DRAFT BIGHORN BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PROPOSAL

October 12, 2006

by Friends of the Bighorn River

 

The meeting tonight, and on October 2^nd, brought some important facts and concerns to light and provided some direction for a unified strategy in dealing with the water supply and water shortage problems in the Bighorn River drainage.  While we Montanans and many others around the world who value the Bighorn River trout fishery have reacted to the opening salvo from Wyoming, we need to take the next step and propose a positive direction and strategy for the future.  In other words, we must go beyond just saying "Hell no" and be proactive in suggesting both a short term strategy and long term solutions to a common problem and rise above the border skirmish phase that we are in now.  We have some ideas for that strategy, and certainly ones that need to be further fleshed out, but first we’d like to summarize some important points that came up at the meeting on the 2nd.

• The proposed reduction in releases from Yellowtail Dam from 1,500 to 1,000 cfs, based on projected inflows over fall and winter will not raise the reservoir level significantly and therefore not accrue any real benefits to Lovell for the next recreation season.  Only a heavy- duty spring runoff from the upper basin will significantly affect the reservoir level.  This proposed discharge reduction would result only in severely damaging the river fishery and provide no near term benefits to Wyoming. Furthermore, the lake level is only a part of the Lovell problem and realistic solutions to the problems of siltation, salt cedar invasion, etc. are likely years away.  The flow reduction proposal is politically expedient for WY, but was put forth without consideration of the costs in resource damage, losses to the economy, reduced power generation versus benefits.
• Contrary to the statements made by the WY congressional representative at the meeting, there is considerable flexibility in the management of the Bureau of Reclamation and perhaps state owned storage facilities in the upper basin above Bighorn Reservoir.  WY representatives acknowledged that Boysen and Buffalo Bill Reservoirs are "managed very conservatively" on the theory that any water released in excess of their users demands would only pass through to Montana, as if water reaching MT provides no societal benefits.  This points to the fact that Bureau does not operate its projects in the Basin in a coordinated fashion.  Yellowtail Dam is operated from the Billings office to best manage whatever inflows they happen to receive. Boysen and Buffalo Bill Reservoirs are operated from the Casper (Mills) WY office, guided by their own objectives.
• Until flows reach 8,000 cfs, all of the water that is released from Yellowtail Dam passes through the power plant.  Long term, the Bureau strives to manage the releases from Yellowtail so as to minimize water being released around the power plant in order to maximize energy generation and revenue from sale of power.  This electric power is marketed by WAPA, the Western Area Power Administration through a power grid that serves both Montana and Wyoming power customers, and primarily rural customers.  So, a reduction of dam releases by one third means roughly a commensurate reduction in energy produced by one third.  This is a big power plant that provides high valued peaking power to the grid.  At a time when there is a national concern for the present and future sources of our nation's energy supply, this becomes an important consideration.
• There are considerable and varied opportunities to improve water use efficiency and reduced sediment yield in the Basin, as suggested in the Montana Trout Unlimited letter of October 2, by Jim Rawlings, a retired Bureau engineer, and Mike Whittington, a retired hydrologist, and many others.  The present day economics of water based recreation/tourism and national demand for clean energy production dictate a fresh look at how water is allocated and managed in the Basin.  Just one example would be the large slice of storage space in Buffalo Bill Reservoir that was reserved decades ago for a new 30,000 acre irrigation project that was never built due to lack of economic viability. Another example are dams being raised to support additional storage. With Wyoming controlling, by compact, 80% of the water yield of the Bighorn Basin it stands to reason that the greatest opportunities for changes in water management and water use practices lie south of the border.
• We, too, are advocates of higher lake levels. Contrary to some recent statements, Montana is most interested in higher lake elevations, and is concerned with the viability of the reservoir fishery which benefits from higher lake levels. It is also in Montana’s interest to see a reduction in sediment reduction in Bighorn reservoir as well as other reservoirs in the Basin.

 

From this point on, we believe that it would be in Montana's and Wyoming’s best interest to formulate a strategy for pursuing this issue. However, Montanans will continue to strongly resist any further reduction in Yellowtail Dam releases for the very supportable reasons brought out in the last several meetings, and we will insist that no change be made in the FWP-BOR agreement for reservoir releases at least until an in-depth, independent and objective evaluation involving both states is completed, and a strategy for addressing the Basin wide water supply issues is met. Therefore, we advocate the following four recommendations:

• First, form a steering committee composed of representatives from both states, hire a consulting firm to study the issue with feedback and technical support coming from a variety of source such as WAPA, MT FWP, WY Game and Fish, the Bureau of Reclamation, and others. A suggested funding authority might be “Technical Assistance to States”, which the Bureau is familiar with.
• Second, determine how all the Basin storage facilities have been operated in the past, leading up to and during the current drought period, and what operational flexibility potentially exists to deal with periods of water supply shortage.  Questions to be answered include; Could operation of the federal and state facilities be better coordinated? Are there water management options such as "water banking" that could be put in place?  Is there, or could there be, a comprehensive plan in place to "share in the shortages?  There are analytical tools in place such as river system operations models to enable evaluation of a wide range of management scenarios.
• Third, investigate the water use practices in the Basin above Bighorn Reservoir, with an eye to employing water conservation and sediment yield reduction measures.  Recognizing that converting to more water-efficient practices such as metering, irrigation scheduling, converting from flood to sprinkler irrigation, etc, costs money but such expenditures may be justified based on the present day societal demands and economic value of recreational uses and energy production.
• Lastly, complete an in-depth evaluation of present day economics and public demands for allocation of the water supply among competing uses.  It seems apparent that electric energy production and public recreation have a far greater public value today than these uses did many decades ago when the water development projects were originally formulated.  We can look at many western water development projects in states such as Colorado and Arizona where economics and public demands have changed how limited water supplies are allocated and managed.  Common sense tells us that society cannot just pile more demands on a limited water supply and not expect conflicts to develop.

 

So, where do we go from here?  Montana and Wyoming must insist on a fresh, independent look at these and perhaps other pertinent issues.  Merely asking water agency managers for their opinions will not result in objectivity or imaginative solutions. 

Montana and Wyoming must work cooperatively, both legislatively and otherwise, to implement agreed upon changes and to support viable projects required to accomplish objectives of the Lovell area without seriously jeopardizing other uses.

There are no easy, short term solutions (short of a drastic change in the climate pattern) to the problems identified by the Lovell interests and the Bighorn River and reservoir fishery managers.  The simplistic approach of just choking down the river releases is really no solution at all; it just feeds conflict and avoids the hard work of analyzing the complete picture and dealing with reality.