By way of introduction, Water for Life, Inc.
is a not for profit Oregon corporation whose
more than 800 contributors consist primarily of
farmers, ranchers, and businesses that support,
and are supported by, farmers and ranchers. Our
single mission and only purpose is to advocate
for agricultural water rights. Since its
inception in 1990, our organization has been
involved with public education, agency
administrative proceedings, and legislative
efforts on behalf of agricultural water users in
the Northwest. Our executive director, Brad
Harper, is an accomplished water rights attorney
whose counsel is well respected by many leaders
in agriculture as well as many in the Oregon
legislative assembly. Our Salem, Oregon office
can be reached at (503)375-6003
We have two basic concerns regarding the
proposed siting of a gas fired electricity
generation plant by Peoples Energy Resources
(COB) in the Langell Valley of Oregon. Our
concerns are based in the apparent incomplete
science utilized by COB and Oregon Water
Resources Department (OWRD) to define an
"isolated" aquifer, and in water right priority
issues pursuant to the OWRD’s Proposed Final
Order (PFO) issued for the use of ground water
by the plant. Several geologists and
hydrologists who are currently working on, or
have knowledge of, ground water studies in the
Langell Valley/Bonanza areas share some of our
concerns. These scientists are employed both in
the private and the public sectors.
Basic scientific questions regarding this
alleged newly discovered "isolated deep" aquifer
that have not been addressed in a public forum
include:
- Definitive description of the recharge
area
. The estimated area alleged to
recharge the deep aquifer appears to encompass
virtually all of the high ground within about
50 miles to the North and East of the Langell
Valley. If this estimate is correct, then
where is the recharge area for the overlying
more shallow volcanic water bearing zones
located?
- Definitive description of the discharge
area
. The 1994 CH2MHILL report referenced
by COB places the discharge into the Klamath
River Canyon and the Klamath River above the
Iron Gate Dam. No evidence has been made
public that supports this contention, or
contention of discharge in any other location.
- Definitive estimation of the volume
of
the alleged "separate and new aquifer" water
source.
- Definitive estimation of the direction of
flow
of the "separate and new aquifer"
water source.
- Oxygen and hydrogen isotope studies
performed on the water of the alleged "deep"
and of the "shallow" aquifer to determine both
issues of source and isolation.
- Explanation of the source of anomalous
concentrations of nitrogen
in the alleged
"deep aquifer". No nitrogen isotope studies
have been made available to the public. The
presence of nitrates in the alleged "deep and
new aquifer" indicates its connection to
surface waters and anthropogenic or animal
wastes.
- Explanation of the nearly identical
chemical solute signature
of the alleged
"deep aquifer" to that of Bonanza Big Springs
which is the source of about 30% of the
instream flow of the Lost River.
- Explanation of the recent reference to the
year 1959
by COB’s Rob Trotta when the
company was queried whether age determination
of the water had been performed. Mr. Trotta
intimated in public testimony to the Klamath
County Commissioners on April 29, 2003 that
the water in the alleged "deep and isolated
aquifer" was older than 1959. That time
represents the last year of nuclear
atmospheric testing. It is our understanding
that the only way this determination can be
made is through isotope studies, which Mr.
Trotta denies have been conducted by CH2M Hill
for People’s Energy.
- Explanation of contradictory OWRD data
that is alleged to suggest visible changes in
monitored wells established in the shallow
volcanic water bearing zones during an
interruption in the COB 30-day pumping test of
the "isolated deep aquifer".
If the proposed source of groundwater for the
COB plant is in fact an isolated and previously
untapped aquifer, Oregon water law provides for
a first priority water right issued to the
company under the "first in beneficial use first
in right" doctrine. However, if the alleged
"deep aquifer" is connected to the more shallow
volcanic water bearing strata commonly accessed
by existing irrigation wells in the near
vicinity, the COB facility’s water right must
have junior priority to the more than 30
irrigation wells that are already established in
that connected aquifer system.
The OWRD’s PFO clearly states extensive
mitigation requirements for any injury caused to
the more shallow volcanic water bearing zones by
COB’s pumping practices. This mitigation begs
the question: if the aquifers are not separate,
then they are one. If they are one, the
irrigators with established wells and permits
have first priority.
During the May 1, 2003 OWRD informational
meeting at the Klamath County Fairgrounds,
Klamath County Commissioner Steve West asked
Catherine Van Horn if the Oregon Department of
Energy was required to implement any of the
extensive mitigation conditions included in the
OWRD’s PFO. Her one word answer was "NO".
Finally, we are concerned that once permitted
and constructed, this COB facility will be a
permanent feature of our community regardless of
actual injury to senior water right holders. To
prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that changes in
complex regional groundwater flow and
availability are caused by a single well owned
by a multi-billion dollar corporation appears
unlikely. Oregon water law restricts injury to
groundwater users to injury realized after full
development of the aquifer. Full development
means drilling deeper to access the bottom of
the water bearing zones. The cost of pumping
water increases significantly as well water
column levels drop. At some real point in well
water column level elevation the costs of using
the ground water for agricultural purposes
exceeds its benefits. At this point irrigators
are forced by economic reality to discontinue
their use of the groundwater resource.
They have no legal recourse because, by
definition, they have not experienced "injury"
because they remain able to access the
groundwater resource even though its use is no
longer economically viable. The potential net
result is financial ruin, directly caused by an
uncompensated taking of private property.
