The basis for recommending the 30” pipe was the Brown and Caldwell report of October 23, 2009. It recommended a 36” pipe because it would “provide a penstock that will fully support a hydro power facility so that power produced will help pay for water treatment facilities”. It followed with recommendation #1: “replace lines because it allows power to be produced”.

It is very clear that the project was predicated on various incentives and subsidies that allowed the power plant to be a substantial revenue generator, which was estimated to pay for 60% of the pipe (penstock). But hydro power incentives went away and the project became uneconomic. Preservation of the surface water system and meeting EPA requirements absolutely do not require a 10 mile long 30” pipe.

In fact the month before the B&C report was made public, Mayor Eager at the September 16, 2009 Council meeting stated: “the lynchpin to this entire decision is the hydro project….. if hydro doesn’t work out …..we don’t have to upgrade our pipe at that point”. At this meeting staff requested the Council approve purchasing steel for the pipe because steel prices would be increasing. Because of this Mayor Eager continued the above statement with “I just want to make sure we’re not making a decision now by buying this steel that gives us a pipeline to nowhere if hydro doesn’t work out”. (I wrote the Council at that time stating “purchasing steel pipe at this time, in fact commits the city to the $70 million project. Further, savings on the pipe purchase is conjecture, prices could fall, and at best any potential savings would be a very small percentage of the project. This is more a method of commitment than a cost saving device”).

The pipe was not purchased at that time. But staff came back in September, 2011 again claiming steel prices were at their low point and will be increasing. They convinced Council to purchase about $4 million in steel. Total speculation and staff was wrong. (Generally prices do not increase in a recession). Now they use that expensive purchase as a reason that use of the large pipe must go forward.

The foremost question remains, why is a new 10 mile long 30” pipe necessary? It’s not – except for possible power production. The condition of existing pipes has never been determined with certainty. The need to replace them has never been proven. Again the B&C memo of September 28, 2009: “a more detailed analysis is needed to determine the integrity of the pipes”. It was not done by B&C because they were committed to a power project and repair of the old pipes was incompatible with that. B&C did spell out some of the problems and made a variety of maintenance recommendations and suggestions for better operation by the City (some valves and pressure controls have been inappropriately removed by the city). The most expensive overhaul of the pipes was one-third the cost of a new 30” pipe. Clearly much of the problem, which can and should be corrected, is lack of proper maintenance and operation of the pipes and the right of way. They also stated “the do nothing option is always available”. Determining the integrity of the pipes still has not been done. It clearly should be done before spending $25 million on replacing them.

The value engineering report by Robinson, Stafford & Rude, of March 2011, recommended reducing the pipe size from 36” to 30”. It noted this gave a “consequential small reduction in long term potential for hydro power revenue”. It is clear that their recommendation was dependant on retaining the potential for hydro power. This was because in the introduction to their report they noted “SWIP consists of “….. Construction of a new 10 mile long raw water transmission main; and construction of a hydro power facility …..”

Again the recommendation for a 30” 10 mile long pipe was dependent on providing for a hydro power plant. Therefore they did not review the possibility of a much less expensive short pipe option or repair of the existing pipes. The City has noted “instructions to the VE team included informing them of City decisions made prior to the beginning of their study efforts. Moving the point of diversion was one constraint the City has already thoroughly evaluated and eliminated….” These are severe and inappropriate limitations for a truly valid value engineering report. The value engineering report therefore did not allow studying the short pipe option or make any findings regarding continuing to use the existing pipes, again because they would not service a power plant. Clearly replacing the existing pipes with a 30” pipe is solely for a potential power plant and, without a power plant, it is a totally unnecessary $25 million expense.

In January 2012 I suggested in Cascade Business Review that the pipe built in the 1950s should have at least as long a life as the pipe built in the 1930’s, and that it alone could carry 6mgd (more than the average city demand) if something happened to the older pipe that required a long shut down for repair. The city responded thusly: “the two existing pipes are not being replaced simply because of age. There are numerous factors involved that expose both pipes to critical failure and expose the public to health and safety risks. Both of the existing pipes are known to have tree roots and are difficult to access. A storm could critically damage or sever the pipes if trees were uprooted. In addition, modern pipe design is to keep average or sustained velocities below six feet per second. Both pipes have sustained velocities that exceed 11 feet per second, which erodes the inter pipe lining in both pipes. Pipe lining and tree roots have been found in the city’s reservoir where the water is currently treated. The new pipe will last 100 years or more and will be easier to maintain under Skyliners Road”.

Of course any catastrophe can happen, but they haven’t in 90 years. The verbiage in defense of the need to replace the pipes does not stand up to investigation. They have served for 60 and 90 years without “critical failure” from a storm or trees being uprooted. Why now? Steel pipes carrying water do not catastrophically fail. Most of the argument presented merely requires better maintenance and operation of the pipes and the right of way. There was no comment on why the newer pipe cannot be expected to serve until it is at least as long as the original, 30 more years. Pipes can and have been shut down for maintenance and repair. Recently repairing a 6 foot split cost approximately $2000. A thorough review of the maintenance program and expenditures is warranted before spending $25 million for a pipe that is needed only for a highly unlikely power project.

In December 2011 Mayor Eager said the city would “obtain independent analysis of the project ….. to review the underlying assumptions the city used in reaching some of its decisions. This led to the March 7, 2012 Council hearing. But the city refused to review the most costly and controversial aspect of the project: the $25 million pipe. They again absolutely refused to look at a short pipe option or repair of the existing system. WHY? This persistent refusal to review such a costly element really makes one wonder if the city has an indefensible position that would cause great embarrassment if exposed.

As evidenced by the results of November’s election, city residents are extremely concerned with the expensive SWIP, especially considering the costly sewer projects the city will soon undertake. This project can be delayed while the most costly and controversial element can be thoroughly reviewed. There is plenty of time and an unbiased review might save tens of millions of dollars. It also could prevent more lawsuits. City residents deserve that.

FEDERAL COURT ACTS SWIFTLY TO PREVENT CITY FROM STARTING CONTROVERSIAL TUMALO WATER WITHDRAWAL PROJECT

(Eugene, Oregon) Chief Judge Ann Aiken of the Federal District Court of Oregon issued an injunction today preventing the City of Bend from starting construction on its controversial $68 million Surface Water Improvement Project (SWIP), holding that the project is likely to violate protections put in place to protect wild fish and healthy rivers.

Judge Aiken issued a temporary restraining order on October 4, 2012 and in an injunction decision filed today, Judge Aiken ruled that LandWatch is likely to prevail on the merits of the case. Judge Aiken ruled that the City of Bend’s contractor HDR “used stream temperature data that was more than 25 years old” and that as a result its work was unreliable. She determined that immediate implementation of the SWIP “will irreparably harm plaintiff and its members and supporters” because “the Project will degrade water quality, diminish aesthetic values and harm fish and wildlife in and around the Project area.”

Ralph Bloemers is a staff attorney with the Crag Law Center and represented LandWatch on its request for an injunction. Bloemers said, “the law is crystal clear. The City of Bend and the Forest Service have to maintain or enhance the condition of Tumalo Creek. The City’s use of outdated data and questionable scientific methods in the hopes of minimizing the negative impacts just doesn’t cut it.” The Crag Law Center is a public interest law firm that supports community-based efforts to protect the natural legacy of the Pacific Northwest.

A diverse coalition of business and community leaders, conservation organizations and local citizens have been advocating for a less costly and more environmentally friendly alternative to the SWIP since the City first announced its controversial plans. From the beginning, City officials rebuffed the public’s invitation to collaborate on a community-supported plan.

Paul Dewey, Executive Director for Central Oregon LandWatch said, “This is a great day for one of Central Oregon’s special waterways. The City’s expensive proposal to take more water out of Tumalo Creek threatened the work of so many people to restore this fishery. Water is the new oil, and we are grateful that the Court ruled swiftly to ensure that Tumalo Creek gets its day in court. Perhaps this pause will allow us to engage in constructive dialogue on solutions that can win broad public support.”

Expert hydrogeologist Mark Yinger testified in court on Wednesday that the City’s analysis was unreliable. He told the judge that there was no way for him to reproduce the City’s results because the City did not disclose the methods it used to the public. “The City’s analysis of the project’s impacts to stream temperatures put fish and stream health at great risk. There was no way for me to verify their results, instead the public was presented with a black box.”

Mike Tripp, a local fisherman and volunteer leader with Trout Unlimited, also testified in court on Wednesday. “Millions of dollars have already been invested by public and private entities to restore Tumalo Creek and the Deschutes River,” said Tripp. “This investment speaks to the value placed by the general public on the cold water in-stream flows and fishery of this watershed. Our binding fish recovery goals for national forest service lands require that any project by the City must facilitate the recovery of the fisheries in Tumalo Creek and the Deschutes River.”

“From the beginning, the City has put the cart before the horse when it comes to public process on this project,” said Allan Bruckner, one of seven former Bend mayors who have spoken out against the project. “It was inappropriate for City staff to move forward on this project when it is a major election issue. Now it is up to the incoming City Councilors to work with the public and change the direction on this project for the better.”

“The court order halting the project is a victory for businesses and citizens who stand to save tens of millions if this project is replaced by a reliable and fiscally-sound alternative,” said Bill Buchanan “Hopefully the new City Council will listen to its constituents and not take risks with the people’s hard earned dollars. This project would have saddled Bend businesses and citizens with nearly $70 million of new debt bearing interest at a rate of $300 per hour.”

“City councilors and officials ramped up the risk before all of their ducks were in a row,” said Bill Smith, developer of the Old Mill District in Bend. “I hope the silver lining is that we can now have a constructive dialogue with the City about an appropriately sized water system that protects the ratepayers and keeps the town from turning brown for a lot less than $68 million.”

Background

• Tumalo Creek and Tumalo Falls is a popular destination for locals and visitors.
• Tumalo Creek is home to native redband trout, a listed state sensitive species.
• Tumalo Creek is one of the few sources of cold water for a 25-mile reach of the Middle Deschutes River.
• The total cost of the Surface Water Improvement Project would be $68 million.
• To learn more about the SWIP, visit www.stopthedrain.org.
• Prior to 1992, water diversions drained the creek in the low-flow summer months.
• In 1996, partners moved to establish in-stream water rights on Tumalo Creek to provide for minimum flows of 6 cubic feet per second.
• In 1998: Tumalo Irrigation District (TID) moved its diversion dam 8.7 miles downstream to aid in efforts to restore the reach above Shevlin Park.
• In 2004-2007, public and private agencies and organizations engaged in an extensive restoration effort of the creek’s reach with the area of the Bridge Creek fire.
• Efforts through 2012 have restored summer flows in the Middle Deschutes from 30 cubic feet second (cfs) to 140 cfs.
• In 2009, fish passage was established at the TID diversion dam below Shevlin Park
• ODFW has a water flow goal of 250 cfs for the Middle Deschutes River and currently, the Deschutes River is just a little over halfway towards this goal.
• ODFW has a summer water flow goal of 25 cfs for Tumalo Creek, which the City of Bend has stated is a “laudable goal” best met by TID conservation. The City has not indicated what role it can play in conservation and restoring flows in Tumalo Creek.

Compare that to the $68 million cost of the Surface Water Improvement Project (SWIP). Since Bend’s water rights on Tumalo Creek are mostly junior, the Creek can only reliably provide 7.2mgd, which means the SWIP costs us $9.4 million per MGD (page 13, Optimatics 2011)

Keep in mind that the 45.2mgd in wells is water capacity that will be added to our system, whereas the SWIP will just allow us to continue to use our 7.2mgd in senior water rights on Tumalo Creek for drinking water.

The City has tried to portray the SWIP as a critical infrastructure improvement that will accommodate growth and development. However, all of the actual growth in water capacity will come from groundwater wells, as is shown in the City’s Public Facilities Plan: Bend Water PFP April 2012 page 27.

Unfortunately for us, the ratepayers, the City is trying to push ahead with the least necessary part of our water system. The SWIP is an enormous upfront cost that ratepayers will have to bear today and well into the future. The interest alone on a $68 million debt is staggering.

Wells can be built on an as-needed basis, at a much lower cost per MGD. Why don’t we lease our water rights in Tumalo Creek until we need that water? If Bend does grow so much that we end up needing that additional 7.2 mgd, the decision to build a SWIP can be made at that time.

Call or send a note to your City Councilors today and ask them to reconsider the SWIP:
Tom Greene – 419-0021 tgreene@ci.bend.or.us
Jeff Eager – 815-4730 jeager@ci.bend.or.us
Kathie Eckman – 388-5505 keckman@ci.bend.or.us
Mark Capell – 420-8883 mcapell@ci.bend.or.us
Jodie Barram – 388-5505 jbarram@ci.bend.or.us
Scott Ramsay – 610-8566 sramsay@ci.bend.or.us

Thank Councilor Clinton for his continued opposition to this nonsensical plan:
Jim Clinton – 383-0568 jclinton@ci.bend.or.us

Check out some of the comments submitted at our new Environmental Assessment page!

INTRODUCTION:

Many opponents of Bend’s Surface Water Improvement Plan (SWIP) have focused upon invalid / incorrect underlying assumptions utilized by the City to create this grandiose scheme. Others have relied upon a conviction that surface water is the wrong approach to serve citizens and that the watershed will be harmed or that forest fires will ravage the project.

For purposes of this editorial, I will introduce a new acronym, SWIPE. (Surface Water Improvement Project Exposed) I will also advance a logical theory that SWIPE is completely unnecessary in the 1st place, and that the city utilized subterfuge (conceal, escape, or evade) as a primary underlying factor to launch this lavish scheme at an astronomical cost to the “average Joe” in Bend. High water costs will also drive business away to places like Prineville.

As an opposition leader to the city’s boondoggle at Juniper Ridge for the past decade, I understand how the city operates “behind closed doors” to pursue private Council agendas that defy public interests. For example, citizens rejected BAT on multiple ballots, but the city forged ahead anyway utilizing funds from the general fund that could have been dedicated to public safety.

ANALYSIS:

It is highly probable that the City contrived SWIPE, at least in part, to serve a set of dubious objectives that have not been made public.

1st, they have long coveted a massive water transfer station to serve Juniper Ridge despite a decade of futility, frustration, and failure of that project to achieve any stated objectives including zero new jobs. We don’t need more water for a development that cannot attract new tenants.

Secondly, the city bungled condemnation of Juniper Water Utility resulting in a 9.6 million-dollar judgement and fees against taxpayers. The project will also require millions for future repairs. Then, inexplicably, they took two performing wells serving 1200 homes off- line before announcing a “pressing need” for additional water from SWIPE.

Finally, the City’s growth expectations as evidenced by the defunct 9000 acre UGB expansion plan are ludicrous as they were predicated upon “boom year” data from 2006-7. As citizens, we have an absolute right to learn and Bend should publish the growth factors utilized to justify SWIPE..

CONCLUSIONS:

Juniper Ridge is a massive failure by any quantitative or qualitative assessment. For example, they have missed their 2007 forecast of 120 million in revenues by Q-1 of 2012 by an astounding 92%! Juniper Ridge is not a viable proposition now as evidenced by the absence of any sale since October of 2008, and those transactions involved existing / not new businesses resulting in no net benefit to Central Oregonians who are stuck with a massive pile of debt.

The City has proven that it cannot manage water resources through the failed condemnation of Juniper water Utility costing average citizens some $11,000.00 for each of 1200 homes in the Mountain High area. (13. 2 in expenditures million divided by 1200 homes) Why should we trust them with SWIPE given the propensity for massive cost overruns including millions for dubious consultants that have conflicts of interests with the project?

Bend overstated the need for UGB expansion lands by a factor that could easily approach 50-66% given current economic realities, and the Department of Land Conservation Development sent tem back to “square one” 2 years ago. The City has little credibility with economic assumptions.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Dissolve the Urban Renewal District at Juniper Ridge and “mothball” the project in its entirety until 2050.
2. Sell Juniper Water Utility to a private entity and recoup some taxpayer losses.
3. Implement the “turnkey” 4000-acre UGB plan that was prepared in 2007 with no provisions for Juniper Ridge expansion.
4. Abandon SWIPE immediately in favor of a downstream ground water well below the pipeline.

Scott R. Siewert
64055 Tanglewood
Bend, OR 97701

Cell: 541 410-2098

“the lynchpin to this entire decision is the hydro project because if we have the hydro project it makes a heckuva lot of sense to keep taking water out of bridge creek … and generate a lot of revenue in the out years that will keep rates down because we’re a desireable place to come … if hydro doesn’t work out then wells make more sense because we don’t have to spend 25 million on a surface water treatment facility we don’t have to upgrade our pipe at that point. I just want to make sure we’re not making a decision now by buying this steel that gives us a pipeline to nowhere if hydro doesn’t work out.”

The City now concedes that the hydroelectric subsidies and revenue they were counting on in September 2009 have not materialized. The City is also claiming it is mothballing the hydro project. Based on Eager’s statements back in 2009, “wells make more sense because we don’t have to spend 25 million on a surface water treatment facility [and] we don’t have to upgrade our pipe at that point.” By his own account, he is pushing to build a “pipeline to nowhere” on the ratepayers’ backs.

Primarily, however, the filtration treatment method was selected as the best available technology to allow the City continued use of the surface water in the event of a fire in the watershed that contains a significant portion of dead trees as a result of beetle kill. {A-11, B-5}

Comments: Mr. Hickmann’s comments here, and on prior occasions, regarding the City’s plans for managing watershed fire risks contain inherent contradictions and reveal deficiencies in SWIP cost estimates. Fire in the watershed is a major risk for the City’s surface water system.  According to the US Forest Service this is an issue of when – not if – such a fire will occur.  Given this, the value engineering team commissioned by the City recommended completion of a system which would in fact be prepared to operate in the event of a forest fire in the watershed (Final Value Engineering Study report, March, 2011).  The Public Works department rejected this recommendation, arguing that the City could operate on ground water only for the minimum of 3 to 4 months required for equipment procurement, (installation time not estimated) if a fire occurred (VE report, Appendix J, Item T-53). This seems inconsistent with the City’s argument regarding unreliability of the well system (addressed in Section 4).

The proposed membrane treatment plant, under the current SWIP proposal, will not be equipped with the necessary add-ons required to treat water after a watershed fire, and no cost estimates for these add-ons are available. In the fall of 2011 Mr. Hickmann stated at a meeting that equipment for fire consequences would entail a capital investment of greater than $3 million, but offered no comment on operating and maintenance expense increases that would follow; these in all likelihood will be substantial.  One can conclude that expense estimates for the City’s commitment to a membrane treatment plant lack credibility.

Furthermore the fire scenario planning comes back to the water supply issue discussed above.  If the City proposes to be able to operate for many months on ground water only while the treatment plant is upgraded after fire in the watershed, the ground water system surely must meet reliability and firm supply standards.  Yet Mr. Hickmann argues that currently our well infrastructure does not have adequate reliable capacity to operate without surface water supplementation.  He can’t have it both ways.

On top of this, the City has now proposed that if the EPA grants an LT2 rule compliance delay, the City could install the new pipe without a treatment plant.  Again this can only be a rational plan if in fact well water infrastructure is sufficiently reliable to meet capacity demand after a fire.

6      Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation Program

Mr. Hickmann has this to say about the Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation Program:

the Oregon Deschutes Basin Groundwater Mitigation Program limits additional groundwater use and remains controversial {A-3, B-2}

Comment. The Groundwater Program limits additional groundwater use in order to protect flows in the Lower Deschutes, a State Wild and Scenic Waterway.  New groundwater permits are issued only once the flow impacts of the new use are offset by mitigation projects approved by the Oregon Water Resources Department.

The Program was controversial in 2002 when the City of Bend was fighting imposition of the Program and when Waterwatch was arguing the Program was not comprehensive enough.  It is no longer controversial. On August 2, 2011, the Governor signed HB 3623 which extended the sunset of the Oregon Deschutes Basin Groundwater Mitigation Program from 2014 to 2029, a fifteen-year extension.

Mr. Hickmann is either out of touch with developments in the basin over the last five years or is attempting to mislead Council and ratepayers about a Program that is cited across the Western United States as an important example for how water should be managed more productively for both human and ecosystem uses.

Furthermore Bend’s secure groundwater rights will arguably accommodate, with modest conservation programs, growth to 140,000 residents, taking into account Avion and Roats service populations.  Forecasting beyond this limit conjures up many scenarios; who can predict the future that far ahead?  Planning now should focus on maximizing flexibility while minimizing risk so as to allow optimal adaptation to evolving circumstances and unpredictable events. The surface water project does the opposite.  It minimizes flexibility while maximizing risk given its all or none, immediate and irreversible investment profile.

On a related point Mr. Hickmann also states:

The United States Geological Survey has evaluated the environmental impact of Bend relying solely on groundwater . . .   If the City uses more groundwater, it is projected to deplete flows in the Deschutes River upstream from Bend, Tumalo Creek, Whychus Creek, the Crooked River, Alder Springs and other springs.  By maintaining both its surface water and groundwater sources, the City can manage the potential environmental impacts of its water supply [A-18, B-8}

Comment.  Mr. Hickmann continues to make misleading and incorrect inferences (in this case about other peoples’ work).  USGS did not in any way examine what would happen if Bend relied solely on groundwater.  USGS was rather examining the impacts of pumping groundwater in the Bend area and used the City as an example.  As indicated above the only reason there is a Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation Program is to address the potential for groundwater pumping to deplete stream flow.   The City, along with all other new permit holders, is providing mitigation for its new pumping rights.  This mitigation effectively offsets the potential impact that pumping would have on the Lower Deschutes.

Here again, Mr. Hickmann statements are hard to reconcile with other information.  To state that the City can “manage” the impact on the environment of its water supply by using both surface water and groundwater is an unsubstantiated assertion.  The State has already seen fit to protect the Lower Deschutes from additional groundwater pumping by the City.  Were this not the case the City would likely not be doing anything to “manage” this environmental impact.  However, the State can do nothing about the City’s continued and increasing diversion of water from Tumalo Creek, a stream that is effectively dewatered by the combined impact of City of Bend and Tumalo Irrigation District diversions.  This is the environmental impact that remains unaccounted for by the City and is not addressed in any of its SWIP planning documents.  The use of water from Tumalo Creek has much more devastating impacts on fish and wildlife than does groundwater pumping, that is already offset through mitigation projects paid for by the City.

5      Financial comparison of SWIP with an All-Well Water Alternative

Mr. Hickmann goes on to discuss the impact of the City’s diversion on Tumalo Creek, as follows:

The hydroelectric facility, if built, would not take additional water from Tumalo Creek. The facility would generate renewable energy from water that the City uses to meet municipal water demand {A-17, B-7}

Comment: The statement by Mr. Hickmann is misleading.  As confirmed in part 1, the SWIP (including the hydropower facility) will take additional water from Tumalo Creek, particularly in the winter months.  Median stream flow in the creek during winter months is in the mid-60s (cfs).  According to its projections, the City will be diverting 21 cfs or fully one-third of the water in the creek by 2030.  Measured at the location where the City currently returns unwanted flow from its pipes to Tumalo Creek (near Outback), the SWIP will increase the City’s current take of water during the winter months from 8.5 cfs (5.5 mgd) to 21 cfs or a 150% increase over current diversions.  The City has carefully avoided drawing public attention to this awkward consequence of their plans, nor accounted for the environmental impacts of these additional diversions in any of their documentation about the project.

Mr. Hickman goes on to try and make the case that the SWIP should be evaluated only on the basis of the increase in diversion:

With the new system, the City will only divert more than 18.2 cfs (current allowed diversion) when there is a municipal demand for it, and the water is available. Availability is based on water rights and available flow.   So, the net increase of withdrawal of water from Tumalo Creek (when the water is available and City demand would require it) is 21.0-18.2 = 2.8 cfs.  This is a maximum increase of 15 percent.  {A-17, B-7}

Comment. This is inconsistent with Mr. Hickmann’s statement that no “additional” water is to be diverted.

The main point here however is that Mr. Hickmann seems concerned only with the increase in water use and thereby misses the obvious point that under a well only water supply system the City would divert 0 (zero) water from Tumalo Creek.  Because the SWIP involves fully rebuilding the City’s pipes that bring the water into town the SWIP should be (and was) compared to other alternatives that do not involve rebuilding the City’s surface water diversion and conveyance system.  The “with and without” SWIP comparison then would be between 21 cfs in diversions and 0 cfs of water diverted.  Mr. Hickmann seems unaware of common practice and methods in project analysis, in particular how to structure an alternatives analysis and evaluation their impacts on water resources.

4.2      Restoration of Tumalo Creek flows

With respect to Tumalo Creek flows Mr. Hickmann recognizes the stream flow issue with the following statement: 

Tumalo Irrigation District, who owns large senior water rights on Tumalo Creek, have identified over 30,000 acre feet of losses and are actively conserving the 50 percent leakage within their canal system.  Additional options exist to prioritize flows that meet all the needs of fish, farms, and people and the City of 

Bend is actively working with all basin groups to achieve these goals. {A-15}

Comment. Once again, the City has put forward an argument that lacks credible objective support.

An informative response to recent inquiries on this issue was received from the Deschutes River Conservancy. This was summarized in detail for Trout Unlimited and StoptheDrain (click here to download).  The City argues that in stream flows are best met through programs based on Tumalo Irrigation District conservation programs. However to complete proposed TID conservation plans major public financing will be required, and unfortunately the resultant flow restoration will still fall far short of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife flow goal of in-stream rights of 32 cfs.  “All the needs of fish…” will not be met under the City’s proposal.