Bend water: where from and how much?

There’s an old saying in the West to the effect that “whisky is for drinking and water for fighting over.”

By the time Bend’s water issues are resolved it’s a good bet that all involved might be ready for a stiff drink.

What would be one of the most expensive public works projects in Bend history is making its way through government channels. City officials say let’s get started. But a few business, civic and conservation leaders believe the plan needs a longer look.

            The majority of Bend city councilors have already gone on record, after several engineering studies, to support rebuilding the city’s aging municipal water pipeline that draws from the Bridge and Tumalo Creeks watershed.

            Altogether the project, which would also involve building a new treatment plant, is estimated to cost $58 million, and perhaps another $15 million if the city pursues development of a hydroelectric facility along with it.

            However, the economic assumptions underlying the city’s preference for surface withdrawals and the opposing push for groundwater-wells are complex. In many instances unpredictable variables could sway the argument either way.

            But a fundamental issue in the process is which solution would provide the most effective long-term results for improving local streams and protecting fish and wildlife that depend on a healthy habitat.

            The city estimates that rebuilding the surface water piping system would save more than $100 to $180  million in 50 years when compared with conversion to an entirely groundwater, well-based system. The estimate by engineering firm, HDR, relies largely on assumptions of a 3.3 percent annual increase in power costs.

            City officials’ decision to move ahead with a new system came under pressure from the  federal  Environmental Protection Agency’s determination that Bend doesn’t  meet standards of the Clean Water Act. The problem, according to the EPA, is the potential for the city’s crumbling pipeline, built in the 1920s and 1950s, and treatment facility to be contaminated by sediments and such bacteria as cryptosporidium.

            Beginning in October of 2012 the EPA would require additional treatment of the Bend Water supply, although extensions of the requirement would be possible.  However, city officials and the council say it makes sense to begin rebuilding the pipeline concurrent with the federal Forest Service’s scheduled reconstruction of Skyliner’s Road into the watershed.     

            Bend officials also maintain that spending now on the surface withdrawal would insure adequate water to meet demand for future growth.

But wait a minute, say several business and conservation leaders, and at least one Bend councilor.  They favor a solution that would rely on groundwater withdrawal, or wells, to meet long range water demands as the city grows. Wells would require less upfront capital outlay and have lower operating costs even with the added energy cost of pumping, they argue.

            Whatever the relative project costs, one critical issue is the impact of either a groundwater or surface withdrawal approach on the city’s valuable historic water rights. An legal memorandum for the city  from a Portland law firm cautions that converting to a groundwater system could potentially endanger water rights.

          Under a current state-mandated “groundwater mitigation” rule for the Deschutes basin anyone withdrawing water from new groundwater wells must offset that use, such as placing a surface right into an instream leasing program. The leasing program would preserve the water right under the “use it or lose it” or "beneficial use" rule that requires a right be used at least once every five years. Theoretically the surface rights could be removed as needed from the leasing program if a well withdrawal for the equal amount of water is terminated.

            In the legal memorandum, the city’s counsel said the instream leasing program could expire, although other legal professionals say that is unlikely.

            One advocate of the groundwater approach, local attorney Bill Buchanan, says the city’s “surface water project is tiny; only the price is big.” To back up his assertion, Buchanan says Bend’s total water use in 2010 was 2 billion gallons.

            “Two municipal wells with 300 horsepower pumps could match that volume,” Buchanan writes in a draft “White Paper.”

            Buchanan estimates an enhanced well-based water system would initially cost $9 million, saving the city $49 million in upfront capital costs compared to the surface withdrawals. By his reasoning, he notes city studies show  the “reliable capacity” of its surface water rights at the summer peak is a range of 7.4 to 7.7 million gallons per day (mgd). He cites Bend’s master plan statistics  that 1 mgd of groundwater delivery costs $1.2 million annually, or by extrapolation, $9 million for summer peak production. 

            The surface withdrawal project would also cost $2.7 million annually in interest on bonds, Buchanan says, a figure he estimates is five times the energy costs of wells.

            However, the city counters that it used 11.2 mgd from Bridge Creek in 2010. If there is no surface withdrawal the city says it would need to develop a “reliable source” of 13.6 mgd and another well to increase capacity to 15.1 mgd well to address possible equipment problems. It would also require a $22 million piping system and $8.5 million for new storage capacity, according to the city.

            Buchanan also notes that reducing surface withdrawals will improve conditions in Tumalo Creek and farther downstream in the Middle Deschutes where summer demand from irrigation and other sources dramatically reduces stream flows.

            Conservation groups such as Central Oregon Land Watch have initially said they favor wells over the surface water project.

With steelhead, salmon and bull trout protection gaining regional attention, legal action to challenge surface withdrawals could potentially loom on the horizon especially when stream flows reach extremely low levels. And Bend’s water rights are “junior” to those of  the Tumalo Irrigation District, which would have priority for diversions in drought years.