Growth Doesn’t Pay for Itself
Several years ago, an editorial [in Bend] stated that growth was good because there would be more people to pay for needed services. This was in contrast to several studies that emphasized that growth does not pay for itself. It is subsidized by tax payers.
Our roads are a classic example. The city council could not find a way to maintain roads without submitting a gas tax to the voters. Also, the school board says it must sell Troy Field because it needs the money for rapidly growing schools.
We are a community obsessed with growth. The tech sector, beer and marijuana industries, colleges, real estate interests and, of course, tourism, all work to attract growth to the area. The result is over-burdened infrastructure, traffic congestion, increasingly crowded recreation areas, declining deer populations due to housing construction in their winter habitat and high cost of living, especially housing. Who monitors these impacts and recommends slowing the growth? No one.
The people responsible for promoting this growth are rewarded for their efforts, usually with public recognition and wealth. The recognition should be switched to individuals who are able to determine a way to maintain a healthy economy without promoting population growth.
~Mike Miller
In response to “A River Used to Run Through It,” (2/4)
There is more water running down the Deschutes than ever before, thanks to the efforts of the irrigation districts. Like you, they would like to see the day when not a drop of water is wasted.
Their investments in lining canals and piping for three sustainable hydro plants have resulted in increased flows during the off season and a revenue stream to fund fish restoration projects here on the Deschutes River.
The Instream Water Rights Act and Oregon’s State Scenic Waterways law, as well as the new groundwater mitigation fees are all part of the framework of existing water law that the districts operate within to improve flow levels.
Planning has been underway for years to address wildlife issues related to irrigation. Water Watch has become an unreliable partner at the planning table to resort to a lawsuit at this time.
One of the major factors in frog health on the Deschutes is that the frogs do not live in the river. They live in ponds, backwaters and sloughs that are abundant along the Deschutes and Little Deschutes. A quick Google survey found 41 backwaters on the river between Bend and Wickiup Reservoir. The Little Deschutes between Sunriver and Gilchrist had about 37. By contrast, many valley rivers have had their backwaters filled for farming decades ago.
These backwaters are filled by high flows during the irrigation season and provide a stable water level for the frogs during their reproductive season. My reading of this suggests that frogs benefit from dam operations and stable water levels during a critical time.
While most of these wetlands have remained intact on the Deschutes, that’s not to say the local frogs are not facing problems. Jay Bowerman has fought a long battle to save frogs attempting to cross the roads as they emerge from the sloughs around Sunriver. The introduction of Bass to Crane Prairie is a serious obstacle to colonizing the wetlands there, but there have also been improvements.
The irony of water rights on the Deschutes is that the most productive cropland around Madras has the most junior water rights. The most senior are just north of Bend. So the folks who produce the most are the first in line to get cut. Those who use it mostly for horse hay will be assured of a steady supply. Frogs are not the only problem with water law. The irrigators agree on that one.
~Tim Breeden
In response to “Water Rights,” (2/18)
Yes, there is a higher diversion rate after the power plants were built. Specifically, the southern COID diversion diverts water for power through their intake pipe, but then returns it to the river 6000 feet downstream. Not a bad deal to power 2500 homes. Yes, COID and North Unit diverted a lot of water for a couple winters. That was to relieve flooding threats along the Deschutes in Tumalo, saving millions in potential flood damage.
This article exposes the lie behind this lawsuit. It is not about the frogs. It is for other interests and no amount of articles is going to hide the influence of the sport fishing industries on this issue. They need a lot of big fish to kill and have the river managed to keep it full of their customers. They don’t mind destroying the agricultural base for three counties.
Piping canals is the best way to reduce losses and put more water back in the river. Obviously, real estate values trump any conservation proposals. SOS for the real estate industry around here.
So after two articles, I’m still waiting for any frog facts that are produced by competent researchers. Is there any real science on what is happening on the Deschutes?
The Bureau of Reclamation study seems to be the most current document and it suggests the frogs are declining due to invasive bullfrogs and Canary grass, not dam operations. You got any facts, let’s hear ’em.
~Tim Breeden
In response to “commentary: Just Add Water,” (3/17)
The primitive river he waxes so eloquently on also killed half the population of early Bend. The fishing went downhill pretty quickly with the 40 fish daily limit.
The minimum stream flow that was established was the first minimum for any river in Oregon.
As to irrigator waste, that is the whole point of the hydro stations. There is finally a revenue stream to improve irrigation efficiency and fund fish restoration projects without undue burden on the farmers who use the water.
The assertion that there is a profit motive to run the hydro stations is wrong. These are regulated districts with limits on revenue. There are, however, millions of dollars needed for efficiency improvements and fish projects. These hydro stations are the revenue key to the success of these projects. The fly fishing industry here pales in comparison to the size of the farming economy created by the irrigators.
~Tim Breeden
Tim – Thank you for responding to all three of our recent water-themed articles and for sharing your perspective regarding the various stakeholders in Central Oregon, including the irrigation districts, local farmers, conservationists, and sports fishermen. Please have a cup of coffee on us. Pick up you Palate gift card at the Source Weekly office.
This article appears in Mar 23-30, 2016.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
I’m not sure who Mr. Breeden is, but as he suggests for others, he should check his facts. I have a home on the upper Deschutes near Pringle Falls and have had a relationship with the river for over 30 years. I love to be around it and to fish in it. I never expect to sell the property I own and have no children for whom to build an inheritance…so I have little or no vested interest in real estate. I make no money directly or indirectly from the Deschutes.
I care about the river, the fish, the frog…and the farmers, fishing guides and others who need the Deschutes to make a living. As a small business person I intimately know about the importance of supporting yourself, your family, and your employees.
Mr. Breeden’s patently ridiculous statement that “There is more water running down the Deschutes than ever before, thanks to the efforts of the irrigation districts.” prompts me to respond to his comments.
Since the construction of Wickiup Dam in 1949 there is absolutely much less water…and much more water…in the upper Deschutes then ever before, depending on the time of year you measure. For the sake of my discussion “upper Deschutes” means the river from Wickiup Dam down to Benham Falls.
In addition to easily available measurements and data from various government agencies all you have to do is watch the water flows which you can do in person or on-line…I do both. The upper river explodes with flood-level flows during the irrigation season (April-October) and starves for water during the winter (November-March) while irrigation water is stored in giant artificial reservoirs. It’s far from natural.
Possibly Mr. Breeden is talking about the “middle” Deschutes below the confluences of the Fall River, Spring River, and Crooked River? The low flows from the upper Deschutes are moderated and stabilized significantly as the flow from those rivers join in. I can assure you from personal observation (or scientific measurements if you like) that the flows in the upper river are as low or lower then ever during the winter months.
Over the past couple of months I’ve been trying to educate myself more on this whole issue of Deschutes water rights, cooperative efforts to minimize wasted water, fish and frog habitat improvement, etc.
Frankly I can find no significant evidence of REAL progress. The water outside my door in winter is as low as ever, there’s less opportunity for fishing then ever, the water quality is as low as ever and nothing concrete seems to be changing for the better on the upper Deschutes.
How can it take 10 years just to make a plan to make things better for the Deschutes? How long will implementation of that plan take…10 more years…20 years…how about never, is never good for you?! OK, now I’m ranting so I will close.
The users of irrigation water have important rights, but with those rights come responsibilities to their neighbors, the communities they live in and, yes, to Mother Nature. She was here first and will be here long after the farms are gone.
Water users must make ACTUAL progress in how the water is used and in reducing waste or the rest of the community has no alternative but to “get legal” to protect it’s own rights. The two current lawsuits are indicative of what we all hope is NOT the future.
Change is hard, we all know that…but Deschutes water users must change voluntarily…or the communities around them will take that opportunity out of their hands.
The Deschutes River at Pringle Falls is beautiful. You must have a lovely view of the water. And when you step out your front door to dip a dry fly into the river, you are presenting the perfect elitist viewpoint that so riles a working man who depends on the river water for his groceries and mortgage. Its the perspective of different classes relationship to the same river.
Mr Breeden is self employed and a small water right holder in Deschutes River Woods.
I would like to thank the Source for reprinting my letters regarding the water issues on the Deschutes.
They were edited for space and made me look more intellegent by winnowing my facts from my opinions. The result is little context is remaining.. I was referring to the Middle Deschutes winter runs. That is where mitigation rules and instream water rights have made a positive impact on river levels.
The proceeds from the new hydro stations are being funneled into state mandated fish improvement projects as a condition of operation. The improvements that these hydro stations fund will improve fish transit and cut water leaks to allow for more flexible management of our water assets.
I’m sorry that it takes so long for these longstanding problems to be resolved as well. But when a river is so wrapped up in the local economy, power struggles are bound to occur.
While the irrigators currently have the law on their side, they know its their responsibility to upgrade a 19th century ditch to a 21st century distribution system with modern levels of efficiency. You can wish the irrigators will go away, but its far more productive to support these kinds of modernizations, than sue just because you can find a fall-frog to pin it on.
And this , I suppose, is what drives me to write. The sport fishing industry is the one directly extractive force on the health of this river. Their prime directive is to attack the top predators of this aquatic eco-system. Then they turn around and say,” we need to save these frogs for the health of the river”.So they fund an Eco-Front group and sue the guys who had nothing to do with harming them. All, without admitting or disclosing their competing commercial interests..
If you want a healthy river with lots of fish, how about closing the river to the destructive effects of overfishing for a while and let the populations rebuild? Yea, I didn’t think so.