As you probably already know, last week the Deschutes River Alliance sent out an email announcing the publication of a scientific article, “Water Quality and Biological Response in the Deschutes River, Oregon, Following the Installation of a Selective Water Withdrawal“, which concludes that the Selective Water Withdrawal Tower (SWW) has had a “negative influence” on the Lower Deschutes. Since I don’t trust the DRA (or the tin foil hat crowd as I like to call them), I read the paper a couple of times, had multiple conversations with fish biologists who are intimately familiar with the Lower Deschutes, and had coffee with Joe Eilers, the principal author of the study, who lives in Bend. Not surprisingly, there is much more to this story than portrayed by the DRA. Keep reading for a lengthy discussion but a soundbite summary was provided by one of the fish biologists I spoke to: “good science and bad science get published all the time”. The new paper has elements of both.

From 2013 to 2019, Portland General Electric commissioned research reports from independent scientists, including Joe Eilers, to look at changes in water quality and macroinvertebrate populations in the Lower Deschutes resulting from the operation of the SWW. These findings were broadly publicized, discussed, sent back for further clarification, but ultimately generally accepted as high quality. Part of the “new” article is a republishing of select elements from these prior studies. Joe confirmed there is no new science, no new findings. When asked why he wrote an article that contained no new science, he responded that he did not believe that the prior work had received adequate attention and those findings needed to be resurfaced for continued discussion.

Fair enough. This part of the new paper is open for criticism for the selective inclusion of data from prior papers, but the science is “good”, if cherry picked. Unfortunately, the new paper also contains “bad” science. Well, to be fair, it contains claims, inferences, and personal opinions that are not supported by science but are included in a scientific paper which seems to be an attempt to give them scientific credibility.

We have known for years that Lower Deschutes water quality is different post SWW than pre SWW. We have known for years that the macroinvertebrate population has responded to these changes. This is accepted science. So far, however, there is no science showing that these changes have had a negative impact on resident fish or anadromous fish. No evidence. If you have it, please show it to me. I really would love to see it. The good news is that ODFW is currently conducting a bioenergetics study which should provide new data on fish health. It should be done in about a year.

Unfortunately, while the paper states that “the response of the fisheries in the lower Deschutes River was not a component of this study” it makes many claims that are fisheries related. All of these are typical DRA talking points, all of which have been refuted.

The installation of the SWW was required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as part of a relicensing application by Portland General Electric. It was a long process with input from many agencies and NGOs. There were a number of goals. Goals that have been met are continued robust populations of resident fish such as redband trout and mountain whitefish as well as improved populations of fall chinook salmon. Fall chinook returns are a real success story. Neither of these achieved goals were discussed in a satisfactory manner in the paper.

Goals that have not been met at the desired levels include reintroduction of self sustaining populations of summer steelhead, spring chinook salmon, and sockeye salmon in the Upper Deschutes Basin. Good returns in recent years of summer steelhead and spring chinook have provided some optimism for the future, however. Of course, these returns closely mirror returns throughout the Columbia Basin. These fish are impacted by a whole host of issues including dams on, and lethally high temperatures in, the Columbia River, generally poor and declining ocean conditions, increased smolt predation, etc. To imply that the SWW is a primary causal factor for lower than desired anadromous fish returns without evidence or an analysis of the entire lifecycle is disinformation.

Similarly, the paper raises the tired DRA talking point around bass in the lower most section of the Deschutes River. I’m weary of addressing this same topic over and over, but the fact is that the Columbia River is hardly a river any more. It is a series of warm water lakes which provide ideal habitat for warm water species like bass. As a result, bass populations are exploding in the Columbia and they are opportunistically moving into multiple tributaries, including the Deschutes. The good news is that while bass have become resident in some Columbia River tributaries, they are seasonal in the Deschutes. They do not travel far up river and there is no evidence of reproduction in the Deschutes. If you want to deal with bass in the Lower Deschutes you need to reduce their population in the Columbia River.

The paper also suffers from a lack of discussion about global warming and its impact on river temperature. The operation of the SWW coincidences with a dramatic rise in global temperatures as well as drought in the Deschutes watershed. It is simply bad science to attribute the SWW as the cause for change in river characteristics without also considering the 20+ year drought cycle and increasing temperatures being experienced in Central Oregon.

The paper also criticises the way in which water is blended by the SWW. The goal as established by FERC was to measure the air temperature as well as water temperature at the mouths of the three tributaries of Lake Billy Chinook (the Crooked, Deschutes, and Metolius rivers), and release water into the Lower Deschutes at a temperature that the river would be at if the Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric Project was not there. This goal has been met but was one of the earliest criticisms of the SWW by the DRA. They argued that this goal was flawed as it does not take into account upstream dams and irrigation withdrawals.

This is true, but it was never a goal of the FERC license and is simply not attainable. To return the river to a water quality profile that mimics what existed prior to settlement by pioneers over a century ago is a wonderful dream, but nothing more than that. If someone has a magic wand, please use it.

So, with all these issues, how did this paper get published? It was published by an online organization called MDPI out of Basel, Switzerland. They have various online journals, including ‘Water”, where this article appeared. MDPI’s business model is that they will publish articles for a fee, which has invited controversy.

I asked Joe about how he came to write this article and he responded that they contacted him, requested it, and waived the fee. I have no reason to doubt Joe but it is odd. Why would a journal based in Europe that makes money publishing articles reach out to an obscure (although respected) limnologist asking for this paper? Did someone contact them and pay the fee? I have no idea but it is curious. Joe states that he did not consult with the DRA on this work but he did reference them in the article and the list of standard DRA positions are presented in the paper.

I asked about the peer review process and he stated it was “rigorous” but only described corrections in the presentation of some of the statistical data. The MDPI website lists Dr. Achim A. Beylich, a geomorphologist at a university in Norway, as the reviewer. I doubt that Dr. Beylich has much knowledge of the SWW project or the Lower Deschutes. “Peer reviewed” seems to be a stretch.

if you have data that contradicts or corrects anything I have written here I would love to see it. Seriously. Please send it to me.