Bureau provides Odessa study results

Deadline for public comment is Nov. 30

COLUMBIA BASIN - Columbia Basin residents got to hear the latest on a study of ways to increase groundwater into irrigated land within the Odessa Subarea.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation held two informational meetings Tuesday at Big Bend Community College's ATEC Building.

The bureau provided a study background and overview and information about groundwater conditions and engineering analyses.

The meetings were to update residents on the results of an appraisal study of four preliminary alternatives and options to deliver and supply water in the study area. The alternatives were identified during a potential alternatives solutions study in 2006.

Alternative A consisted of constructing a new East High Canal system. Alternative B would construct the northern portion of a new East High Canal system and enlarge existing East Low Canal sections south of the Weber Siphon near Interstate 90. Alternative C enlarges existing East Low Canal sections south of the Weber Siphon.

Alternative A would replace 100 percent of the current groundwater acres within the Columbia Basin Project area, B would replace 91 percent, C would replace 50 percent and D would replace 29 percent.

Study Manager Ellen Berggren showed the criteria used to help narrow studies down to the four alternatives, including retaining the possibility of completion of the project in the future and addressing Endangered Species Act issues.

Each alternative must be determined to be economically and financially feasible, she said.

The meeting also included information about options to divert additional water from the Columbia River in order to provide a replacement water supply.

Options using existing project storage facilities include a Banks Lake draw down, an operational raise of Banks Lake and re-operation of Potholes Reservoir.

New storage facility options, which would be filled in the months of September and October for use in April through August, when water is not available for diversion from the Columbia River, include construction of a new reservoir in Dry Coulee, a new reservoir and a pumping plant in Rocky Coulee and a new reservoir in Lower Crab Creek.

Throughout the earlier meeting, Study Manager Ellen Berggren stressed the appraisal-level cost estimates were preliminary and not anything to be used in asking for funding. The estimates were used as a ballpark figure to screen and narrow down the alternatives, but may change during the next step.

"These numbers that we have presented do not tell us necessarily how much it's going to actually build or construct this thing," Berggren said. "We do additional investigations and studies, we may find out some of our assumptions that we used in the appraisal, we'll revise them and that will adjust the cost."

After gathering public feedback from the informational meetings Tuesday, one or more of the alternatives will be selected in a report expected in January 2008. Those alternatives would be examined simultaneously during a feasibility investigation study and an environmental regulatory requirements study throughout 2008.

Public comments should be submitted to Berggren at Bureau of Reclamation PN-3828, 1150 North Curtis Road, Boise, Idaho 83706, at 208-378-5090 or via e-mail at StudyManager@pn.usbr.gov.