Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Proposed lower Crab Creek dam to flood lakes Lenice, Nunnally, Merry

5K views 20 replies 17 participants last post by  Jeff R 
#1 ·
A stealth proposal by the state to create a $2.7 billion, 250 foot tall by 1.5 mile wide dam across lower Crab Creek just east of Beverly has been submitted to the feds for a feasibility study grant. If built, the dam will innundate the trophy trout fisheries at lakes Nunally, Bobby, Merry, and Lenice as well as other wildlife habitat east nearly to Othello.

This is from today's Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003917219_crabcreek02.html):

"Washington's proposed Crab Creek Dam would cost $2.7 billion and flood tens of thousands of acres of wetlands, streams, lakes and shrub-steppe habitat. The dam would also flood up to 8,600 acres of existing farmland, requiring the state to use its eminent domain powers to condemn private property.

Why are elected officials pushing new dams? Their stated purposes are to provide water to industrial farms along the Columbia River; and, "augment" streamflow in the Columbia River for the benefit of endangered salmon.

Flooding farms in Lower Crab Creek to provide water to farmers elsewhere makes no sense. Nor does it make sense to flood out critical fishery habitat under the guise of helping migrating salmon - not to mention the water-quality problems that would occur when solar-heated, chemical-laden slackwater from Crab Creek Reservoir is released into the Columbia.​

Not surprisingly, the Center for Environmental Law and Policy has come out against the posposed dam. Read their anaylsis at http://www.waterplanet.ws/crabcreek/ccrhome/Home.html

If you agree that these fisheries are simply to valuable to be sacrificed to a $2.7 billion governmental boondoggle, please join me in contacting our elected representatives to strongly voice your opposition.

K
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Nice catch. Isn't it wonderfull how they try to sneak that sort of garbage past everyone. One thing that really getts me. Why does no one ever give out the names of the brilliant politicians who rammed this one through? Nowonder these asshats keep getting re-elected.
 
#3 ·
#4 ·
I didn't quite understand this part:

Nor does it make sense to flood out critical fishery habitat under the guise of helping migrating salmon - not to mention the water-quality problems that would occur when solar-heated, chemical-laden slackwater from Crab Creek Reservoir is released into the Columbia.
What is the critical fishery habitat we are talking about in the first part of the statement?

Are we talking about crab creek itself, and\or the seep lakes (lenice, merry, bobby, nunnally)?

Aren't those all man made lakes and stocked with non-native (browns, tiger trout, triploids, etc) hatchery fish, and invasive panfish (illegally stocked or whatever...)?

If they consider those areas critical fishery habitat in one breath, then call them solar heated and chemical laden in the next, seems kinda odd to me. I know, they are talking about after the dam is built.... so there is no chemical issue now? Solar heating isn't happening on those lakes now? Wouldn't the solar heating issue be better if the water was deeper\cooler compared to the relatively small\shallow lakes there now?

Not taking sides, just asking a few questions....:hmmm:
 
#5 ·
I didn't quite understand this part:

What is the critical fishery habitat we are talking about in the first part of the statement?

Are we talking about crab creek itself, and\or the seep lakes (lenice, merry, bobby, nunnally)?

Aren't those all man made lakes and stocked with non-native (browns, tiger trout, triploids, etc) hatchery fish, and invasive panfish (illegally stocked or whatever...)?

If they consider those areas critical fishery habitat in one breath, then call them solar heated and chemical laden in the next, seems kinda odd to me. I know, they are talking about after the dam is built.... so there is no chemical issue now? Solar heating isn't happening on those lakes now? Wouldn't the solar heating issue be better if the water was deeper\cooler compared to the relatively small\shallow lakes there now?

Not taking sides, just asking a few questions....:hmmm:
Lenice, Nunnally and Merry are managed through stocking with non native trout. Crab Creek itself is a valuable fishery with native trout, steelhead and salmon returning every year. Impounding this creek would eliminate many miles of useful spawning habitat for these fish. Not to mention vast stretches of wetlands that would not be able to re-establish themselves due to the huge change in water level that this agricultural impoundment would have. Just about everyone is against the crab creek impoundment... I think that the powers that be are using it as a scare tactic so that when another site is approved, everyone says "Well at least it wasn't on crab creek."
 
#7 ·
The critical fishery habitat is where steelhead and coho spawn in a major trib to Lower Crab Creek.
Chemical laden slack water refers to the fact that the water quality in the Crab Creek Water Shed, including Moses Lake and Potholes Res is for shite. Another reservoir would be just another place for the agri-industrial chemicals to accumulate and for the water to warm before it gets to the Columbia.
WT
 
#11 ·
That's an interesting take sharpshooter.

Given the decidedly conservative bent of the legislators from your two-thirds of the state, the entire proposal has all the 'earmarks' of a Doc Hastings-style jam job intended to bring long-term pork to otherwise disenfranshised constituients. After all, who would the 'winners' be if the dam were actually built? The wealthy farmers who own the 6700 acres scheduled to be soon underwater for starters, not to mention all the jobs that the construction project would create and an economic boom to towns like Othello where said workers would likely live, eat, sleep, etc.

I suspect if it truly was put to a vote, the support for the project from the east would be nearly unanimous even though it would go down in defeat, thanks in large part to the very 'liberals' you bemoan.

K
 
#10 ·
This proposal looks real, and now our tax money is being spent by teams who's job it is to build dams with Crab Creek as the target now that it has been designated as the primary site for new off channel storage. I appears that the movement is primarily motivated to support questionably sustainable farming interests currently dependent on the shrinking Odessa Aquifer. It is also interesting to note that hundreds of unlined wells (if not thousands) in the region illegally dug by irrigators have played a role in the depletion of the aquifer by allowing cascading to deeper pockets. The result of the depletion from cascading has forced power demands that no longer make economic sense for water intensive crop production. Why should we be forced to see $2.7 billion wasted to support an unsustainable farming interest (as determined in 1971 WSU study) by yet another dam that also bears with it immeasurable environmental cost?
 
#14 ·
I'm always amazed at the argument that building dams saves the sallmon and steelhead runs. It seems to be part of what got us into trouble in the first place. There is only so much water flowing out there, building a dam doesn't give us more water. We can store it and release when we want, but while stored it warms, it evaporates, it seeps into the ground, etc, so there is less water than there was before we started storing it. The BlackRock proposal takes water out of the river when its not needed and returns it later when needed (suppposedly.) But I guess we're smarter than Mother Nature........

Anything that is built with federal monies in your area is considered a prize by local politicians...

Wayne
 
#15 ·
This is the most assinine thing I have ever heard. The crab creek drainage is in an area of 9-12 inches of precip a year. Half of it dries up in the heat before reaching the Columbia River. It would take a millenium to fill up such a dam with the flows of crab creek. And the area around the lakes is so flat for miles to Saddle Mountain and and such that the dam would have to extend for miles to back up water that high without it going around the sides.

I think this is just some idiots idea of wasting tax money on a study. Given we are living in the new west, these guys out to be put on a stringer and dragged behind the boat.

Wildlander
 
#16 ·
Well, it surely doesnt seem feasible, but it would cool if they knocked a couple Columbia dams down in exchange for one on Crab Creek, because there are no anadromous fish in in Crab. Tough loss, but I would rather have a dam on Crab than the Columbia...
 
#19 ·
The fishery is spectacular for us in those lakes, but what really strikes me about the area is the *INCREDIBLE* migratory bird habitat in that immediate area. So you've got your fly/selective crowd, the lovers of migratory birds, and let's not forget, the ATV'ers who enjoy the sand dune habitat, ideal for both migratory and local ATV'ers. PLUS the farmers, local moneymakers and inhabitants that they are.

Sounds like a recreation/conservation/farming lobby waiting to happen.These kind of arranged marriages are always messy, yet the situation presents itself thusly.
 
#21 ·
From the Center for Environmental and Legal Policy::thumb:

Help stop the Crab Creek Dam - protect wildlife and promote water conservation.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is seeking public comment on a new study looking for "new water" to serve the Odessa Subarea in central Washington (for more about the Odessa Subarea, see below). The Study proposes several water supply options including flooding lower Crab Creek, raising and/or lowering Banks Lake, flooding two coulees, and operational changes. The State of Washington is funding the Bureau to conduct this study.

Click here for the Bureau of Reclamation's Odessa Subarea Special Study (OSSS)

Comment deadline is Saturday, December 15.

Please send an e-mail, letter or fax to the Bureau and make the following points:

1) Lower Crab Creek is a valuable wildlife and recreational area, not a damsite. Lower Crab Creek needs to be taken off the table as an option for a new dam and reservoir.

2) The water future of the Columbia River watershed requires sensible water policies, including water conservation and a policy of pricing water to equal its value. Conservation should be mandatory and aggressive. We must stop wasting water.

3) The cost of moving water to the Odessa Subarea is too high -- up to $33,000 per acre according the Bureau's most recent cost estimates (click here). Expanding the Columbia Basin Project will be a huge expense for taxpayers and ratepayers.

Spending billions of dollars on new water projects is not a remedy for wasting water.

Send your comments to:

Ellen Berggren, Study Manager
studymanager@pn.usbr.gov

Mail: 1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706
Fax: 208.378-5102

_______________________________

Background on the Odessa Subarea

For more detail on the history and status of the Odessa Subarea, click here.

The Odessa Subarea (located between Moses Lake and Ritzville) is one of the driest spots in the state of Washington. The area was originally settled by dry land wheat farmers. In the 1960's, farmers began to pump from big, new irrigation wells and diversified their crops - but water users and state water regulators immediately noticed a drop in groundwater levels.

The decline in Odessa Subarea groundwater has continued to this day. In fact, in the early 1970s the State of Washington adopted a rule that deliberately allowed groundwater mining at the rate of 10 feet per year. Now, thirty-five years later, just as predicted, the bottom is dropping out of the Odessa Subarea Aquifers.

Odessa Subarea water supply problems are now being used as a rationale by Washington state and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to propose construction of the "second half" of the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project. The Bureau's Odessa study is built on the idea of taking more water out of the Columbia River and giving it to farmers as a subsidy - much the same way the Columbia Project is now being run. The Columbia Project, by the way, is one of the most heavily subsidized federal irrigation projects in the country.

Odessa area farmers claim they are "entitled" to receive federal water project subsidies because the "second half" of the Columbia Project was promised, but never built. This is not supported by the historic record - in 1946, Odessa-area farmers withdrew 300,000 acres, nearly a third of the project total, effectively halting construction of the east side of the project. Claims of entitlement also fail to ignore the public costs, including subsidies and impacts to endangered salmon - problems that halted project expansion in the 1980s, and that continue to persist today. Finally, dam proponents overstate the value of Odessa-area crops, frequently citing a WSU report that itself acknowledges the unlikelihood of the "worst case scenario" that shows up in Bureau documents and agency press releases.

It is not acceptable for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to drown Lower Crab Creek in order to salvage Odessa Subarea farmers. Lower Crab Creek is extremely valuable as wildlife habitat, and has its share of family farms that would be taken by eminent domain and lost beneath the reservoir. The Bureau of Reclamation needs to take Lower Crab Creek off the table as a water supply option for the Odessa Subarea.

Links:

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation: Odessa Subarea Special Study
CELP: Crab Creek Dam
CELP: Odessa Aquifers -- Crisis in Sustainability
CELP: Washington State's Dam-Building Program
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top