Appendix A

Consultative Stakeholder Meeting May 20, 1999 Spokane, Washington

Breakout Group Comments

Comments, references to data sources and experts in particular issues relevant to the study, and questions. Acronyms used: WCD (World Commission on Dams), GCD (Grand Coulee Dam), CBP (Columbia Basin Project), Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation), BPA (Bonneville Power Administration), CRITFC (Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission), BC (British Columbia) USCE (US Corps of Engineers).

Issues discussed:

• Irrigation
• Hydropower
• Flood control
• Project-affected people
• Ecosystems and anadromous fish
• Recreation
• Distribution of benefits and costs
• Basin-wide issues

Issues have been placed in three categories :

• Issue to be addressed in the study.

• Interesting background information, data source, or perspective, not all of which can be commented on for practical reasons.

• Issues of less direct relevance to the WCD study and process, either because linked more strongly to national or local context than to the dam itself, or counterfactuals that do not form part of the WCD methodology.

Unfortunately the study will not be able to address all issues exhaustively, and this prioritization has therefore been undertaken by WCD Secretariat in order to respond to as many of the relevant issues raised by meeting participants as possible, while respecting available time and resources.

Irrigation

Issues to be addressed in the study:

• (comment made by one breakout group as a whole) Priority issues to address: factors influencing non-expansion of CBP lands; comparisons between with and without project conditions; and creation of new wetlands and riparian areas.
• CBP has facilitated irrigation outside the project area through provision of power, more predictable water flows, and groundwater recharge.
• There have been massive improvements in efficiency of CBP water use (e.g., using sprinklers). But how is efficiency defined and measured? Who would have this kind of data?
  [addressing this issue will involve a brief review of existing reports and studies]
• Technological change has influenced predicted vs. actual impacts of irrigation and had made the actual impacts greater than predicted; changes in technology are also related to the pressure to increase the size of farms in order to enjoy economies of scale.
  [addressing this issue will involve a brief review of existing reports and studies]
• How and why have attitudes towards the environment evolved?
• (comment made by one breakout group as a whole) Priority issues to be considered in Phase II of the study: types of crops, amount of area irrigated, groundwater and surface water quantity and quality, irrigation vs. fish, indirect benefits generated.
• Direct effects of irrigation on ground water quality is an important issue to address.
• WCD consultants should consider the positive, unintended impact of the project on some species (e.g., waterfowl) from irrigation-related activities.
• WCD consultants should consider effects of irrigation withdrawals on fish.
• What have been the efficiency gains from recycling irrigation water?
  [addressing this issue will involve a brief review of existing reports and studies]

Interesting background information:

• Low cost hydropower has contributed to increased irrigation in areas outside the CBP command area.
• Increasing residential land use is affecting the need for agricultural land in the plateau area (i.e., making the agricultural land more important from a production standpoint)
• (comment made by farmers and farmers' associations) Washington Univ. study conducted by N. Whittlesly on adverse impacts of irrigation is flawed (NB: this was not the opinion of all group members).
• Fish were not the only reason the planned expansion of CBP lands did not take place in 1989. Other factors, such as foregone hydropower revenues and decreases in water quality downstream, were also important factors (See Olsen report from 1996).
• Regarding the environmental impacts of irrigation return flows-studies show differing impacts. Some say that adverse effects are significant, others say that there are no significant environmental impacts.
• US Department of Agriculture regional office in Olympia would have some data on crop values and multipliers.
• Refer to Washington State's commissions on apples, potatoes, hay (in Ellenberg) for data on crop growth and values. See also Washington State agriculture statistical service in Olympia and the Washington State Univ. Extension Service for additional data.
• Micro-hydro concepts were considered by Reclamation in the 1940s, but deemed infeasible (WCD scoping report says this impact was unexpected.). After the 1970s, when the price of electricity went up, use of small scale hydro become more economical. Refer to Montgomery report from 1996 or 1997 for details on this issue and efficiency.
• Over time, there has been a loss of social awareness concerning how food gets to the table. The link between the output of farmers and the needs of urbanites has been lost. Now, people are not alarmed when they think that 4,000 small farmers might go out of business.
• The current irrigation flows are a fraction of the amount agreed to in the Columbia Basin Treaty.
• The efficiency of irrigation is based on numerous factors including improved technology and efficient management by irrigation districts.
• The priority given to irrigation in the Columbia Basin Treaty is not related to U.S. law, but rather, the context of US-Canada negotiations at the time.
• The crop distribution data reported in the scoping report is dated.
• Bonneville Power Administration has conducted studies on return flows from irrigation.
• Washington State Departments of Agriculture and Transportation have data that would be relevant to this study.
• Washington State University Extension Service also has relevant data and reports.
• Ground Water Management Area Group may have relevant data and reports.
• Horticultural Society should have relevant data for specialised crops.
• Local Conservation Groups have lots of information and reports that would be useful to the study.

Issues of less direct relevance to the WCD study:

• (comment made by farmers and farmers' associations). WCD consultants should also consider potential benefits of irrigating second half of CBP planned acreage as opportunities lost. The amount of money it would cost and the water that would be used is not significant compared to the economic benefits that would be gained. This land was part of the original CBP plan, but was never included in subsequent project expansions. Instead, people in these lands are using dryland farming or getting water from deep wells where the water table is dropping.
• WCD consultants should consider distinguishing between farmgate (wholesale) prices vs. retail prices in terms of estimating monetary values of crops. Farmers want to use retail prices, as they are much higher than farmgate.
• WCD consultants should consider emphasizing the value of irrigated agriculture in the context of food processing and transportation, particularly for crops such as apples, potatoes, and hay. For example, some project lands provide significant year-round three shift labor opportunities (NB: quality of jobs may differ markedly among crops. For example, some jobs may be good and high paying, whereas others may be very low paying and performed primarily by migrant labor).
• WCD consultants should consider CBP-related agricultural activities' impacts on transportation.
• What are the opportunity costs of growing equivalent crops without irrigation water, i.e., how many extra acres of land would be used?
• WCD consultants should consider the effects of improved transportation on the benefits derived from the Grand Coulee Dam, e.g. increasing the value of agricultural production. Likewise, the costs of the improved transportation that assisted in the generation of these benefits should also be looked into.
• Is the subsidization to Grand Coulee irrigators fair to Canada?
• How important is irrigation to abundant low cost food production?

Hydropower

Issues to be addressed in the study:

• WCD consultants should consider dynamic and ancillary benefits provided by hydropower, including the ability of hydropower to stabilize current and generate peaking power more economically.
• A significant tension exists because of differences in opinion about who should receive the low-cost power generated from hydroelectric facilities in the Columbia River Basin. According to rules governing activities at BPA, cooperatives, municipal utility districts, and public utility districts are first in the line for this low-cost power. BPA's industrial customers are second in line. However, as demand for electric power within the Columbia River Basin has grown, BPA has had to purchase relatively high cost incremental power in order to meet demand. Should this high cost power be sold to industrial customers, or should it be integrated into the rate base, thereby affecting the rates of all customers, including farmers and public customers? This question is at the heart of the tensions that have been

created by efforts to use the availability of low-cost power to attract new industry to the region; the new growth has significantly increased the demand for power.

Interesting background information:

• The Army Corps of Engineers has documentation for each of its dams has a section on power demand forecasts for the region. If we wanted to look at predicted demand changes, we could look at those reports.
• The Third Power Station at the Grand Coulee Dam represents such an enormous expansion in hydroelectric power generating capacity that it should be viewed almost as a separate project.
• The availability of very low-cost power in the Pacific Northwest led to many energy intensive uses. In recent years, partly in response to criticisms of inefficient use of energy in the Pacific Northwest, residential and commercial customers of BPA have increased the efficiency of energy use, particularly in new home construction (e.g., by providing much more substantial home insulation to cut down on energy use).
• Efforts to mitigate the adverse effects of dams on wild salmon have been paid for by purchasers of power from BPA. Mitigation costs have been running at about $450 million per year, and this adds significantly to the price of power.
• BPA does not keep separate records of the output value of power generated at the Grand Coulee Dam. Procedures for distinguishing the value of power generated at the Grand Coulee Dam from the value of power generated at other dams in the Columbia River basin do not exist.

Flood Control

Interesting background information:

• The Army Corps of Engineers does not separate out the flood control benefits of the Grand Coulee Dam from the flood control benefits of all other dams in the Columbia basin.

Project-Affected People

Issues to be addressed in the study:

• WCD consultants should consider "displacement" of people (Native American and otherwise) that fished and conducted trading and cultural activities in the Kettle Falls and Spokane areas. These groups were also adversely impacted by the project. Names of some of the tribes include the Kalispell, Coeur d'Alene, and Kootenia; there were also many Lincoln County residents that were similarly affected.
• (comment made by BC Hydro) WCD consultants should consider the positive function of the reservoir, as it serves to protect burial sites. Not all the effects of the project on affected peoples are negative.
• (comments made by one breakout group as a whole) Priority issues to address are: pre- and post-GCD impacts on income reparations, Native Americans' rights to healthy fish population, impacts of the GCD on livelihoods.
• WCD consultants should consider recent settlement with Colvilles as an example of reparations.
• WCD consultants should consider project's impacts on upstream people (e.g., in Canada).
• What was life of local farmers like before the project?

Interesting background information:

• In addition to CRITFC tribes, other peoples fished and were affected by the project, including the Okanagan, Shushwap, and Ktunaxa Native American tribes and other non-Native American settlers.
• (comment made by all group members of one breakout group) The question of how to desegregate GCD and CBP impacts from other factors-how is this going to be accomplished? It seems difficult, if not impossible, in some places.
• There were many farms and orchards in the reservoir area that were inundated; refer to museums in the Columbia Plateau, Douglas County Commissioner's office, Lincoln County Museum, and regional public utility districts for information on this.
• To obtain data on project affected people, the study team could place an advertisement in local newspapers soliciting information for personal stories.
• The Grand Coulee Dam destroyed Canada's First Nation's culture. Pre-dam the First Nations had a unified, salmon-based culture. Now the tribes are completely fragmented.
• At the Canada Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission, Bill Green is an excellent source of information about Colville reparations.
• The town of Coulee Dam was created without an adequate tax base. Since 80% of the town is on federally-owned land, they have no tax base with which to fund infrastructure and social services.
• Addeline Frelin at the Colville tribes has information on project impacts; Brian Flett at the Spokane tribes has similar data.
• Tom Streiffert from the U.S. Park Service has information about burial sites and artifacts.
• WCD consultants should consult back issues of newspapers like the Wenatchee Daily World, Spokesman Review (Spokane), the Colville paper, etc. for data on oustees and other project-affected people. Key players in the early days of the dam were Rufus Woods, Jim O'Sullivan, and William Clapp. Together, these three men were known as the "Dam College." They were the main supporters of the dam.
• Bill Green of the Canada Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission and members of the Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) in the U.S. have historical information on what tribes fished where; refer also to the Northwest Power Planning Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service for data on this topic.

Issues of less direct relevance to the WCD study:

• Growers of orchards in Canada were adversely affected by the project because they could not compete with the growers of orchards in the CBP area.

Ecosystems/Anadromous Fish

Issues to be addressed in the study:

• WCD consultants should include impacts (positive and negative) of the project on resident fisheries (e.g., sturgeon). This includes native, as well as introduced, fish species (e.g., those introduced for recreational purposes such as lake stocking).
• Organizationally, the scoping report could incorporate the anadromous fish section into ecosystems section to avoid the "anadro-centric" focus that many reports of this nature fall prey to.
• In considering the impacts of Grand Coulee Dam construction on ecosystems, WCD consultants should not equate spawning grounds with habitat. Spawning grounds are one category of necessary habitat, but not all, for salmon.
• WCD consultants should consider using "indicator" species as bellwethers of general ecosystem impacts. For example, the study team could use fisheries data as an indicator of riparian/riverine ecosystem health.
• WCD consultants should consider the following argument: the original fish mitigation plan for GCD was for a low dam. When the project was later proposed and approved as a high dam, the fish mitigation plan remained unchanged.
• Sun Lake, Moses Lake, and other reservoirs within the CBP area have become highly coveted warm water fisheries. WCD consultants should contact Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for further information on this.
• According to one breakout session, priority issues to address are: effect of GCD on salmon, cultural value of fish for tribes, upstream impacts, and planned vs. actual mitigation.
• The Grand Coulee Dam's adverse impact on upstream salmon was anticipated
• WCD consultants should investigate the impacts the project had on the decreased flow of nutrients (i.e., dead returning salmon) upstream.
  [This will be addressed within the limits of the Canadian contribution to the study]
• Project mitigation efforts linked to the GCD did benefit some wildlife.
• The Endangered Species Act listing of resident fish (e.g., bull trout, mountain whitefish, sturgeon) and associated requirements to implement recovery plans, conflict with efforts to save anadromous fish.

Interesting background information:

• CBP has created new wetlands and sanctuaries for waterfowl; at the same time, the Columbia Basin Treaty called for the construction of dams that removed natural habitats in Canada.
• Activities that took place north of the dam site prior to the project include subsistence fishing (by Native American tribes and non-Native American settlers) and some limited agricultural activity.
• Scoping report mentions only one hatchery by name. Four hatcheries were planned [as stated in the report], but one was never built. The original fish mitigation plan centered around a low dam design, but when the switch to the high dam was made, the fish mitigation was not changed.
• Reclamation has many photos of the area inundated before and after GCD construction in their records. Refer to Cathy Labret for further information.
• A Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife study conducted in 1992 is a good reference on the creation of new wetlands created by the project.
• National Marine Fisheries Service has data on changes in fishery productivity over time.
• John Martin from the Bureau of Land Management has information about someone who wrote a Ph. D. dissertation on the history of salmon in the Pacific Northwest at the University of Washington.
• Adverse ecosystem impacts were not only caused by dams.
• A book entitled, "The Great Salmon Hoax," has more details on ecosystem issues.
• Fisheries Biologist, Rebecca Kalamasz, (509-527-7277) has more information on salmon issue.

Issues of less direct relevance to the WCD study:

• WCD consultants should consider other factors impacting anadromous fish populations (recall the 4 H's: habitat, harvest, hydropower, and hatcheries). The Northwest Power Planning Council is very involved in this and has tried to dis-aggregate effects, but met with limited success.
• WCD consultants need to investigate the effects of the GCD on smolts travelling to the ocean

Recreation

Issues to be addressed in the study:

• Sports fishery of Lake Roosevelt is threatened by drawdowns for flow augmentation. The needs of the lake fishery are currently not adequately accounted for.
• (comment made by BPA) BPA receives numerous complaints when power-related releases conflict with other uses (particularly recreational uses) of the GCD project.
• WCD consultants should include added value of laser light show at GC, visits to the dam, and other recreational activities at Lake Roosevelt and the CBP area into overall project assessment.

Interesting background information:

• Tom Streiffert from the National Park Service can provide comprehensive information concerning operating costs for recreational facilities at Lake Roosevelt.
• Professor Al Sholz from Eastern Washington Univ. in Cheney, wrote a 1987 report on economic value associated with various uses of Lake Roosevelt. See Cathy Lebret for further data on this.
• WCD consultants should consider the monetary value of recreational benefits generated by the project; The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should have data on this.
• Recreational activities associated with the Grand Coulee Dam and the Columbia Basin Project are very important. One indication of the value of this recreational use is given by the fact that property values along the edge of Lake Roosevelt have increased substantially over the past several years.

Distribution of Benefits and Costs

Issues to be addressed in the study:

• WCD consultants should consider addressing the relationship between hydropower revenues and cost of providing irrigation works and water (i.e., the cross-subsidization of irrigation by hydropower).
• WCD consultants should look at inflexibility of long term repayment contracts for farmers and how these contracts affect the benefits of distributions and costs.
• WCD consultants should consider the idea of regional transfers; e.g., apple orchards in Canada are now defunct because apple orchards receiving CBP irrigation water in Washington are thriving.
  [This will be addressed within the limits of the Canadian contribution to the study]
• The U.S. decision to go from a low to a high dam at GCD was made without appropriate consultation with the Canadian side and this foreclosed options.

[This will be addressed within the limits of the Canadian contribution to the study]

• How does the Columbia Basin Treaty recover costs? Who pays for what? Who benefits and who loses?
  [This will be addressed within the limits of the Canadian contribution to the study]

Interesting background information:

• The main hydropower beneficiaries include the residents of the four main basin states (WA, OR, ID, MT) and 18 private companies that enjoy reduced rates for electricity.
• Generally, the project spurred activity that enabled the socio-economic development of the Pacific Northwest.
• Josh Schmienk has knowledge of a study on apple-related issues in context of a North American Free Trade Agreement study.
• According to one breakout group, those who lost as a result of the GC include: displaced families, fisherman on Columbia system, traditional users (Kettle Falls), East Highland land owners, Canadian salmon interests, Native American fishery interests.
• According to one breakout group, in the context of hydropower the beneficiaries are: the general consumer, rural areas, and industrial users that purchase power from BPA.
• According to one breakout group, the most significant hydropower beneficiaries are: for flood control-Portland, for BPA - the power distribution system, also the aluminium industry, military enterprises, and the government.
• Other beneficiaries to consider: Canadian hydropower opportunities, employment generation, non-Native American recreational fisheries; renewable power for region.

Basin-Wide Issues

Issues to be addressed in the study:

• In the general analysis of benefits and costs, WCD consultants should consider unexpected benefits and costs upstream (e.g., in Canada). You can't just count the benefits derived from system-wide integration without also counting the adverse affects upstream. Canadian participants at the stakeholder meeting felt that the basin-wide management system, in some instances, led to a transfer of benefits from Canada to the U.S. For example, there used to be orchards upstream, now there are none. But there are orchards downstream.
  [This will be addressed within the limits of the Canadian contribution to the study]
• WCD consultants should consider impacts of Grand Coulee Dam construction on upstream and downstream dam construction. For example, Chief Jo Dam, 60 miles downstream, was constructed without any fish passage facilities, largely because the Grand Coulee had already dealt with the fish mitigation issue through its hatchery program.
  [This will be addressed within the limits of the USCE contribution to the study]
• What is the legal difference between Columbia Basin Treaty water and non-treaty water? The claim is that non-treaty water, as it moves through the system, sometimes it becomes treaty water. How does this figure into contractual compliance and benefit sharing issues (e.g., repayment and revenue sharing)?
  [This will be addressed within the limits of the Canadian/USCE contribution to the study]
• What are the implications of using Columbia Basin Treaty water for non-treaty purposes (e.g., flow augmentation)?
  [This will be addressed within the limits of the Canadian/USCE contribution to the study]
• In what ways does the structure of the Columbia Basin Treaty impede or facilitate cooperation between the US and Canada? For example, where do the benefits and dis-benefits of the treaty lie? How does the treaty consider culture and ecological values?
  [This will be addressed within the limits of the Canadian/USCE contribution to the study]

Interesting background information:

• (comment by Douglas County PUD representative) Releases from Grand Coulee Dam enable more and better downstream conditions for power, irrigation, and recreation.
• Are BPA and BC Hydro the main organizations that have responsibility for tracking compliance with the Columbia Basin Treaty? (NB: the US Army Corps of Engineers and BPA are the official U.S. representatives)
• WCD consultants should consider the following GCD issues: headwater (i.e., Canadian) dams for flood control; the relationship between the CBP its required reservoirs (e.g., Banks Lake, Potholes Reservoir); the Columbia Basin Treaty; Chief Joseph Dam (for re-regulating); the 3rd Powerplant; Public Utility District dams; and the pump generators at Grand Coulee Dam.

Issues of less direct relevance to the WCD study:

• Will Canadian oustees related to Columbia Basin Treaty be accounted for in the WCD study? It is estimated that 2,200 families were forced to leave their homes in order for the three Canadian treaty dams to be built.