As readers of this blog know, we are in a drought.  You are also undoubtedly aware of a “super El Nino” forming which is predicted to be strongest next winter (2026-2027).  No one knows what impact the El Nino will have locally.  If it brings more drought, local irrigators could be in serious trouble, which leads me to a discussion of relevant parts of the Deschutes Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.

The DBHCP requires irrigation districts that divert water from the Deschutes River to increase non-irrigation season (winter) flows in the Upper Deschutes River from Wickiup Reservoir to the City of Bend from the currently mandated 100 cfs to 300 cfs by the end of 2028.  Chapter 9 of the DBHCP, titled “Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances”, considers the impact of a multi-year drought.  Drought, of course, is not an unforeseen circumstance in the high desert and the irrigation districts and the City of Prineville (the “permittees”) are required to plan for it.  (Note: Chapter 9 of the DBHCP is complex and the rest of this post only provides what I consider to be highlights of the pertinent areas.)

Importantly, the DBHCP does not allow irrigators to miss flow targets, unless the drought becomes unprecedented.  It is possible that we are facing a truly cataclysmic multiyear drought, something that exhausts reservoir storage and is beyond the scope of the historical hydrologic data that was used to write the plan.  Until that occurs, however, the DBHCP calls for irrigators to implement “adaptive management” and to employ a market where willing buyers can lease water from willing sellers in more senior districts (a “water bank”), something they have largely resisted doing on a large scale thus far. 

Adaptive management is essentially a euphemism for reducing flows to district patrons.  This is currently happening in all local districts other than Ochoco Irrigation District. The water bank is a tool for transferring water between districts, such as from Central Oregon Irrigation District, which is dominated by small, non-economically productive patrons (“hobby farms”), to a district like North Unit Irrigation District which is mostly large scale agricultural users.  Another available tool is allowing patrons to temporarily lease their water rights back to the Deschutes River.  To date, irrigation districts have not allowed this to occur beyond a very small amount.  For example, COID only allows 5% of their total water rights to be returned instream.

The underlying logic in the DBHCP is to conserve water via large scale canal piping projects. Water that would have been lost in leaky canals will be returned to the Deschutes River.  This only works if enough water has been saved via piping to meet the increased flow targets.  Unfortunately, not enough piping has occurred to meet the increased flow target in 2028.  So far, canal piping has saved approximately 178 cfs, leaving a shortage of about 122 cfs to meet the 300 cfs target. 

To be fair, this shortfall is primarily due to delays in reviewing and approving piping projects at federal and state levels, along with securing adequate funding.  It is not due to an unwillingness on the part of the irrigation districts.  As a result, meeting the 300 cfs target at the end of 2028 increasingly looks to be unlikely, regardless of the current drought, and the districts have indicated they may ask the US Fish and Wildlife Service for an extension.