Shortly after the last presidential election I wrote a post that questioned the future of the Deschutes Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. There have long been calls to eliminate the Endangered Species Act, something that President Trump suggested in his first term. Short of that, if the Environmental Protection Agency is eliminated, gutted, or largely defunded there could be no enforcement of the ESA mandated DBHCP. I was told by many that this could not happen. Well, here’s a recent article from Oregon Public Broadcasting that suggests the same. The article also highlights divisions within the local irrigation community. The irrigation districts clearly want to continue to receive federal funding for canal piping, funds that have now been frozen, while some individual irrigators just want the ESA to go away. Either way, for now at least, it is not business as usual.

The Bulletin recently published a misleading story titled “East Bend farmers eagerly await more water as piping project ramps up”.  Real benefits will come from Arnold Irrigation District piping its main canal, but meaningfully increasing the amount of water available to AID patrons is not one of them.

Irrigators have water rights that specify how much water they can legally use on specific acreage.  In times of water shortages they may get less than their full water allotment, but in times of plenty they cannot use more.  Further, 98% of the water conserved from piping will be kept in the river, it will not be delivered to AID patrons.

The Bulletin ran a shorter version of my post about charging hobby farmers for water. I received some emails in support of my column and a couple of comments / questions that I thought would be worth briefly mentioning here. As I expected, people are in support of simply reallocating water to real agriculture and taking it away from hobby farmers. That was my position as well for a long time but it is simply not going to happen. Current laws would not allow it and our politicians are too spineless to write new ones. Others believe that water should be taken away from rights holders who do not beneficially use the water without waste. Again, I agree but it is not going to happen for the same reasons. Water rights were granted with the idea that they would promote the development and growth of the Central Oregon economy, but over the years beneficial use without waste has morphed into meaning essentially any use of water: a private pond, a huge lawn, watering weeds and rocks, etc., all currently qualify. Again, a complete lack of leadership from our elected officials is to blame. Hence, the need to charge for water. As someone pointed out, we are charged for so many other public resources, why not water, especially when it is being used for private benefit?

Contrary to prior press releases and news reports, a final decision on all aspects of the Deschutes Basin Habitat Conservation Plan has not been made.  Final documents were made available only two days ago (1/11/2021).  There’s a ton of material there, some documents have multiple volumes, so have a fresh bottle of wine ready, maybe two.  Below is a brief overview.  Note that while a “record of decision” has been made to issue an Incidental Take Permit for Oregon Spotted Frog and Bull Trout later this month, the HCP is still under review for issuance of an ITP for steelhead. 

I have been asked why there has been so little discussion about the Deschutes Basin Habitat Conservation Plan now that it is final, so here are a few quick comments. It does appear that there have been marginal improvements in the HCP compared to the last draft. There are loopholes, however, so it’s debatable. Regardless, as someone who advocates for fish, wildlife, and river recreation, the HCP remains deeply disappointing. Flows in the Upper Deschutes will be increased far too slowly and remain unstable. There will be no real improvement in the even more disastrous flows in the Middle Deschutes. The Crooked River will continue to suffer from both low flows and high levels of pollution from agricultural runoff.

The Deschutes Basin Habitat Conservation Plan was officially made final yesterday. You can read the plan on the US Fish & Wildlife Service website. Local USFWS folks have told me that little changed from the last draft. I have been closely tracking the HCP (reading, going to meetings, making official comments, writing about it, etc.) for over 10 years (!) and can’t overemphasize how disappointing the final product is. At this point, litigation is inevitable. I have years of HCP posts on this blog, but will try to provide an easier to digest summary after I get through the final version (it’s thousands of pages).

Yesterday was the last day to file comments on the proposed Deschutes Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.  You can now see all 1,681 of them here.  You can also sign up to get email updates.  I scanned the list and it looks like the majority were form letters.  Nothing wrong with that, it shows the public is concerned.  I look forward to finding and reading the comments from organizations like WaterWatch, Central Oregon Land Watch, ODFW, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, etc.

George Wuerthner has published another great article on the environment, this time on the Habitat Conservation Plan.  It’s a worthwhile read.

Why are irrigators legally permitted to degrade our river? Every year tens of thousands of fish are killed in the Deschutes River due to Ag water withdrawal, not to mention the overall degradation of the river ecosystem from sedimentation, channel widening, and radical changes in flow regimes. If a fisherman or fisherwoman were to keep one or two extra fish over the daily limit, they would be fined for “poaching,” but if irrigators kill tens of thousands of fish and destroy the river channel, they suffer no legal consequences.