigation practices will decrease by 50%. When pressurized service is available, farmers will have a strong incentive to convert less-efficient systems and pipe private lateral lines to maximize the benefits of efficient water deliveries.
STATEMENT
It has been suggested by some that the irrigation districts aren’t working together to encourage conservation.
RESPONSE
The districts are partnering together using a collaborative, scalable, and thoughtful approach to conservation. The districts are working together and have been successful in securing large-scale investments needed to make a difference. The districts are committed to ensuring the improvements benefit everyone, including rivers, fish, and frogs. </
