Hood River Water

Conservation Strategy: achieving long-term water resource

reliability for agriculture & local fish

populations

Ed Salminen & Niklas Christensen

Watershed Professionals Network

Cindy Thieman

Hood River Watershed Group

Hood River Water Conservation Planning

Elements: Analysis of water supply & demand, streamflow impacts from predicted climate change, water conservation potential, and effects on salmon & steelhead habitat

Partners: Hood River County, Irrigation Districts, Confederated Tribes of the Warms Springs, Hood River Watershed Group, ODFW, DEQ, OWRD

Grants: U. S. Bureau of Reclamation- Basin Study grant ($250,000 in-kind work from Reclamation) and WaterSMART grant ($100,000 cash for final water conservation planning and outreach)

Oregon Water Resource Department- $250,000 cash for Water Use Assessment, Water Conservation Assessment, IFIM study

Overview of

Water Planning Study Climate Change Models

Water Resources

Alternatives

Groundwater Model

(MODFLOW)

Surface Water

Model (DHSVM)

Water Conservation

Assessment

Water Use

Assessment

Water Storage

Assessment

Fish Habitat

Analysis (IFIM)

Impacts &

Recommendations

Water Use - Irrigation

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept

Wate

r D

ivers

ion

(c

fs)

Average Monthly Diversion

DID EFID FID MFID MHID

Water Use - Hydropower

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept

Flo

w (

CFS)

MFID

Plant 1

Plant 2

Plant 3

Water Use - Instream

Threatened Species:

-Spring & fall Chinook

-Winter & summer

steelhead

-Coho

-Bull trout

Key Limiting Factors:

-Summer flows

Water Use - Instream

0

100

200

300

400

500

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Str

eam

flow

(cf

s)

East Fork above Middle Fork

Mean Flow Instream Right (1983)

Water Use - Instream

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Flow cfs

East Fork Hood River (below EFID diversion)- spring Chinook

Spawning WDFW HSC

Fry Rearing

Juvenile Rearing

Adult Holding

Am

ount

of

Sui

tab

le H

ab

ita

t

Climate & Future Water Management

How is climate predicted to change in Hood River

County? (Modeling for 2030 – 2060)

How will water availability for irrigation be

affected?

What are the alternatives?

What will fish habitat availability look like under

these alternatives?

Projected Temperature Increase 2.3°F (range of 1.7°F - 3.0°F)

Projected Precipitation Increase 2.4 % (range of -2.8% - 4.7%)

Projected Climate Change

Historic Future

Mt. Hood Glaciers Historic & Future Temperature

Projected Climate Change (2030- 2060)

Streamflow (average)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Flo

w (

cfs)

Hood River At Tucker Bridge, Monthly Mean Flows

Historic

Future

~55 cfs less

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

June July Aug Sept

Flo

w (

cfs)

East Fork Above Middle Fork, Monthly Mean Flows

~30 cfs less

Streamflow

Options to Increase Water Availability

Using more Groundwater (currently evaluating potential impact & recharge possibilities)

Increasing Reservoir Storage

Potable Water Conservation (comparatively low impact)

Irrigation Water Conservation – conveyance, on-farm, fallowing of annual crops

Hydropower- reduce summer diversions, off-set with winter diversions

Water Conservation - Irrigation

Impact sprinklers on handline Solid set micro sprinkler

Open canal New pipe project

Water Conservation – Irrigation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

DID EFID FID MFID MHID

Po

ten

tial

Wate

r S

avin

gs (

cfs

)

Sprinkler /Soil Moisture Sensor

Pipe /Operational

Average Crop Demand (AgriMet)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Alfalfa Pasture Lawn Apples Pears Cherries WineGrapes

Blueberries

Apri

l -

Septe

mber

Cro

p D

em

and

(in

ches)

Irrigation demand of 16 - 20” ~6” growing season precipitation

Water Use of Different Application Methods

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Wheel line Impact Rotator Drip

Typ

ical A

pp

lica

tion

per

Year

(inch

es/

sea

son)

11” – 36” range

Effects of Sub-optimal Irrigation Practices

Poor crop performance due to insufficient or uneven application of water (Ex. application rate exceeds absorption rate of

soil, some trees get too much, some not enough)

Leaching fertilizer out of root zone; washes into ground water or surface water- waste of money

Surface runoff leads to soil erosion on slopes

Higher labor cost

Benefits of Improved Irrigation Practices

Optimize fruit yield and quality (reduce incidence of cork

spot & alfalfa greening in pears)

Optimize canopy development and efficiency: avoid excessive

shade, promote return bloom & fruit set

Optimize inputs & minimize costs (nitrogen, water, pruning)

Ability to adequately water in a low-water year- maintain fruit

size and profit margin

Improving Irrigation Management

Design and maintain

irrigation systems for uniform

and efficient watering

Use soil moisture monitoring

and evapotranspiration

estimates to optimize water

availability to crops (Match

irrigation application to crop

demand)

Future Management Scenarios under

Median Climate Change

“Historic”: Reflects current management practices, infrastructure, and average stream flows (1980- 2010)

“Future”: Climate change but no management, infrastructural, or demand changes

“Increased Demand”: Climate change + increased demand

“Increased Conservation”: Climate change + increased demand + increased conservation

“Increase Storage”: Climate change + increased demand + increased conservation + increased storage

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Flo

w (

cfs)

East Fork Above Middle Fork, Monthly Mean Flows

Impacts from Alternatives in an Average Year

Impacts from Alternatives in an Average Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

June July Aug Sept

Flo

w (

cfs)

East Fork Above Middle Fork, Monthly Mean Flows

Improved Fish Habitat

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

0 50 100 150 200

Am

oun

t of

Ha

bitat

Streamflow (cfs)

East Fork – Chinook Spawning

35 65

Historic/Existing (WY 1980-2010)

No Change in Water Use or Conservation

(WY 2031-2060)

Conservation (WY 2031-2060)

Conservation & Storage (WY 2031-2060)

Basin Water Conservation Potential

Actions Total

Potential

Savings

Most likely

in next 20

years

Cost per CFS “Next 20

years” cost

On-farm irrigation: sprinkler

upgrades, soil moisture

monitoring

32 cfs 26 cfs $ 0.4 M/cfs $10.4 million

Conveyance system upgrades

(main & distribution lines)

27 cfs 27 cfs $ 1 – 1.3

M/cfs

$35 million

Expanded water storage in

existing reservoirs

4 cfs 4 cfs $0.2-0.6

M/cfs

~$2.4 million

New water storage 22 cfs $1.4 M/cfs

Hydropower rebalancing 13 cfs (varies) 13 cfs $0 $0

Voluntary fallowing of annual

crops/pastures (Waterbank)

Up to 17 cfs 8 cfs $50 K/cfs

(dry years)

$400,000/yr

(dry years)

115 cfs 76 cfs $47.8 million*

Next Steps

Continue to Explore Innovative Ways to Increase Water Availability

Water Bank- mechanism for temporary leasing of water rights

Shallow Ground Water Recharge-need to conduct feasibility study

Fund Raising

State & Regional funding sources: 4 local irrigation districts recently applied for approximately $7 million from OWRD for distribution piping & reservoir expansion

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (NRCS): federal $ can cover 50% of on-farm irrigation upgrades; OWEB small grants

Local sources? (Example- MFID has a cost-share program)