Black Rock dam would prove a black hole for taxpayers

The Black Rock dam proposal, part of the Yakima Basin storage study now circulating for public comment, is a bad idea from several standpoints: Local earthquakes, unstable geology at the dam site, and landslides along Rattlesnake Ridge raise grave concerns about the suitability of Black Rock Valley as a reservoir site.

Increased groundwater flow from reservoir seepage could flush the radioactive plumes beneath Hanford into the Columbia River. Filling the reservoir could substantially impact Columbia River water supply and fishery flows.

As compelling as these problems are, it is the monumentally unrealistic economics of Black Rock that truly defy logic. From a financial standpoint, Black Rock has been a loser from the beginning. Sadly, the project has diverted community attention away from sensible, cost-effective water supply solutions. The $18 million spent on studying Black Rock adds up to little more than booster optimism and failure of leadership. Wouldn't those dollars have been better spent on projects that yield real water and fish benefits?

The Bureau of Reclam-ation's cost-benefit analysis is instructive, revealing that Black Rock would return just 16 cents on the dollar to the American taxpayer. The public would lose $5.7 billion on this project. As the Bureau succinctly notes: "Based on the results of this benefit-cost analysis, (the Black Rock) alternative is not economically justified."

One would be hard-pressed to design a more expensive water project. The dam would be enormous, 755 feet high and 1.24 miles long. Black Rock would be taller than Hoover Dam, longer than Grand Coulee, but would hold only a fraction of the water of Lake Mead or Lake Roosevelt. The potential geological problems -- earthquakes, faults and landslides -- would require exorbitant engineering fixes.

Indeed, the geologic problems are a big reason why Black Rock is so expensive. Compare the most recent federal water project, the controversial Animas-La Plata project in Colorado, which at "only" $500 million in construction costs looks like a bargain next to Black Rock.

In addition to construction costs, Black Rock would incur $60 million per year in operations and maintenance expenses, including an annual $50 million energy tab to pump water 1,000 feet uphill from the Columbia River into the Black Rock reservoir. Operational costs for Yakima Basin irrigators would increase nearly tenfold.

Notably, not a single irrigation district in the Yakima Valley has volunteered to accept this enormous increase in annual O&M. This is a rational response. Yakima agriculture cannot afford Black Rock.

None of the proposed benefits -- for irrigation, fisheries enhancement, or recreation -- even remotely justify project costs. Assertions to the contrary are nothing more than "magical thinking." If more water is needed for crops, water managers should start with a realistic assessment of farmer ability to pay.

If the goal is to enhance fisheries, increased stream flow would help in some places. But so would activities such as installing fish passage at bureau dams, riparian restoration, water quality improvements, and reconnecting river and flood plain. Diverting $6.7 billion in public funds for a "fisheries enhancement" dam could leave little funding available for legitimate salmon recovery projects.

Most unrealistic is the purported recreation benefit of Black Rock. The federal government does not invest in billion-dollar water projects to create play lakes, especially with plenty of regional water recreation. In addition, Black Rock operations would require 50-foot drawdowns, creating a mile-long mud flat at the west end of the reservoir. This world-class bathtub ring would be anathema to recreational property sales. Just ask lakefront owners at Banks Lake or Dworshak Reservoir what the drawdown does for their enjoyment and property values.

In a rush to judgment, the Black Rock study has bypassed a number of affordable alternatives. Enhanced water conservation is key, as are water markets, including a legal fix to allow irrigation district members to engage in free market transfers. Whatever happened to the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project water bank? How about the Kennewick pump exchange? Sensible improvements such as re-regulation reservoirs and canal lining will improve supply, as will converting to sprinkler and drip irrigation systems. Instead of obsessing on the big fix, we should examine incremental, cost-effective solutions.

We've taken a look at the mega-project, and it is outside our budget. It's time to put Black Rock in the rear view mirror and focus on ideas that actually work.

(Sources for information used in this column include several federal Bureau of Reclamation reports, information from the state Department of Ecology and Ellensburg Daily Record, and articles by the Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Spokane; Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, Richland and Entrix, Inc., a nationwide natural resources consulting firm.)

* Rachael Paschal Osborn, executive director of the Spokane-based Center for Environmental Law & Policy, coordinates the Columbia Water Conservation Alliance, a coalition of Eastern Washington conservation and landowner groups working to promote sensible solutions for future water supply and environmental protection.

• The Classified Marketplace
• • Announcements
  • Public Notices
  • Legal Notices
  • Merchandise
  • Yard Sales
  • Animals
  • Finance

• Newspaper Ads
  View All