“Whiskey’s for drinkin’ and water’s for fightin’,” goes the old Wild West proverb. There’s no better example of that than the political and legal battle raging over Bend’s Surface Water Irrigation Project, aka SWIP, aka the Bridge Creek Project.
It all goes back to the EPA’s determination that Bend’s water supply¬ drawn from Bridge Creek just below Tumalo Falls isn’t clean enough, and that if it keeps getting water from the creek the city will have to install an expensive filtration system by October 2014.
The city and the engineering firm HDR came up with a gold-plated solution that involves 10 miles of new pipeline, a state-of-the-art membrane filtration plant, a hydropower plant, and an awe-inspiring price tag of $68.2 million, which will mean a hike of at least 40% in water rates over five years.
Almost as soon as SWIP was off the drawing board it was attacked by a broad spectrum of critics, ranging from Old Mill District developer Bill Smith and former Chamber of Commerce President Jack Holt to the conservation groups Central Oregon LandWatch and the Deschutes River Conservancy. The businessmen oppose the project because they think it’s unnecessarily expensive. The conservationists don’t like it because they’re worried about the impacts on fish and other wildlife.
And there are viable alternatives to SWIP. One is to get all the city’s water from wells instead of taking it out of Bridge Creek. Another is to draw the water out of Tumalo Creek at a point below the falls – the so-called “short pipe” option.
In 2010 the city asked HDR to compare the long-term costs of the groundwater-only option with those of HDR’s own Bridge Creek project. The engineering firm surprise, surprise concluded that the Bridge Creek project was by far the better deal. But an independent study by Bruce Aylward, formerly of the Deschutes River Conservancy, found that the groundwater option would be cheaper by $50 million.
When the city refused to re-evaluate its commitment to SWIP, LandWatch finally sued to stop it.
Enter Chief District Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court in Eugene. On Tuesday Aiken issued the injunction that LandWatch had been hoping for, which orders the city to halt work on the project. She also ordered the adversaries to take part in a settlement conference.
The way we’d like to see this play out is for the city to conduct a thorough and unbiased re-evaluation of SWIP. The Bridge Creek option is increasingly hard to defend in view of its exorbitant cost and potential environmental impacts. It’s starting to look like another case of the city diving head-first into an enormously expensive undertaking without taking a clear look at all the implications. (Remember Juniper Ridge, anybody?)
In the meantime, we’re glad Judge Aiken issued that injunction giving everyone some breathing space and creating an opportunity for all parties to work out a sensible solution. For that, she gets our thanks and THE GLASS SLIPPER.
CORRECTION: This editorial incorrectly characterizes The Deschutes River Conservancy’s position on the surface water project. The organization has not taken a stance on the project. Additionally, Bruce Aylward is no longer with that organization. We regret these errors.
This article appears in Oct 18-24, 2012.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
I don’t think most people know that this project doesn’t even get us any new water – it’s just an expensive pipe.
And while the dual source argument may resonate instinctually, it lacks critical thought. Think about it – our aquifer captures an immense quantity of water, so it’s not a limited supply in terms of municipal supply. Additionally, if it were to ever become polluted, don’t you think the surface water would go first? Also, groundwater is cleaner and doesn’t need the exhorbitantly expensive filtration system. Everything points to switching to groundwater – it’s common sense. We’ll save $70M on the spot and grow into our excess well capacity over the next 20 years, attentuating the costs of expanding water supply over decades.
Pants,
Groundwater is not the answer. You clearly have no clue about groundwater. Do you know how deep the aquifer is in Bend? Do you know how expensive it is to drill a 700-foot deep well through solid rock? Do you know how much energy it takes to pump millions of gallons of water a day 700 feet to the surface? Do you know that the aquifer that serves LaPine and South County is polluted with nitrates that are making people sick? Do you know how expensive it is to treat nitrates in drinking water? DO you know how expensive it is to acquire ground water rights from the State?
The sad thing is the people of Bend, and the so-called environmentalists, are being hoodwinked by developers and the rich old “mayors” of Bend who really just want Bend to spend money on the sewer system so they can develop more land. Look at the council candidates – almost all oppose the SWIP (which by the way is only $20M for the pipe, the $70M includes a revenue generating hydro plant and a water treatment plant), yet they all support the current sewer projects that total $170M. That sounds economically reasonable? No one asks why.
Do people understand that the current pipes coming off of bridge creek will implode if the water pressure changes slightly. They are that old and fragile. The City has to have a person on site at the intake facility all the time. The new pipe, which would replace the 2 existing pipes, runs in the same alignment along existing roads and not through pristine wilderness. The existing pipes leak like crazy. And as I just mentioned, water cannot be slowed in the pipes else they will implode. The new system will allow the city to turn down the water when demand is low. SAVING WATER!
The common sense solution is to get working on the new pipe immediately.
DO you know how annoying it is when you post a 3 paragraph rant without addressing the point I made? I was talking about money, not your sewer conspiracy or saving mother nature. You state the obvious that switching to groundwater isn’t free either – however these costs are well below the cost of the SWIP, which have been deliberately misrepresented in several ways: (1) seeking an exception from the Clean Water Act to delay filtration does not mean it’s not part of the cost. As long as we’re using surface water, we’ll have to pay eventually (but not for groundwater) and saying it’s ‘merely’ a $20M project is misleading. (2) hydro revenues are vastly overstated because the city’s water rights are not senior enough to draw that much water during the summer and there’s just not the demand in the winter to justify diverting that much out of the creek without wasting water (which is against the law). (3) I must also correct you on estimating the cost of getting new groundwater rights, a task which HDR completely botched. I understand that the law allows the city to switch from Tumalo Creek to groundwater without the need to buy additional water credits. So the water rights themselves should only cost a couple thousand bucks in fees. This is something that HDR didn’t understand either so I forgive your confusion. (4) ratepayers (i.e. us) will be forced to pay back much of the debt through higher water bills. But the proposed payback schedule is based on water demand figures from Bend’s boom years when Bend was growing at unprecedented rates. In reality, water demand in Bend is currently falling and will continue to fall if the SWIP causes rates to skyrocket, leaving the debt unpaid. As you can see, the city’s strategy all along has been one of deception and I’m glad people are starting to catch on.
I also find it amusing how the city claims they’re not increasing their diversions through of the SWIP, claiming a ‘historic use’ of 18.2 cfs. If you look at the records, the city has only taken 7 to 12 cfs for decades. Here’s where it gets interesting… in the build up to the SWIP, the city opened the gates for a one-time measurement of 18.2 cfs (yes, 1 day only). This is not historic use, and a 21 cfs pipe would double the water taken out of the creek. It’s plain as day in the public record. The city’s PR on this is a flat-out lie.
You say “groundwater is not the answer”. I humbly urge you to look of the city’s official water plan, which states the exact opposite – this is because groundwater is the only available source for future growth. In fact, the city applied for over 20 cfs of new groundwater rights back in 2007 and is in the process of developing it. Regardless of the SWIP, groundwater is obviously the answer, rendering your argument invalid. Based on your words, I suspect you are involved in the project. No one else could keep the lies, half truths and red-herrings straight enough to argue in favor of a project that just doesn’t make financial sense.
Dear pants and shorts,
I think you are both missing a larger point. This place where we live? It’s called the High Desert, and it’s called that for a reason. We are already experiencing warmer, shorter–and DRIER–winters. This is a trend that will increase for the forseeable future. Surface water is an unstable source in the current climate change regime. Some years it will produce prodigiously. Other years it will be reduced to a trickle. On the other hand, ground water is relatively stable. It takes hundreds of years for water to percolate to the lower strata of rock where COB (City of Bend) extracts for the city water system. And the wells can be located in the middle of the distribution network, reducing the cost of building and maintaining pipe. I know Bendites wish to emulate COP (City of Portland) with its historic Bull Run watershed and remote delivery system. But to do so comes at great cost, not only for construction but maintenance and viability over the long run.
Sometimes the low cost option is the best one. This is one of those times.
Now, about that sewerage boondoggle . . .
Someday, when we can’t afford (or can’t get) the power to pump the water out of the earth, we will look back and wish we’d have updated the water lines coming from the hills – via gravity.
Oh Pants, I thought we were going to have a fun debate using facts and science. You state quite a bit of rumor and heresy in your argument.
Wells here are 700 feet deep. It takes a lot of energy to pump millions of gallons of water from underground. Energy is only going to get more expensive. You tell me how much the wells (they will need alot more than 1) will cost to drill, and how much it will cost to pump the water for 20 -30 years, and how much it will cost to build pipes and storage tanks to support the wells, and then we can compare that cost to building a gravity fed line.
Why do you think the City is deceiving the public? What motivation does the City have to do this? The counselors do not get a percentage of expense. City staff is not paid performance bonuses based on how much they raise rates. Maybe, just maybe, the people we elect and employ to look out for our needs and betterment are doing that. Why the cynicism?
Now, you can make a very small argument that there is the slightest bit of potential for HDR to manipulate things in order to increase their contract. However, it should be noted that this project has been studied by the City since 1980. And as many as 5 different engineering firms over the years have made the exact same recommendation: a dual source water system is overall better for the long term benefit of the City.
And so you know, I am not associated in any way with the project, nor do I work for the City. I am just very interested in this project and when I look at the facts I have a hard time understanding why people are against it.
I am no heretic, although your choice of words is indicative of the religious zeal with which officials have pursued SWIP. But let’s keep this secular, I stated several facts to which you did not respond. To be fair, I also shared some of my personal opinions: (1) mis-labeling SWIP as a $20M project when realistically the pipe is merely phase 1, (2) wildly optimistic hydro revenues based on faulty assumptions of future diversions (there’s a little thing called ‘priority dates’ for water rights, you know. And there’s hardly the demand in winter), (3) HDR’s fabricated mitigation costs for switching to wells, (4) unrealistic water demand forecasts, upon which payback of loans is based, (5) dishonestly claiming historic diversions of 18.2 cfs, when they really only divert 7-12 cfs (please fact-check this one).
Your guess is as good as mine for why the city chose the bidding contractor to evaluate alternatives, why the studies were not shared with the public prior to Council’s approval, or why they allowed gross errors in calculating the costs of alternatives. These are facts, not rumor my friend and I’m not spewing conspiracy, just asking why.
My stance is that officials should be able to pass the red-face test when spending my money – if they really have gone about this in an honest and circumspect way, why this shadiness and duplicity? People who don’t think this deserves competent and honest analysis, paired with open public process just aren’t asking the right questions.
I have supported the idea of maintaining our dual water sources, but I am concerned by the city’s arrogance in trying to quietly sneak this project through, then ram it down our throats when it became a hot topic. The Bulletin reported today on the cost of the delays: Well if they hadn’t prematurely staged the construction and waited for the permits and lawsuits to be settled, that money wouldn’t be wasted. This irresponsible behavior is the result of their zeal to begin construction ahead of city council elections, not good management. This kind of scheming reveals a lack of rational thought at public works that lends credibility to the opponents of the project.
I certainly don’t believe everything I read on this site. And like Shorts, I can’t think of the motivation for dishonesty, however logic tells me something doesn’t add up. This is not what honest due diligence looks like and I think more and more people now sense that. I still support the dual source, but am also open to other options if they make more sense (I don’t think we know either way right now). I want to see some rational decision making before signing off on $70,000,000.
As set forth in the City’s water utility master plan, groundwater is safe and reliable. In fact, that plan relies exclusively on groundwater for all expansion of peak-day capacity. The City’s Creek Water Project does nothing to increase our peak capacity, which has been constrained by Bend’s limited creek water rights for decades. Bend already has 33 mgd of well capacity in service, but concedes it holds just 7.4 mgd of reliable creek water rights.
The City’s water utility plan also concedes that the cost of developing reliable creek water capacity is approximately 8 times more expensive than developing the reliable capacity for groundwater delivered to the exact same storage reservoir. I don’t like paying $4/gallon for gas, but it beats having to pay $32/gallon.
The interest on the additional debt caused by the Creek Water Project will start out at approximately $2.5 million per year, which is approximately 5 times the cost of electricity for pumping well water to replace the creek water we now receive.
Moreover, with groundwater, the City saves the approximately $500,000 annual O&M cost for to operate a membrane treatment plant to treat its creek water. Groundwater requires no treatment.
Some say that gravity fed creek water is more reliable in the event of a power outage. They are mistaken, as both sources rely upon backup power generators to operate during an outage once the elevated reservoirs are depleted. This is because the surface water will require treatment before it can be used, and the planned membrane treatment plant requires electricity to operate. Fortunately, modern backup generators are quite reliable and should serve either system handily during a prolonged outage.
In sum, groundwater capacity is far cheaper to build, far cheaper to operate, and far more reliable in the event of a drought or climate change than an overcommitted creek. Because wells can be located closer to where the water is actually consumed, additional savings can be realized for distribution lines and reservoirs. Groundwater use is also less prone to legal challenges and regulations relating to fish and wildlife, so there is less risk to ratepayers’ dollars.