Mid-Columbia farmers at odds with Ecology

Farmer Ron Reimann tries to make the most of his water right, but without using every last drop.

He's an irrigation miser, putting just enough water on his 3,500 acres at T&R Farms in Franklin County to produce quality crops while conserving as much as possible. After 29 years, he's learned intensive field monitoring of his irrigation also can mean more effective use of the region's limited water supply.

While conventional circle irrigation systems put about 7 gallons of water on an acre each day, Reimann's methods have cut it to 6 gallons -- about 14 percent less.

But the goal isn't simply conservation. Reimann, who is president of the Columbia-Snake River Irrigators Association, is leading an effort to put the saved water to use -- for the benefit of Columbia River fish runs and to irrigate more land.

The monitoring program, known as Operation and Maintenance Conservation, could bring as much as $50 million more in agribusiness income, said Darryll Olsen, executive director of the Benton County Conservation Board.

Irrigators have been promoting the idea for two years, but Olsen said it hasn't been an easy sell to state officials.

Under the plan, an estimated 17 percent in water savings gained through efforts of participating irrigators would be shared, with half of the saved water being left in the river and half allowed for new on-farm use, Olsen explained.

"This is how I can grow our farm without increasing our water permit," said Reimann, 67, who said he has been experimenting with water management conservation since 1981.

"We think it is pretty simple. I'm looking at maybe adding 300 acres (with potential new irrigation) for my farm," he said.

Olsen said the concept would benefit the river and agriculture and not harm other water rights, existing junior water rights or current state in-stream flow rules that protect Columbia River fish.

With 15,000 to 20,000 acres potentially developed with the proposed irrigation scheme, Olsen estimates the annual financial benefit in farm income to be at least $33 million.

"This would come from existing water rights," said Olsen, noting state officials would be hard-pressed to create a similar economic win at no cost to taxpayers.

But Ken Slattery, director of the state Department of Ecology's Water Resources Program, said the proposal isn't so simple, and has negative aspects.

"We have had concerns in the past. We believe what they are proposing, which we call water spreading, would reduce the flow in the Columbia River by some marginal amount," Slattery said.

That loss, which is nearly impossible to calculate, would be caused by evapotranspiration, which refers to the total loss of water to the atmosphere from evaporation and plant transpiration.

Slattery said allowing more irrigation on new land would mean more evapotranspiration. Water lost to the atmosphere would not necessarily end up in the Columbia-Snake river system, but could travel half a continent or a world away.

"While we applaud efforts to be more conservative, the question is if it is good or bad policy to allow more plants," Slattery said.

But Olsen said Ecology should be embracing the economic opportunity instead of balking.

The irrigators' proposal, which would be done entirely at agribusiness expense and no cost to the state, would free water to share with the Odessa Sub-Area, which is struggling with a sinking water table. It also could be used for inter-basin transfer to help supply irrigation districts at the head of the Yakima River Basin

Slattery also said Ecology and the irrigators disagree over whether water that is saved through conservation efforts should be considered relinquished as a permanent water right.

"Irrigators would like to get credit for what they've done in the past to conserve water so they can put it toward new acreage. But we have a relinquishment law in Washington," Slattery said.

That "use it or lose it" law says a water right not used for five years becomes invalid, Slattery explained, admitting that it is a disincentive for conservation.

Olsen insists the operation and maintenance conservation methods promoted by the irrigators are not a relinquishment because they require decisions and field activity every year to make the water savings occur.

Reimann said he can't believe that what seems like such a great idea has bogged down in bureaucracy.

"We never thought it was going to be this big a deal. We keep trying to get this in the chute, but Ecology wants to load the bull backwards," he said.

Reimann said benefits of the plan outweigh the presumed negative effects.

"If this works for us, we will withdraw our two pending water right applications," he added.

Olsen said there is no legal basis to stop the irrigators from going ahead with their proposal, adding that he personally asked that question of Attorney General Rob McKenna. And Derek Sandison, director of Ecology's Columbia River Office, favors the program, he said.

"It is consistent with the Columbia River bill," he said.

"We have (farmers) borrowing money right now to put land into production next year based on our discussions with Sandison," Olsen said.

Sandison could not be reached at his Yakima office Thursday for comment.

Olsen said the irrigators plan to go forward with implementing the conservation plan at six farms or ranches over the next two years, with conservancy boards providing oversight.

But Slattery said many questions remain.

"We haven't agreed with the Columbia-Snake River Irrigators Association that they have the right mousetrap," he said.