Project promises more water for Squaw Creek

Marc Thalacker, left, explains piping project. photo by Jim Cornelius Little by little, Squaw Creek's permanent water flow is increasing as water rights are donated back into the stream and irrigation piping allows more water to stay in the creek.

An irrigation piping project is on the drawing board at Squaw Creek Irrigation District (SCID) that would add another six cubic feet per second (CFC) to the creek. However, as with almost anything involving water in the West, the piping proposal is not without controversy.

SCID manager Marc Thalacker and several federal officials described the $5.8 million McKenzie Canyon Irrigation Project during a tour on Thursday, April 29. The tour coincided with the release of a final review draft of the watershed plan and environmental assessment for the project.

Many of those on the tour were farmers who were vocal in support of the project, which would increase and stabilize irrigation deliveries to their Lower Bridge farms.

A total of 8.4 to 10.3 CFS should be saved by piping, according to SCID. That saved water would be shared by farmers and the creek. Eventually, the agencies involved in the project hope to see 15 CFS in the creek to support spawning of fish. Some hope for steelhead runs in Squaw Creek.

But fish aren't the only wildlife concern involved in the project. Some on the tour expressed concern that drying up the irrigation ditch that has flowed for years like a creek through McKenzie Canyon will harm vegetation and the deer, elk and other mammals that have grown dependent on that water.

Homeowners in the canyon also fear the loss of beauty and wildlife activity that could result from piping.

SCID proposes to provide "water features" to those homeowners -- if they join Squaw Creek Irrigation District and obtain water rights and pay fees. According to Thalacker, those water features could take many forms, from ponds and tanks to drip flows.

In return, those property owners would grant easements for the project. Theoretically, a single property owner could hold up the project by refusing, which could launch a condemnation battle.

Jan Daggett, a property owner who said she was representing some 11 others on the tour, told The Nugget that the property owners are not four-square against piping, but they want to see a real plan for mitigation, not just assurances.

"I don't think anybody is going to hold it up if something thoughtful and conscientious is done by the district," Daggett said. "But on the other hand, nobody trusts Marc Thalacker to do a good job of it."

Daggett said the canyon property owners want a neutral third party involved in the design of wildlife water features and that third party might potentially oversee the creation of those water features.

The proposed piping project has many supporters, including Deschutes Resources conservancy, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement board, the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council and others.

Proponents believe pressurized piping of miles of ditch will reduce water loss through seepage, cut power costs, reduce maintenance costs, provide more water for farmers and still allow water to be left in stream to develop fish habitat.

Thalacker believes that SCID must act or eventually face federal enforcement action to restore the sub- standard conditions of Squaw Creek. Such enforcement action could result in the federal government simply insisting the district leave sufficient CFC in stream, cutting the district's water supply drastically.

SCID has installed several high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipelines on the district to conserve water. Each case has been controversial.

U.S. Department of Agriculture officials acknowledged that some trees and plant life along ditches will die if the open ditches are piped. Cottonwoods are especially vulnerable. According to the officials, more established ponderosa pines should survive, although some on the tour disputed that, citing dead trees along other piped canals.

If putting more water into Squaw Creek is the goal, why not drill a well far upstream and put the water into the creek using grants to pay for pumping?

Terry Nelson, a watershed planner for the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, acknowledged that such an alternative was not explored in the draft environmental assessment and watershed plan for the project.

Thalacker, however, does not think the idea has much potential. He questioned whether anyone would pay for power to pump. More significantly, he argued, the district would let itself in for a lawsuit by watchdog organizations that would resist any tapping of the ground water supply for such a purpose.

Thalacker and SCID's partners and supporters fervently believe that piping is the necessary and cost-effective response to changing times and priorities in Central Oregon.