DOCSLIB.ORG

Issues Concerning Expanded Irrigation in the Columbia Basin Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Issues Concerning Expanded Irrigation in the Columbia Basin Project United States Genera Accounting Of&e Briefing Report to Congressional Requesters January 1986 WATER RESOURCES Issues Concerning Expanded Irrigation in the Columbia Basin Project . , UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMK OEVELOPMENT 0lVlSl0N E-221748 The Honorable James H. Weaver Chairman, Subcommittee on General Oversight, Northwest Power and Forest EAanagement Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs House of Representatives The Honorable George Filler Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs House of Representatives In an August 20, 1985, letter, you reuuested that we review the economic and environmental impacts of expanding the irrigated acreage in the Columbia Basin Project in Washington State from 556,000 acres to nearly 1.1 million acres. The Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior in a 1984 report on the project esti.mated that this expansion could cost $1.9 billion and that the projects benefits outweighed its costs. On the basis of this request and subseguent discussions with your offices, we obtained information on the Project's benefit/cost analysis, repayment of construction costs, and the anticipated environmental impacts. On January 24, 1986, we briefed your offices on the results of our review, and this report summarizes the information presented at that briefing. We reviewed studies and reports on possible expansion of the Project issued in 1984 and 1985 by the Bureau, faculty members of Washington State University and the university of Idaho, and a consulting firm for the Washington State Department of Ecology. We also interviewed officials from federal and state agencies, and organizations knowledgeable of the Project. In summary, we found that the Bureau's 1984 benefit/cost analysis did not conform to the Water Resources Council's Principles and Guidelines for preparing such analyses. As a result, the costs were understated and the benefits overstated. The Chief of the Economic Analysis Division in the Bureau's Pacific Northwest Region advised us that the Bureau recognized the limitations of its analysis and has contracted with a consulting B-221748 firm to perform a major study of the economic and environmental feasibility of expanding the Project which will follow the Principles and Guidelines. However, in the economic analysis of the Project, the Bureau's consultant will be evaluating the Project's impacts on income and employment only within the State of Washington, even though electricity users throughout the four-state Bonneville Power Administration's marketing area will be paying for the Project. An analysis that addresses the effects on income and employment in the entire marketing area may provide a more sound basis for judging the economics of the Project. The Bureau's 1984 analysis showed that the construction costs would be paid by irrigators (46 percent}, power users (34 percent), and the state of Washington (20 percent). The Bureau's estimate was in contrast to two other studies which concluded that U.S. taxpayers would pay about 80 percent of the project costs. The major difference between the studies resulted from the treatment of interest on federal funds used for construction. The Bureau did not include a cost for interest because, by law, the construction funds are provided interest free. The other two studies included the interest cost in their analysis indicating that these costs, although not repaid, are a project expense. We have taken the position in a prior report that measuring and reporting the interest subsidy would assist the Congress when it considers and compares such projects. The anticipated environmental impact of the expanded Project was studied in 1985 by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Washington State consultants. These studies indicated that the proposed expansion would not adversely affect fish and wildlife or water quality. Our review was performed between September and December 1985 and was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The views of directly responsible officials were sought during the course of our work and are incorporated where appropriate. In accordance with your wishes, we did not request the Department of the Interior to review and comment officially on a draft of this report. Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we do not plan to distribute this report further until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, copies will be sent to the Secretary of the Interior; the Director, Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties. If you need more information on this report, please contact me on (202) 275-7756. Michael Grys Associate Di Enclosure 2 Contents Page SECTION I BACKGROUNDON THE COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT 7 II OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGYOF OUR REVIEW 13 III BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS 15 Cost of replacing lost hydroelectric power not included 16 Cost placed on electricity used to pump water for irrigation too low 14 Costs for existing facilities incorrectly included 17 Benefits calculated with outdated guidelines 17 Upcoming benefit/cost analysis takes these problems into account 17 IV IRRIGATION FACILITIES REPAYMENT COSTS 19 Analysis of the Bureau of Reclamation's estimate 20 Consulting firm's analysis shows U.S. taxpayers would pay most of the Project's costs 21 Faculty members' analysis shows results similar to those of consultants' study 21 V ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 23 Past studies indicate environmental quality generally enhanced 23 Additional studies now under way 24 Water quality problems like those at Kesterson refuge not expected 25 VI ADDITIONAL MATTERS 27 Economic analysis does not include consideration of Bonneville marketing area 27 Pacific Northwest power planning council initially left out of environmental impact statement process 28 FIGURE I.1 Columbia Basin Project 9 ABBREVIATIONS cfs cubic feet per second RED Regional Economic Development GAO BRIEFING ON ISSUES CONCERNING EXPANDED IRRIGATION IN THE COLLTMBIF BASIN PROJECT PREPARED FOR THF CHAIRMEN, SUECOPMITTFES ON GENERAL OVERSIGHT, NOFTHWFST POWER, AND FOREST MANAGEMENT, AND ON WATER AND POWER RFSOURCES, HOUSE!COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIPS _ _-__-------------.---I- - 1 SEC!I!ION I: BACKGROUND ON THE COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT The Columbia Basin Project is a multi-purpose Bureau of Reclamation project in south-central Washington State. The primary purposes of the Project are irrigation and hydroelectric power. Principal features of the Project are the Grand Coulee Dam, which produces hydropower and stores water in Roosevelt Lake for irrigation of Columbia Basin land, a pumping plant that diverts water from Roosevelt Lake to Banks Lake, and two siphons and tunnels that transport water diverted from Banks Lake into irrigation canals for delivery to farms. The Columbia Basin Project contains 1.095 million acres that have been authorized for irrigation. Development of irrigation proceeded rapidly from 1952, when the first acres were irrigated, until the mid-1960's. By 1965, about 490,000 acres had been irrigated. Development then slowed considerably. By 1984 about 556,000 acres, or about half of the authorized Project area, were under irrigation. ---------. -----------I---II------------ --.-- To facilitate orderly development of the Columbia Basin Project, construction of irrigation facilities has taken place in stages. Storage and most of the carriage system have been built to serve the entire 1.095 million acres. Some of the major canals were built to meet full Project needs, while others were built to meet immediate needs with the expectation they would be enlarged when the Project was developed to full capacity. The latest major Project component, the Second Bacon Siphon and Tunnel was completed and added to the system in 1980. Its completion and the future enlargement of 5 miles of canal downstream will permit the main canal to convey enough water to irrigate the entire authorized acreage. The second half of the Columbia Basin Project consists of about 539,000 acres. This land is higher in elevation than the land developed in the first half of the Project and supports profitable dryland wheat farms. To irrigate this land, existing canals will have to be enlarged and extended, and new canals will have to be constructed. Figure 1.1 shows the existing 556,000 acres that are being irrigated and the remaining 539,000 acres that are proposed for 7 irrigation in a two-phase expansion process. The first phase would serve about 173,000 acres and require about 14 years to complete. The remaining 366,000 acres would be served through construction of additional facilities in subsequent stages. In September 1984, the Bureau reported that construction of facilities for the first phase would cost about $802 million and that total construction costs to irrigate the 539,000 acres would be about $1.9 billion. At the point at which water is diverted from Roosevelt Lake to Project lands, the Columbia River's annual average flow is about 110,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The river's minimum flow on record at the diversion point is about 70,125 cfs. In January 1934, the Secretary of the Interior authorized withdrawals of 25,000 cfs for irrigating project lands, or about 23 percent of annual average flow and about 36 percent of minimum flow. The currently irrigated portion of the Project holds a diversion permit of 13,450 cfs. The Bureau of Reclamation considers that the remaining 11,550 cfs are sufficient to develop the remaining portion of the Project, Recently, there has been renewed interest in irrigating the remaining acreage authorized under the Project. During the 1985 legislative session, the Washington State Senate introduced a bill authorizing $40 million in general obligation bonds for water supply projects. Although the Columbia Basin Project was not specifically mentioned in the bill, it would have been eligible for funding. Under the legislation, the bonds would be used to fund a portion of a federal project.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Economics of Columbia River Initiative
    Economics of Columbia River Initiative Final Report to the Washington Department of Ecology and CRI Economics Advisory Committee. Study Team: Daniel Huppert School of Marine Affairs University of Washington Gareth Green Albers School of Business Seattle University William Beyers Department of Geography University of Washington Andrew Subkoviak Department of Economics University of Washington Andrew Wenzl Department of Geography University of Washington January 12, 2004 Executive Summary i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study is to review the economic effects of increased water use from the Columbia River in the context of Washington State’s Columbia River Initiative (CRI). The CRI is designed to address the legal, scientific, and political issues related to water use from the mainstem of the Columbia River in Washington State. The economic analysis in this report is one of several kinds of information that will be used to inform the Department of Ecology’s rule- making related to the Columbia River. In addition to this review, the State has contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to consider the relationship between water use and the health of salmon populations. This report focuses on the economic consequences of increased water diversions in the mainstem Columbia river in Washington State, including effects on agricultural production, municipal and industrial water supplies, hydropower generation, flood control, river navigation, commercial and recreational fishing, regional impacts, and passive use values. In addition to gauging these effects, the report includes a summary of issues related to the increased use of market transactions in water rights. The analysis is focused on a series of five “Management Scenarios” developed by the Department of Ecology in consultation with water users.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area Foundation Document Overview
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Overview Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area Washington Contact Information For more information about the Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area Foundation Document, contact: [email protected] or (509) 754-7893 or write to: Superintendent, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, 1008 Crest Drive, Coulee Dam, WA 99116 Purpose Significance Significance statements express why Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area resources and values are important enough to merit national park unit designation. Statements of significance describe why an area is important within a global, national, regional, and systemwide context. These statements are linked to the purpose of the park unit, and are supported by data, research, and consensus. Significance statements describe the distinctive nature of the park and inform management decisions, focusing efforts on preserving and protecting the most important resources and values of the park unit. • Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, which includes some of the most publicly accessible shoreline in the Pacific Northwest, offers a wide range of visitor experiences and appropriate recreational opportunities. • Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area is located within two distinct geologic provinces—the Okanogan Highlands and the Columbia Plateau—and is an outstanding and easily accessible landscape sculpted by a rare combination of sequential geologic processes: volcanism, collision of tectonic plates, continental glaciation, and cataclysmic ice age floods. • Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area is located at a historic convergence point for numerous Pacific Northwest tribes and contains a central gathering place in their traditional homeland, including the site of the second-largest The purpose of LAKE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL prehistoric and historic Native American fishery on the RECREATION AREA is to protect, conserve, Columbia River.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Basin Project Coordinated Water Conservation Plan ‐ Final Draft
    COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT COORDINATED WATER CONSERVATION PLAN ‐ FINAL DRAFT Prepared for East Columbia Basin Irrigation District Quincy-Columbia Basin Irrigation District South Columbia Basin Irrigation District Washington State Department of Ecology Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC 811 Kirkland Avenue, Suite 200 Kirkland, WA 98033 March 2010 Ecology Publication Number: 10-12-010 COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT COORDINATED WATER CONSERVATION PLAN – FINAL DRAFT Prepared for East Columbia Basin Irrigation District Quincy-Columbia Basin Irrigation District South Columbia Basin Irrigation District Washington State Department of Ecology Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC 811 Kirkland Avenue, Suite 200 Kirkland, WA 98033 March 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Goals.....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Columbia Basin Project....................................................................................................1 1.3 Past Water Conservation Studies and Actions ...............................................................2 2 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................4 2.1 Identifying Water Conservation Projects.......................................................................4 2.2 Estimating Water Savings................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson 1 the Columbia River, a River of Power
    Lesson 1 The Columbia River, a River of Power Overview RIVER OF POWER BIG IDEA: The Columbia River System was initially changed and engineered for human benefit Disciplinary Core Ideas in the 20th Century, but now balance is being sought between human needs and restoration of habitat. Science 4-ESS3-1 – Obtain and combine Lesson 1 introduces students to the River of Power information to describe that energy curriculum unit and the main ideas that they will investigate and fuels are derived from natural resources and their uses affect the during the eleven lessons that make up the unit. This lesson environment. (Clarification Statement: focuses students on the topics of the Columbia River, dams, Examples of renewable energy and stakeholders. Through an initial brain storming session resources could include wind energy, students record and share their current understanding of the water behind dams, and sunlight; main ideas of the unit. This serves as a pre-unit assessment nonrenewable energy resources are fossil fuels and fissile materials. of their understanding and an opportunity to identify student Examples of environmental effects misconceptions. Students are also introduced to the main could include loss of habitat to dams, ideas of the unit by viewing the DVD selection Rivers to loss of habitat from surface mining, Power. Their understanding of the Columbia River and the and air pollution from burning of fossil fuels.) stakeholders who depend on the river is deepened through the initial reading selection in the student book Voyage to the Social Studies Pacific. Economics 2.4.1 Understands how geography, natural resources, Students set up their science notebook, which they will climate, and available labor use to record ideas and observations throughout the unit.
    [Show full text]
  • Irrigation and Streamflow Depletion in Columbia River Basin Above the Dalles, Oregon
    Irrigation and Streamflow Depletion in Columbia River Basin above The Dalles, Oregon Bv W. D. SIMONS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1220 An evaluation of the consumptive use of water based on the amount of irrigation UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1953 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Douglas McKay, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 50 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose and scope....................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments......................................................................................................... 3 Irrigation in the basin......................................................................................................... 3 Historical summary...................................................................................................... 3 Legislation................................................................................................................... 6 Records and sources for data..................................................................................... 8 Stream
    [Show full text]
  • The Columbia Basin Grand Coulee Project
    THE COLUMBIA BASIN GRAN D COULEE PROJECT The mighty Columbia sweeps out of the north on its twelve hundred mile journey to the sea. A Remarkable National Resource that will contribute perpetually to the country's wealth, prosperity, and well-being THE COLUMBIA BASI N GRAND COULEE PROJECT A REMARKABLE NATIONAL RESOURCE THAT WILL CONTRIBUTE PERPETUALLY TO THE COUNTRY'S WEALTH, PROSPERITY, AND WELL-BEING PREPARED AND PUBLISHED BY THE SPOKANE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SPOKANE, WASHINGTON MARCH, 1937 THE COLUMBIA BASIN GRAND COULEE PROJECT West Needs More Agricultural Lands Area largely taken up by Public Domain, forests, desert, mountains U>"T~VHE WIDE-OPEN SPACES OF THE WEsT'-through the years the phrase X has become a by-word carrying with it perhaps a mistaken idea of many and far-reaching ranches and farms, until one confronts facts and figures with surprise. The eleven western states, those west of the iooth meridian, including Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, California, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, Idaho, Oregon and Washington, are the home of somewhat more than 9% of the population of the United States, but they contain only 4.5% of the farmed and cropped area. These eleven states can never be agriculturally self-sustaining. Their towering mountain ranges, the plateaus and sweeps of sagebrush wastes and deserts, the vast stands of forest timber leave only 54,- 300,000 acres of the states' total land area of 760,400,000 acres that can be cultivated. This is only slightly larger than the State of Nebraska. Of this arable area of 54,300,000 acres, nearly one-half, or about 24,000,000 acres, is non-irrigable.
    [Show full text]
  • Wvter Action
    WVTER TO ACTION GRAND COULEE DAM AND LAKE ROOSEVELT U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION- BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION -U.S. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ake Roosevelt has steadily gained in popularity as a summer tourist attraction. t High reservoir levels most years provide visitors with a rich variety of recreational opportunities. But many people are not aware of the full story behind Grand Coulee Dam and the great lake it created. This brochure explains the origin of Lake Roosevelt, why it was built and how it serves the people of the Pacific Northwest. It represents a unified effort on the part of the three federal agencies most involved in management and oversight of Lake Roosevelt and Grand Coulee Dam: the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the U.S. National Park Service. Who's responsible for what? The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation built and operates the Columbia Basin Project including Grand Coulee Dam. While many parties with diverse needs and interests provide input in the pro­ ject's operation, Reclamation makes the final decisions. To contact a repre­ sentative of Reclamation, call (509) 638-1360 or write to Grand Coulee Project Office, Attention: Code 140, Grand Coulee, Washington 99133. The Bonneville Power Administration markets and distributes power gener­ ated at federal dams on the Columbia River and its tributaries. In 1980, a new federal law charged BPA with ensuring that the Northwest has an adequate sup­ ply of power, whether from hydroelectric dams or other generating resources. BPA schedules power generation at Grand Coulee Dam within constraints established by Reclamation that provide for the project's multipurpose benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment of Potential Effects to Threatened And
    Biological Assessment of Potential Effects to Threatened and Endangered Salmon and Steelhead Species from Construction of Pasco Pump Lateral 5.8 in Franklin County, Washington Prepared For NOAA Fisheries 510 Desmond Drive S.E., Suite 100 Lacey, WA 98503-1273 Prepared By U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Columbia Cascades Area Office Yakima, WA 98901 October 1, 2018 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 1 Location ....................................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................... 4 Baffled Outlet and Flume.......................................................................................... 5 Clearing and Grubbing ............................................................................................. 8 Temporary Gravel Work Platform ............................................................................. 9 Temporary Rapidly Deployable Cofferdam System ................................................. 9 Excavation
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 89-561 Be It Ernacted Hy the Senate and House Of
    80 STAT. ] PUBLIC LAW 89-561-SEPT. 7, 1966 707 Public Law 89-561 AN ACT September 7, 1966 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to engage in feasibility investigations '. of certain water resource development proposals. Be it ernacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the Water resource United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary development pro- of the Interior is hereby authorized— posaisr feasibii (a) to perform such additional analysis and studies as may ^'y investigations be required on the following proposals which are pending before the Congress : Region 1 Chief Joseph Dam project, Chelan division, Manson unit, along Lake Chelan in north-central Washington; Columbia Basin project, third powerplant, on the Columbia River at Grand Coulee Dam in Washington; Rogue River Basin project. Merlin division, on Jumpoff Joe Creek, a tributary of the Rogue River, in southwestern Oregon; Tualatin project, first phase, on the Tualatin River, near the city of Portland, Oregon; Walla Walla project, Touchet division, on the Touchet River in southeastern Washington; Yakima project, Kennewick division extension, near the mouth of the Yakima River in south-central Washington. Region 3 Lower Colorado River Basin project, in the Low^er Colorado River Basin in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah. Region 5 Canton project on the Canadian River below the existing Canton Reservoir in northwestern Oklahoma; Columbus Bend project on the Lower Colorado River Basin in Texas; Palmetto Bend project on the Lavaca and Navidad Rivers in Texas. Region 7 Missouri River Basin project, Midstate division, on the north side of the Platte River in central Nebraska; Missouri River Basin project.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Basin Water Supply Inventory Report December 2019 Publication 19-12-004 Publication and Contact Information
    2019 Columbia River Basin Water Supply Inventory Report December 2019 Publication 19-12-004 Publication and Contact Information This document is available on the Department of Ecology’s website at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/1912004.html For more information contact: Office of Columbia River 1250 West Alder Street Union Gap, WA 98903 Phone: 509-454-4239 Washington State Department of Ecology — www.ecology.wa.gov • Headquarters, Olympia 360-407-6000 • Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000 • Southwest Regional Office, Olympia 360-407-6300 • Central Regional Office, Union Gap 509-575-2490 • Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400 To request ADA accommodation including materials in a format for the visually impaired, call Ecology at 509-454-4335 or visit https://ecology.wa.gov/accessibility. People with impaired hearing may call Washington Relay Service at 711. People with speech disability may call TTY at 877-833-6341. Cover photo: Icicle Peshastin Irrigation District outfall, Icicle Creek 2019 Columbia River Basin Water Supply Inventory Report Office of Columbia River Washington State Department of Ecology Union Gap, Washington This Page is purposely left blank. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 1250 West Alder Street ● Union Gap, Washington 98903 ● (509) 575-2490 December 20, 2019 The Honorable Jay Inslee, Governor Honorable Members of the Washington State Legislature Olympia, Washington RE: Columbia River Basin Water Supply Inventory Report The Office of Columbia River is pleased to present the 2019 Columbia River Basin Water Supply Inventory Report to the Legislature, meeting the requirements under RCW 90.90.040. This report is now available at the following website: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1912004.html As we continue our aggressive pursuit of water supplies to meet the instream and out-of-stream needs in Eastern Washington, we provide an annual report summarizing water supply development project progress made and milestones met over the past year.
    [Show full text]
  • A VISION for SALMON and STEELHEAD Goals to Restore
    A VISION FOR SALMON AND STEELHEAD Goals to Restore Thriving Salmon and Steelhead to the Columbia River Basin Phase 1 Report of the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force to the NOAA Fisheries Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee FINAL DOCUMENT Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 3 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 4 Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force Members .................................................................. 5 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 1. The Context for Shared Goals for Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead ........................ 5 1.1 Concept of a Regional Partnership .................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Recommendations to the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee ................................................... 9 1.3 Moving Forward with a Sense of Urgency ..................................................................................... 9 2. Building a Regional Partnership ........................................................................................... 12 3. Creating a Common Foundation ........................................................................................... 14 3.1 Recognizing
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Basin Project -WITH APPENDWES - 1920 the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project
    Columbia Basin Project -WITH APPENDWES - 1920 The Columbia Basin Irrigation Project A REPORT BY Columbia Basin Survey Commission State of Washington 1920 Copyright Colombia Basin Survey Commission 1920 OLYMPIA FRANK M. LAMBORN PUBLIC PRINTER 1920 wT r- MrdO /\ Ns L. T J \' NAL J LA : -J/ COLUMBIASTATE O BASINWASHINGTON PROJECT R PROJECTWATERSHED AREA 1920A!OVE ALBANY FALLS MAP I. TOPOGRAPHY COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT STATE OF WASHINGTON 1920 CONTOUR INTERVAL 250 rt 0 5 IC $5 SCALE OF MILES MAP II. CONTENTS. Chter Page I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 9 1 Foreword 9 2 General 9 3 Authority 12 4 Organization of Commission 12 5 Personnel of Staff 13 6 Acknowledgments 13 II. LANDS COMMANDED BY SYSTEM 15 1 Geographic Situation 15 2 Transportation Facilties 15 3 Local Development 16 4 Crops and Markets 16 5 Geology 17 6 Climate and Growing Season 18 7 Value of Aridity 22 8 Soil and Classification 23 9 Productivity of Similar Areas 25 10 Preparation of Land for Irrigation 28 11 Arid and Irrigated Values 28 III. LAND SETTLEMENT 30 IV. FINANCIAL AND ORGANIZATION 34 1 General Considerations 34 2 Methods of Payment 34 3 Taxation 36 V. ENGINEERING SYNOPSIS 37 1 General Outline of Studies 37 2 Alternate Routes 41 3 Synopsis of Engineering Data 50 APPENDICES. A. WATER REQUIREMENT OF THE LAND 54 1 Water Duty 54 2 Water Losses 54 3 Seasonal Use of Water 55 4 Gross Water Required 56 B. WATER SUPPLY AVAILABLE 57 1 Runoff Records 57 2 Regulation by Storage 60 C. CONVEYANCE OF WATER FROM SOURCE TO USE 69 Design and Cost of- 1 Dams 70 2 Head and Waste Gates 88 3 Canals 90 4 Tunnels 99 5 Inverted Siphons 104 6 Spokane River Aqueduct 112 7 Railroad Underpasses 113 8 Miscellaneous 115 4 Contents Appendix Page D.
    [Show full text]