Value of piping questioned by some

Putting water in a pipe to keep it from draining away through the bottom of an irrigation ditch -- and putting some of it in a needy stream -- seems like an obvious benefit for the environment.

Not everyone thinks so.

Some who question the value of irrigation piping -- such as Matt Cyrus and his family -- are embroiled in ongoing disputes with Squaw Creek Irrigation District (SCID). Yet Cyrus insists that some professional opinion backs up his argument that ditch seepage is valuable for recharging ground water.

Michelle McSwain, a hydrologist with the Bureau of Land Management, acknowledged some concerns about the impact of piping projects in general.

BLM worries about the impact of loss of ground water on the Lower Deschutes River and the Lower Crooked River.

However, McSwain said, the "concerns (are) not so much about the piping specifically," but rather focus on "net consumption of more water out of the system."

Greater net consumption could come out of a complicated set of "mitigation" rules that allow water users to get credit for saving surface water and use it to pump more water out of wells.

McSwain said she is concerned about the possible depletion of flows into the Lower Deschutes. She said projects in the Squaw Creek area would probably not have any impact in the Lower Crooked River.

Cyrus acknowledged that some people suspect his motives for arguing in favor of seepage and ground water recharge as opposed to piping.

He said he is aware of the contention "that we're opposed to piping because it would dry up our irrigation wells and that's ludicrous."

According to Cyrus the wells "are on a different aquifer. They're deeper than that could seep. There's a lava layer in between. They're not hydrologically connected."

Cyrus said the wells have a static level at 214 feet in one and 180 in another. Total well depth is about 350 feet.

Local residents also worry about the impact of piping on plants and wildlife that have grown dependent on water in irrigation canals.

Steve Marx, a fish biologist with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, acknowledged that irrigation canals do provide some habitat for wildlife and birds. That habitat is lost when piping occurs.

However, he noted that ponds and other water features mitigate that loss of habitat.

"There are wildlife benefits (from canals) but if you look at the broad picture, those resources are still available," he said.

Marx said his agency has no position on piping projects, but "from our standpoint it's always a benefit to get some of that water back in stream through conservation."

Concerns about removing water and the impact on the environment have mobilized local residents who are questioning a proposed piping project in McKenzie Canyon (see related story, page 1).

SCID manager Marc Thalacker said the district is willing to work with residents to mitigate those concerns.

Author Bio

Jim Cornelius, Editor in Chief

Jim Cornelius is editor in chief of The Nugget and author of “Warriors of the Wildlands: True Tales of the Frontier Partisans.” A history buff, he explores frontier history across three centuries and several continents on his podcast, The Frontier Partisans. For more information visit www.frontierpartisans.com.

• Email: editor@nuggetnews.com
• Phone: 5415499941