Here’s a thing that’s just as antiquated as a covered wagon: The way Central Oregon treats its relationship with one of its most coveted resources, its water. The system that allocates water resources from the precious Deschutes River has largely been in place since those covered wagon days—and if the local irrigation districts get their way, it’s largely going to stay that way.
Just as covered wagons are no longer en vogue for transportation—or even for advertising a city’s transportation survey (see this week’s Letters to the Editor)—so too should antiquated water allocations be out of vogue as well.
Back when local irrigation systems were put in place, people knew far less than they do now about how raising and lowering stream flows, in diverting water for irrigation, would impact species such as the Oregon spotted frog, that depend on more stable flows for survival. Neither may they have anticipated that, in areas around the now-booming city of Bend, that people would be living on rural properties without farming the land. Those founders may not have foreseen that non-farming rural property owners may someday—as they do now—throw away water in lieu of losing their water rights, simply because irrigation districts say they should “use it or lose it.” Those founders likely didn’t anticipate that farther north—where the Deschutes flows after leaving Bend—that actual farmers would be suffering from lack of water because of what was taken for those non-farmers upstream.
But even if those European settlers didn’t foresee it all, it’s still all true today.
Right now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is finalizing its Deschutes River Basin Habitat Conservation Plan—an agreement between local irrigation districts and the federal government that is, in theory, aimed at reducing the harm caused by irrigation. Unfortunately, as local river advocates have resoundingly asserted, the plan doesn’t go far enough to address the health of the river. Stream flows are set too low to make it healthy for species such as the spotted frog, steelhead and bull trout, and the phasing in of that process is taking far too long, at 30 years.
What’s more, “senior” water rights holders such as Central Oregon Irrigation District, located closer to the source of the Deschutes, often use water unnecessarily, at the expense of junior water rights holders.
As Central Oregon LandWatch puts it: “For many of the COID water users, the water is merely a real estate amenity or, at best, used for a hobby farm. Wasteful flood irrigation is practiced in many places. The COID advocates use over conservation. That is not to say that all COID patrons want to waste water. Actually, a growing number of them have made it clear that they would like to lease their water to the River and NUID (North Unit Irrigation District) farmers, but COID is currently preventing that.”
What’s more, massive, expensive piping projects may not be the best solution for saving water; incentives for landowners to save water could be even more beneficial.
The Deschutes River and its tributaries do offer enough water to cover the needs of our growing region—but only if local irrigators such as COID allow more sharing of those resources, and do more to end water waste. A hobby farmer in Bend should not be flood irrigating her property simply to stave off losing her water allocation, while downstream, a carrot seed farmer in Madras sees his fields lie fallow for lack of water. As climate change puts further strain on precious resources, it’s time to see each droplet count.
Fortunately, local people have until 8:59 pm on Dec. 3 to weigh in on what changes they would like to see in the way of water in Central Oregon.
People can submit comments directly at the Federal Register by referencing Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2019–0091. Central Oregon LandWatch and the website Deschutes3030.com also offer links to the comment portal.
People have long agreed that covered wagons are not an ideal form of transportation. Now it’s time to agree that irrigation systems put in place during the covered-wagon days need to go too.
This article appears in Nov 27 – Dec 4, 2019.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Great premise. You state the system is antiquated, yet you also state piping “may not be the best answer”. It’s a pretty big part of the answer, considering almost 1/2 the water sent down a canal doesn’t get to the farm. Yes, continued on farm improvements are part of it, and some law changes too. Do you know that 100 year old laws are somewhat restrictive in water transfers?
So, what is your solution? Look at the recent guest column in the Bulletin about “rowing together”. Simply posting an editorial such as this means you don’t have an oar in the water on this issue.
Mr. Hughes: 100 year old laws don’t allow for transfers of water rights to other properties or irrigation districts (the “right” is attached to the land?), don’t allow for hydro-electric (beneficial agricultural use?). Yet those things are happening (a perversion of the reclamation intent). If you think that 100cfs is a reasonable level of flow for the Deschutes, you will have trouble “rowing” that grounded boat.
Mr. Reynolds, I NEVER said I support 100CFS, and in fact am very much informed on what flows we have, and what we should have. The point of this, is that the HCP is not the end-all answer to the problems with the Deschutes. As I noted, my beef with editorials finding nothing but fault with the HCP, yet offer no alternative solution(s), do not help us restore the river to a better state.
Thanks for the reply. By supporting the HCP you appear to support the status quo of 100cfs, at least for the next 6 years, and miniscule flow improvements after that. In 30 years the minimum flows will be where we should be today? And that does not address the high spring/summer flows. Alternative approaches: build pipes from Wickiup/Prineville direct to the irrigation districts; run diversions year round to reservoirs at the irrigation districts or patrons; satisfy what the river needs to be healthy and then supply the irrigators.
I love how you think you can read my mind. Unfortunately, your ability there may be on par with your ability to digest what I’ve written. I did not say I support the HCP as written, and have commented through the process on changes I’d like to see. AGAIN, my point was the editorial finding fault, but offering NO solutions.
Ed and Geoff, We appreciate your ongoing discourse and remind everyone to keep things civil! To Ed’s question/comment regarding us allegedly not offering ANY solutions, I refer back to this paragraph from the piece:
“The Deschutes River and its tributaries do offer enough water to cover the needs of our growing regionbut only if local irrigators such as COID allow more sharing of those resources.”
And this one by way of LandWatch:
“That is not to say that all COID patrons want to waste water. Actually, a growing number of them have made it clear that they would like to lease their water to the River and NUID (North Unit Irrigation District) farmers, but COID is currently preventing that.”
Not a comprehensive solution, but some starting points…