The Umatilla Basin Aquifer Recharge Project and the Depot July 11, 2013

Transcription

1 The Umatilla Basin Aquifer Recharge Project and the Depot July 11, 2013

2 For Today s LRA Meeting: Overview of the AR Project and its tie to the depot What we ve learned and what that means UBWC dissolves, NOWA fills void for the region What that means for the AR Project and its potential future uses

3 Compressed Basin Timeline 1855 Treaty with the Walla Walla, Cayuse and Umatilla Tribes (PRIORITY DATE) 1916 Adjudicated decree of water rights to use waters of Umatilla River and its tributaries 1954 Pendleton Project Investigation by BOR. Concluded that potential irrigable land far exceeded available water supply 1958 First reports of water table decline in Butter Creek area 1966 Bureau of Reclamation reports that any significant increase in pumping from basalt aquifers would likely result in accelerated decline of water tables 1976 OWRD designates Butter Creek a Critical Groundwater Area (remanded until 1986) 1976 Critical Groundwater Area designated by OWRD for Ordnance Basalt and Gravel 1977 Lost Lake/Depot well owners initiated project to artificially recharge shallow gravel aquifer using existing canal system 1986 Critical Groundwater Area designated by OWRD for Buttercreek Basalt 1988 Umatilla Basin Project authorized and funded by Congress -- allows irrigators to exchange Umatilla River water for Columbia River water 1990 ODEQ declares 352,000 acres in Umatilla and Morrow counties as a groundwater management area (GWMA) due to nitrate contamination 1991 Critical Groundwater Area designated by OWRD for Stage Gulch Basalt Development of the Umatilla Sub-Basin 2050 Water Management Plan 2008 Oregon Legislature passes SB 1069 authorizing $750 K to complete a feasibility study of the Umatilla Basin Aquifer Restoration Project (A milestone in state water planning efforts OR and AK w/o plan) 2009 Oregon legislature passes HB 3369 authorizing $2.5 million in grants and loan funding (a milestone in state water development efforts) Umatilla Basin Water Commission forms to coordinate the implementation of the Umatilla Basin Aquifer Restoration Project and address basin wide needs March 2011 Stage I of Umatilla Basin Aquifer Restoration Project Completed

4 Project Capital Cost = $350,000 2,300 AF = $165,000

5 Significant Investment in Technical Work, Monitoring and Permitting (>$1.5 million)

6 Problems Trust in Economic Feasibility 1. Main aquifer has cracks and not completely characterized (requiring secondary storage to meet 100K AF Goal) 2. Secondary storage (ASR) is very expensive due to pumping costs 3. Have not vetted all supply opportunities to address true need for ASR 4. Groundwater characterization and water quality monitoring on the shoulders of users 5. Environmental benefit costs currently on shoulders of users Economic Limit of Direct Pumping Cracks in the Bath tub

7 The Ag Market Threshold ($150.00) Columbia River Water Only Item Total Cost Cost Per AF Cost Per AF 85% Recovery Cost Per AF 75% Recovery C. River Pumping $390,000 $65.00 $76.47 $ ,000 AF Monitoring Costs $75,000 $12.50 $14.71 $16.67 Field, Lab and Analysis Contingency/Admin $30,000 $5.00 $5.88 $6.67 Total Water Supply 6,000 AF 5,100 AF 4,500 AF Total Costs (C. River Water Only) $465,000 $82.50 $97.06 $ Umatilla River Water Only Item Total Cost Cost Per AF Cost Per AF 85% Recovery Cost Per AF 75% Recovery CLWID AR Water $88,000 $11.00 $12.94 $ ,000 AF Monitoring Costs $75,000 $9.38 $11.03 $12.50 Field, Lab and Analysis Contingency/Admin $40,000 $5.00 $5.88 $6.67 Total Water Supply 8,000 AF 6,800 AF 6,000 AF Total Costs (U. River Water Only) $115,000 $25.38 $29.85 $33.84 Blended Umatilla River and Columbia River Water Item Total Cost Cost Per AF Cost Per AF 85% Recovery Cost Per AF 75% Recovery C. River Pumping $390,000 $65.00 $76.47 $ ,000 AF Purchase from CLWID $88,000 $11.00 $12.94 $ ,000 AF Monitoring Costs $75,000 $5.35 $6.30 $7.14 Field, Lab and Analysis Contingency/Admin $70,000 $5.00 $5.88 $6.67 Total Water Supply 14,000 AF 11,900 AF 10,500 AF Total Costs (Blended Supply) $623,000 $44.50 $52.35 $59.33

8 WID to Test AR and Recovery Scenarios (8K Acre-Feet) Additional Water Supply to AR U. River Limited Licenses Additional AR Locations Exchange with HID for U. River Water? (Settlement Issues) Recovery for Direct Supply Additional Aquifer Characterization Work with Basin and OWRD to identify Consumptive and Environmental Benefit

9 Mitigation Water for SG

10 Testing County Line East Uses Provide water to Butter Creek CGA Test Transfer scenario to Stage Gulch Assess Groundwater/surface water linkages Assess drawdown impacts, if any Capital Cost $315,000 Capacity = 15AF/day +/- 2,000 AF/year Partners WID A-Line Landowners Stage Gulch Sub A&G Landowners 15% water to public benefit/return flow Canal leakage as recharge and AR basins increase area of benefit

11 J.R. Incorporates NOWA Current UBWC IGA limits financial participation and representation Grant Funds Spent CUBB Development Staff under Contract through Fiscal year The Regional Entity 501 (C) (6) Locally managed and sustained umbrella entity to address quality and quantity Buy-in from more than irrigation community Crisp framework to pool resources, but not infringe upon day-today operations

12 Anticipated Steps of NOWA

13

14 How Does Recharge Fit Into NOWA Big Picture Steps: Step #1: UBWC Dissolves, NOWA is the entity Step #2: NOWA forms, membership and Pursuit of C. River Projects Step #3: Settlement Design & Negotiation, Basalt Bank Step #4: Return to Basin Storage Projects Implications on AR: - Assign Assets to WID (trust relationship) - WID test will be specific, more funding needed for other potential customers - AR Project may be limited to WID, Depot, Env. Benefit, and Pump Back to BTF (ASR is a distant vision)

15 Can AR Capacity Meet Depot Demands? Water Math: 1 Acre-Foot (AF)= 325,851 gallons 1 cubic-foot-per-second (CFS) = gallons per minute (gpm) 1 CFS equates to 1.98 AF per day of recharge or use Note: Under Oregon Law our AR water is considered potable. Existing Permit and Capacity Implications: Allows for cfs (47.6 af/day) rate (Actual flow capacity is 31 cfs) 120 days = 5,716 af Recoverable = 4,859 af WID = 2,000 af 2,859 af available Enough to meet 1,000 acres of full irrigated demand (which is highest water use) under current license limitations

16 Expected Costs to 2018: Costs go down over time. More users, less cost (User s Should NOT pay all) OPERATIONS Monitoring Costs $4,000 $48,000 Sampling Events $9,800 (2x per year) $19,600 Lab Costs (for sampling events) N/A $4,811 Limited License Reporting Every February $12,500 Secondary Use Limited License $7,000 (per application) $7,000 Pumping Costs $70.00 AF Depends on Supply Contracts (i.e. Variable) Annual Sub-Total (Fixed Cost): $91,911

17 Questions for Consideration: Is there an interest in investigating this water supply further? Is there a willingness to investigate opportunities to cost-share monitoring/modeling costs (Emphasis on monitoring will decrease if scope of project does not increase) How do we establish a mechanism for info. sharing in the future?

18 Thanks! Contact information: Mobile: Useful Links: water.htm spx NOWA Site Coming Soon