Does Water Resources Management in the Snake River Basin Matter for the Lower Columbia River? Or Is the Snake River Part of Another Watershed?

Transcription

1 Does Water Resources Management in the Snake River Basin Matter for the Lower Columbia River? Or Is the Snake River Part of Another Watershed? John C. Tracy, Director Idaho Water Resources Research Institute University of Idaho Presented at the 2012 AWRA Washington Section Annual Meeting Ellensburg, WA September 11-13, 2012

2 Purpose To understand the role that management of the Snake River watershed has on the delivery of river system services to the Lower Columbia River, and how these services may be altered due to changes in future conditions in the Snake River.

3 Outline The Democracy of Water Management in the Western United States Water Management in the Snake River Basin The Impact of Snake River Management on CRT Objectives Potential Issues and Opportunities with Snake River Management

4 The Democracy of Water Management Who Controls Water in the West? It depends on what service the water is providing: Any economic benefit? Power production? Flood protection? Sustaining species and ecological systems?

5 The Democracy of Water Management Control of Water for Economic Benefit Entities that control water through infrastructure: Federal Government - Reclamation, Corps, etc. Private Entities Utilities, Irrigation Districts, etc. Local Governments Cities, Counties, etc. Entity that controls water by regulatory authority: State Water Divisions

6 The Democracy of Water Management Control of Water for Power Production Entities that control power production through infrastructure: Federal Government - Reclamation, Corps, etc. Private Entities Utilities, Irrigation Districts, etc. Local Governments Cities, Counties, etc. Entity that controls power production by regulatory authority: Federal Government through FERC

7 The Democracy of Water Management Control of Water for Flood Management Entities that control flood risk through infrastructure: Federal Government - Reclamation, Corps, etc. Private Entities Utilities, Irrigation Districts, etc. Local Governments Cities, Counties, etc. Entity that controls flood management by regulatory authority: Federal Government through Army Corps

8 The Democracy of Water Management Control of Water for Species Protection Entities that manage infrastructure for sustaining species and ecosystems: Federal Government - Reclamation, Corps, etc. Private Entities Utilities, etc. Local Governments Cities, Counties, etc. Entities that use regulatory authority for sustaining species and ecosystems: Federal Government through NOAA, USFWS and EPA State Governments through State EPA units

9 The Democracy of Water Management Agency Federal Flood Control Hydropower Species Protection Consumptive Diversion Transport US ACOE I, R I I I, R USBR I I I I USEPA USFWS/NOAA FERC State EPA R WR R R R R R F&G Local I I I I I Private I I I I I R R R I

10 The Snake River Basin Snake River below Lewiston Clearwater River above Lewiston Salmon River before the Snake River Snake River above the Salmon River Snake River Basin Statistics Area 107,510 sq mi Length 1,078 miles Average Discharge 54,830 cfs Major Tributaries - River above Joseph Ave Flow = 18,800 cfs - Clearwater River Ave Flow = 14,300 cfs - Salmon River Ave Flow = 11,100 cfs Max Elevation 8,927 ft Min Elevation 358 ft *Average discharges are from different periods of record Image From Wikipedia (

11 The Snake River Basin Yearly Peak Flows for Snake River Drainages Below Lewiston Clearwater River Salmon River Snake Above Joseph 400, ,000 Peak Flow Snake River Below Lewiston (cfs) 350, , , , , ,000 50, , , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Peak Flow Major Tributaries (cfs) Water Year

12 The Snake River Basin 140,000 Monthly Average Flows for Major Snake Drainages Snake River at Joseph Snake River at Ice Harbor Clearwater at Peck Salmon River at White Bird 120, ,000 Axis Title 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 - Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Month During the Water Year

13 The Snake River Basin 4.00 Relatively Monthly Flow for Major Snake Drainages Snake River at Joseph Snake River at Ice Harbor Clearwater at Peck Salmon River at White Bird 3.50 Relative Monthly Flow Rate Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Month During the Water Year

14 Water Management in the Snake Basin Total Reservoir Storage MAF Above Joseph MAF Clearwater River MAF Salmon River - 0 MAF Hydropower Capacity - 5,060 MW Above Joseph - 1,627 MW Clearwater River MW Salmon River - 0 MW Image From Wikipedia (

15 Water Management in the Snake Basin Snake River Storage versus Time 14,000,000 Entire Snake River Snake Above Joseph Clearwater Lower Snake 12,000,000 Water Storage (acre-ft) 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000, Year

16 Water Management in the Snake Basin Snake River Hydropower versus Time 6,000 Entire Snake River Snake Above Joseph Clearwater Lower Snake 5,000 Hydropower Capacity (MW) 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, Year

17 Water Management in the Snake Basin Water Storage by Primary Purpose for Primary Drainages 10,000,000 Water Supply Flood Control Hydropower Total Storage 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 Storage (Acre-ft) 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 - Snake Above Joseph Salmon Clearwater Lower Snake River Sections

18 The Snake River and the CRT Goals 4.00 Ratio of Peak Monthly Flow to Average Flow versus Watershed Storage 3.50 Ratio of Peak to Average Flow ,000,000 6,000,000 9,000,000 12,000,000 15,000,000 Total Storage (acre-ft)

19 The Snake River and the CRT Goals 4.00 Ratio of Peak Monthly Flow to Average Flow versus Watershed Storage Relative to Flow 3.50 Ratio of Peak to Average Flow Storage Relative to Flow (acre-ft/cfs)

20 The Snake River and the CRT Goals So what does this tell us? So far, water supply storage and flood protection storage are non-rival uses (synergies exist) Water Management in the Snake River basin is providing flood protection services to the Lower Columbia system (i.e. Portland) The vast majority of these services were provided prior to the signing of the CRT and the development of the treaty reservoirs

21 The Snake River, the CRT, the Future Three reasons why the Lower Columbia community should care about Water Management in the Snake River Climate change is forcing flood control storage and water supply storage to become rival services Increasing demands on water storage for ecological flow enhancements in the lower Snake and Columbia systems Increasing demand for water supply storage in the Snake River above Joseph

22 The Snake River, the CRT, the Future What are the potential impacts? Downstream looking up perspective: Estimated increase in peak flood flow rate (approx 100 year flood) from Snake River above Joseph is about 15,000 cfs per 1 MAF of storage reduction Upstream looking down perspective: Allowing increase in allowable flood flows at the Dalles through flood plain management in the Lower Columbia could free up substantial reservoir space for future water supplies in the Snake River

23 The Snake River, the CRT, the Future What are the potential opportunities? Use the CRT to initiate an Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) analysis for the entire drainage: Explore cost effectiveness of flood plain management in the Lower Columbia River in comparison to continued or increased river regulation; Include river management alternatives for all of the tributaries in the Columbia drainage; Explore the development of alternative water storage mechanisms for water supplies in the Columbia Tributaries (i.e. intensive/extensive groundwater recharge systems); Link the beneficiaries of river management services to payment for those services.