IEAB Independent Economic

Analysis Board

Daniel D. Huppert, Chair 

Lon L. Peters, Vice-Chair 

Joel R. Hamilton

Kenneth L. Casavant 

Jack A. Richards

Roger Mann

Paul C. Sorensen

Hans Radtke

Review of Proposals for Improving Methow and Twisp Rivers for Anadromous Fish

Interim Report

A Report to the Northwest Power Planning Council

by the Independent Economic Analysis Board

June 2002

Interim Report

Council document IEAB 2002-2

Executive Summary

The Independent Economic Analysis Board (IEAB) has been asked to review a proposed project 

to increase in-stream flows and improve fish passage in the Twisp and Methow Rivers. The 

focus of the review is cost-effectiveness of the project, which requires that we compare the 

project costs to costs of alternative approaches to increasing in-stream flows. The proposed 

Methow Valley Irrigation District (MVID) project was developed by MVID, the Yakama Nation, 

and others over the last ten years. There are several variations of the project, but all are similar. 

All options would exclude about 1,110 acres from the MVID surface water service area. Owners 

of the excluded lands would be compensated. The remaining lands would receive water from a 

rehabilitated surface water delivery system. During low flows, diversions from the Twisp River 

would cease and more water would be diverted from the Methow instead. There is still 

uncertainty about how and when this exchange would be accomplished.

The IEAB has reviewed published information, and initiated discussions with project advocates, 

researchers, and others. Based on the information available at this time, the IEAB cannot 

determine if the current project option, or the other similar options, are cost-effective. 

Some of the reasons for being inconclusive involve the MVID project itself. Some costs are still 

being determined. Instream flow amounts and triggers (i.e., when diversions would cease) are 

still being negotiated. There is insufficient information regarding potential hydrologic effects of 

the proposed project. An ongoing USGS study of groundwater hydrology, including assessment 

of canal seepage and return flow to the Twisp River, and the study of in-stream flow needs 

established by the current proposal, may help to resolve these issues. 

In addition, any cost-effectiveness determination requires a clear definition of the set of 

alternatives under consideration. The potential cost-effectiveness of the MVID proposal cannot 

be judged in a vacuum. In other words, against what alternatives are we considering the MVID 

project? At the very least, cost-effectiveness of the MVID project can be considered relative to 

1) other alternatives involving MVID, 2) alternatives to improve instream flow that acquire water 

outside of MVID, and 3) alternatives that include other types of improvements in a larger 

geographic area.
Review of Proposals for the Methow River INTERIM REPORT

Independent Economic Analysis Board IEAB 2002-2

June 2002

page 2

The IEAB has considered one option involving MVID: water acquisition (leasing or sales) from 

landowners in MVID. Water acquisition could be accomplished by surface water transfers, or by 

paying landowners to replace surface water with groundwater pumping. A comparison of the 

proposed project costs to the likely costs of a water acquisition approach suggests that water 

acquisition might be cost-effective. However, any water acquisition involving MVID poses legal 

and political concerns. In the short run, water transfers from MVID are believed to be politically 

infeasible, at least because water rights are uncertain. The existing MVID board of directors, or 

the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), would not approve a transfer. Recent 

attempts to complete water transfers involving MVID have not been successful. The current 

MVID proposal includes what is probably the maximum feasible amount of replacement of 

surface water with groundwater.

Water transfers might be a cost-effective part of the project in the future. However, approval by 

MVID’s Board of Directors will still be required. Since there is no upstream storage, it may not 

be possible to change the time of use to the low-flow period. MVID has an unusually high 

density of landowners and residences, which may increase water acquisition costs. Feasibility of 

water marketing may also be limited by the inefficient conveyance system. The improved 

conveyance system might facilitate transfers by minimizing canal leakage, improving 

measurement capabilities, and allowing more exchanges.

The Twisp River is subject to more adverse low flow conditions than the Methow, and much of 

the remaining controversy in the proposed project involves Twisp River flows. The IEAB has 

briefly considered the potential for Twisp River flow restoration by water acquisition from water 

users other than MVID. The amount of water diversion by all other water users combined is 

about equal to the MVID Twisp River diversion, and some of the other diversions are junior in 

priority, so the amount of available water may be insufficient to accomplish the biological 

objectives.

Finally, we cannot determine whether the MVID project is cost-effective relative to alternative 

projects that would help the same species within the larger Methow River basin, or the ecological 

province (Columbia Cascade). We have not reviewed or considered the feasibility or costeffectiveness of such other, broader approaches. These approaches might include new upstream 

water storage, other types of habitat improvements, supplementation, and/or some other 

cooperative venture. With uncertainty involving MVID, water rights, and continued delays in 

implementation of major improvements, there is value in considering other options that might 

achieve comparable biological benefits.

In summary,

• No determination of cost-effectiveness is possible at this time for a number of reasons;

• Political, legal and structural changes would be needed before water acquisition within 

MVID would be feasible;

• Some water acquisition may be a cost-effective part of a long-run solution.

The IEAB proposes to update the Council on these matters within one year.
Review of Proposals for the Methow River INTERIM REPORT

Independent Economic Analysis Board IEAB 2002-2

June 2002

page 3

Introduction

The IEAB has been asked to investigate the cost-effectiveness of several proposed options for 

improving anadromous fish habitat conditions in the Methow River. Cost-effectiveness requires 

two measures: 1) economic costs, and 2) a measure of how well the costs will accomplish some 

pre-defined goal(s).

One measure of effectiveness for a stream flow enhancement project is the degree to which it is 

expected to increase stream flows at the appropriate times and places. Although important, the 

hydrologic effects are only precursors to the analysis of biological effects – the increase in 

anadromous fish populations. A more fundamental measure of cost-effectiveness would 

combine project cost information with estimated contributions to the salmon restoration goal. 

A third measure of effectiveness might be the extent to which the project represents a local 

agreement. There are a number of economic and social values associated with a local consensus, 

but such consensus is not an explicit goal for this effort. Local consensus is a factor that may 

influence the success of restoration, but it is clearly not a proxy for it. There is economic value in 

achieving a consensus solution quickly, but this value alone should not be used to justify one of 

the project options.

Background Information

The Methow River drains about 1.2 million acres and enters the Columbia River just upstream 

from Wells dam (see Foster). Generally, habitat for anadromous and resident fish in this subbasin 

has been degraded by logging, road construction, flood control, and other development. Irrigated 

agriculture has contributed to the decline of salmon by direct mortality in diversions and 

dewatering of streams, especially in summer and early fall. Most irrigation is from small private 

diversions. Irrigated land, about two percent of the subbasin or 24,000 acres, is primarily used 

for pasture, hay production, field crops and orchards. 

The Methow Valley Irrigation District (MVID) West Canal diverts water from the Twisp River 

about 4 miles above its confluence with the Methow. In addition, the MVID’s East Canal diverts 

water from the Methow River about five miles above the confluence. According to a 1997 

EIS/FONSI (BPA 1997), the MVID West Canal diverted, on average, about 26 cubic-feetsecond (cfs) from the Twisp River. The average September diversion was about half of the mean 

September flow in the Twisp River at this point of diversion. The East Canal diverted about 41 

cfs from the Methow River. The average September diversion from the Methow was about 13 

percent of the mean September flow at this point of diversion. 

Numerous interests, including the Yakama, the NMFS and WDOE have been working to 

develop and implement alternatives for improving in-stream flows and passage, address water 

conservation, and continue irrigation. In 1996, a preferred alternative was identified by WDOE 

that would reduce the MVID service area by over half, and rely on new wells and a pressurized 

pipe system to convey water to farmers (see Dunau). In 1998, the MVID Board of Directors 

passed a resolution authorizing the District to proceed with the pressurized pipe system, the 
Review of Proposals for the Methow River INTERIM REPORT

Independent Economic Analysis Board IEAB 2002-2

June 2002

page 4

drilling of wells, and designation of landowners who would receive compensation for voluntarily 

drilling wells and leaving the MVID.

The Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact was released in 

1997. The total cost of the project was estimated to be about $4.9 million, including the costs to 

compensate landowners to switch to groundwater. BPA committed $2.8 million in 1999 with the 

balance to be paid by the State of Washington. 

In 1999, the district reorganized so that some water users converted to groundwater wells, 

leaving about 9 cfs of additional water in the river. Current projections show approximately 

1,110 acres of land eventually being excluded from the MVID, and approximately one million 

dollars will be paid out by BPA to compensate these “excluded” landowners.1 This leaves about 

1,499 assessed acres in the district, of which 873 acres are irrigated from the two diversions. An 

additional 413 acres is served by MVID through the Barkley ditch through an agreement with 

that water user. The total amount of land irrigated by surface water is therefore about 1,286 (873 

+ 413) acres.

An order issued by WDOE in May of 2002, which MVID is expected to appeal, would entitle 

MVID to withdraw 29 cubic feet per second (cfs) on the west side. The WDOE order entitles 

MVID to 24 cfs instantaneous flow on the east side. These diversion rates assume that the 

excluded lands are, in fact, excluded. The allowable diversion on the Twisp is still a large share 

of flow, but the eastside diversion is about 8 percent of average September flow.

On July 3, 2000, a new Board of Directors voted to reject the “all-well” plan (AP, July 15, 2000). 

A facilitation group began meeting in January 2001. These meetings resulted in development of 

several local options. Up to March 2002, there were two options under consideration. In both 

options, the eastside canal from the Methow River would be rehabilitated with a new upstream

diversion, a wing dam instead of the existing check dam, new screens, and canal improvements. 

In the option proposed by the Yakamas, the MVID would remove its diversions and screens from 

the Twisp River (for the West Canal) and two new pump stations would be installed on the 

Methow instead (see Dunau).

Current Project Option

In the option proposed by MVID, the Twisp River diversion for the West Canal would be kept 

and improved and only one of the new pump stations would be built on the Methow. A water 

exchange between the Twisp and Methow rivers would be used to address Twisp River low flow 

needs. Conveyance and pumps would be built to move water from the Methow River to service 

the water users’ needs on the West canal during periods of low flow periods in the Twisp River. 

For some upstream lands, engineering is needed to determine whether a piping system or wells 

will most cost effectively assure delivery of water during the low flow period. From the time that 

the water exchange program is triggered until the end of the irrigation season, MVID would 

utilize the exchange to meet 100% of their Westside irrigation needs.

 

1

 About 650 to 700 acres of this land was irrigated (Barwin, 2002)
Review of Proposals for the Methow River INTERIM REPORT

Independent Economic Analysis Board IEAB 2002-2

June 2002

page 5

The Yakamas accepted the MVID option in principle, but the Yakamas and MVID disagreed on 

how the Twisp River diversion could be operated. Under the current project description, the 

trigger flow will be determined through Section 7 project consultation. BPA will lead an instream flow study of the reach between the MVID Twisp River diversion and the USGS gage 

near Twisp. Results of the in-stream flow study will be binding only for the purpose of 

determining when to activate the water exchange program annually. NMFS will notify MVID of 

its tentative determination of the trigger flow by or before January 1, 2003. MVID may choose 

not to implement the exchange if they do not accept the tentative determination, if environmental 

reviews may raise more issues, or if revised cost estimates are unfavorable. MVID must proceed 

to replace the existing fish screens on the Methow and Twisp with ESA-compliant screens in any 

case, but the cost of screens could depend on whether or not they agree to implement the 

exchange. BPA would fund the annual operations and maintenance cost of the pump system for 

25 years. At the conclusion of 25 years, MVID may choose to maintain and/or replace the pump 

station at its discretion. 

In the future, if the local option is successful, MVID would transfer into trust an amount equal to 

the difference between the peak instantaneous diversion amount and a new peak instantaneous 

quantity determined following rehabilitation, implementation of the exchange, and additional 

conservation. The exact amount of water to be placed in trust is currently unclear.2

Summary of Proposed Costs

Project costs for the current MVID option are shown in Table 1. The components of these costs 

are shown in the attached table. The evaluation considers two different areas: the excluded lands 

of 1,110 acres, and the remaining area served by MVID (1,912 acres of which 1,286 acres are 

irrigated).

Total project costs would be about $5.8 million, including the present value of future O&M 

costs. About four-fifths of costs are associated with the rehabilitation. Cost per acre for lands 

served by the rehabilitated system ($2,524) is about three times the cost per excluded acre 

($856).

These costs are quite similar to the costs of the other local proposals. The Yakama option would 

have eliminated the Twisp River diversion, saving capital rehabilitation costs, but annual costs of 

the water exchange were more (Attachment 1). Earlier variants of the MVID option were slightly 

less expensive.

 

2

 The amount of peak instantaneous diversion is provided in WDOE Order No. DE 02WRCR-3950 or as modified 

by a court of competent jurisdiction if that Order is appealed
Review of Proposals for the Methow River INTERIM REPORT

Independent Economic Analysis Board IEAB 2002-2

June 2002

page 6

Table 1. 

Proposed Costs for Irrigation System Rehabilitation and Excluded Lands, 4/15/02

Description Dollar Cost

Annual Costs (BPA) $45,000

Net Present Value (NPV) of Annual Costs1$1,157,839

Capital Costs of Irrigation System Improvements $3,667,250

Total NPV of Costs, MVID Remaining Lands $4,825,089

NPV Cost/ Irrigated Acre (1,286 acres)2$3,752

NPV Cost/District Acre (1,912 acres)3$2,524

Additional Cost of Excluded Lands (1,110 acres) $950,000

Total NPV Project Cost $5,775,089

 NPV Cost/Project Acre (3,022)4$1,911

Source: Andy Dunau, 2002. NPV and per acre cost calculations by the IEAB

1

at 3% over 50 years

2

873 acres plus 413 acres irrigated by the Barkley ditch

3

1,499 plus 413

4

1,912 plus 1,110

With 1,286 acres irrigated recently, the net present value of the MVID option exceeds $3,700 per 

irrigated acre. With 1,499 acres in the District and 413 acres on the Barkley ditch, the net present 

value cost per district acre is about $2,500. Actual costs would depend on the operational scheme 

eventually selected.

Hydrologic Considerations

The IEAB has concerns about hydrologic consequences of the project options. Leakage from the 

canals provides recharge to local aquifers, which then drain to the river. Because lining the 

canals will eliminate this leakage, some portion of the increased flows will be offset by reduced 

accretions to the river. (Accretions are increases in streamflow from diffuse sources.) It is not 

clear when and where the reduced accretions would occur. This issue has been addressed in past 

studies, but the existing quantitative analysis is not adequate to support a conclusion. 

It is recognized that, at times when flows are limiting for fish, it is unlikely that the reduction in 

accretions would be more than the increase in in-stream flows from reduced diversion. That is, 

improvements in conveyance efficiency will increase in-stream flow, and this increase equals the 

reduction in diversion at the point of diversion. However, the flow improvement will be 

increasingly less as one moves downstream from the point of diversion.

According to the 1997 EIS/FONSI,
Review of Proposals for the Methow River INTERIM REPORT

Independent Economic Analysis Board IEAB 2002-2

June 2002

page 7

[t]he approximate amount of the total diversion of 67 cfs that seeps from the canals is about 

51 cfs during the peak irrigation period. That water returns to the rivers gradually, during 

and beyond the irrigation season (normally, the beginning of October). Because soils in the 

area are permeable, and the canals are close to the rivers, it is assumed that almost all return 

flows reach the river by the end of December.” (page 35)

With the 1,110 acres of irrigated land excluded, the 53 cfs rate from the two canals combined 

implies a diversion of about 3,150 acre-feet (AF) per month. Over a four month irrigation season 

this could mean that 12,600 AF is diverted by the project, or about 10 AF per irrigated acre. 

Crops in this region probably consume about 2 AF per acre. Therefore, the unconsumed 8 AF per 

acre must go to canal seepage losses, deep percolation to the aquifer, and tailwater runoff, with a 

small amount lost to surface evaporation and weeds. Some of this unconsumed water may be 

appropriated by other water users, but much of this excess diversion must end up back in the 

river. 

If the proposals to substantially improve conveyance efficiency are successful, they will reduce 

or eliminate this recharge. The ability to use wells as substitute water supplies could be 

jeopardized, and accretions back to the Twisp and lower Methow could be reduced. Another 

significant factor for fish may be water temperatures. Groundwater accretions from canal 

leakage may be cooler than the stream water. Therefore, a substitution of stream water for 

ground water caused by canal lining could have adverse consequences for fish through higher 

temperatures.

Additional information is being collected by the U.S. Geological Service.

The USGS has been conducting a detailed investigation of groundwater and surface-water 

interactions in the lower Twisp River valley. As part of the investigation, the USGS will 

construct a water budget for the valley to estimate the volume and timing of exchanges 

between ground water and surface water along the river as well as irrigation canals. The 

USGS monitored river flow, irrigation diversions, ground-water levels, and weather 

continuously during the irrigation season in 2001 and will continue to monitor river flow 

and ground-water levels (see wa.water.usgs.gov/ methow/GW_SW.html).

One hydrologist working on this Twisp River project was contacted.3 Given the orientation of 

the canal, water would have to flow parallel to the canal for some distance to reach the Methow. 

The prevailing gradient drives water to the north back to the Twisp. Also, the lower part of the 

Twisp Valley is very narrow, so there is not much room for water to flow out that way. 

Therefore, seepage from the upper two or three miles of the West Canal probably returns to the 

Twisp.

In addition to questions about the location of return flows, the timing of the flows is still unclear. 

In the Twisp, the hydrologist suggested that there is a baseline accretion of about 3 cfs from fall 

 

3 Konrad, 2002. To request the study call 253-428-3600 x2634.
Review of Proposals for the Methow River INTERIM REPORT

Independent Economic Analysis Board IEAB 2002-2

June 2002

page 8

through April. During high flows, the Twisp fluctuates between gaining and losing. In August 

through September, the river gains about 10 cfs, and accretions return to the 3 cfs baseline level 

by end of November. Some of the 10 cfs gains may be bank storage and natural accretions. 

There is also another canal, the Twisp Valley Power and Irrigation ditch, on the north side, that 

diverts a few miles upstream of the West Canal, that may account for some of the gains.

In sum, the hydrologic benefits of improved conveyance efficiency are not clear. An excerpt 

from the Methow Subbasin Summary reinforcing our concerns is attached to this report. This 

uncertainty about hydrologic effects means, in turn, that the biological benefits of the proposed 

projects are not clear. 

Potential for Water Acquisition in the MVID Region

The IEAB continues to support the consideration of lower cost alternatives for environmental 

restoration. These alternatives can include the use of market institutions to purchase 

environmental amenities from willing sellers. Water marketing can be an economically efficient 

and equitable means of increasing in-stream flows. The IEAB realizes that water markets are 

poorly developed at present, and that market-oriented strategies may raise local political 

opposition and challenging legal issues. Still, a market-based solution, such as the purchase or 

lease of water rights facilitated by the development of local or regional water markets, deserves a 

closer look. In particular, it is possible that a partial year dry-year lease would cost less, perhaps 

much less, than the options considered above.

The first step is to consider what the costs of water purchases might be. The cost of irrigated land 

is one measure. Offer prices were obtained from internet sources, but useful sales data were not 

found because all relevant properties included major improvements. However, the $3,700 per 

acre of irrigated land to be spent under the options is high relative to commonly accepted values 

of irrigated land.

The Methow Valley News (January 16, 2002) reported that the town of Twisp recently 

purchased 32 acre-feet (AF) of water rights for $1,000 per AF. According to the Mayor of 

Twisp, the City negotiated a deal with MVID to acquire 200 AF for $50 per AF per year, but the 

deal has been held up by Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) until water rights 

issues are resolved.4 About 3,000 AF could provide 50 cfs of flow for one month. If water could 

be acquired for $50 per AF, then annual cost would be $150,000, and the NPV of this annual 

cost is about $3.8 million, less than the $5.9 million cost of the current proposal.5

These data suggest that water transfers might be cost-effective, but water markets would be 

difficult to implement under the current legal, social and hydrologic situation in the region. Two 

problems substantially limit feasibility in the short run. First, the status of MVID’s water rights is 

very uncertain. Until water rights issues are resolved by DOE and the courts, any water transfer 

will have uncertain benefits. Second, MVID’s approval may be required to transfer water from 

 

4

 Price, 2002. Some of these issues may have been resolved.

5

 3 percent, 50 years.
Review of Proposals for the Methow River INTERIM REPORT

Independent Economic Analysis Board IEAB 2002-2

June 2002

page 9

landowners to in-stream flow. It seems unlikely that the current MVID Board would approve any 

water transfers for in-stream use. 

In the long run, obtaining water through land or water markets may not be practical options 

because of other problems. First, costs of negotiation, measurement, contracting and enforcement 

might be unusually large, because MVID is characterized by a large number of small land 

parcels with residences. Water transfer prices for small farms and hobby operations may be 

higher than for large farms. 

Second, several hydrologic considerations may make water acquisition difficult. With the 

existing system, large conveyance losses may be required to provide any water to users on the 

end of the system. Also, a certain amount of head, flow or water height in the conveyance system 

may be required to service some landowners. Water acquisition would not be practical if any 

landowners requiring the high diversion rates refused to participate. The rehabilitated 

conveyance system might actually facilitate transfers by reducing losses, facilitating 

measurement, and increasing exchange opportunities.

A water transfer to in-stream flow would require a change in place, time and type of use. Time of 

use is especially troublesome in this case, because in-stream flow is needed at precisely the time 

when there is very little flow available for all uses. There is no surface water storage in the 

system, so water acquired by ceasing irrigation in July and August cannot be saved for in-stream 

flow in September. When low flows limit diversions, the amount of transferable water for instream use might be limited to a share of the natural flow available at that time of the year.

Switching more landowners to groundwater irrigation may be another option. However, this 

option may have been exhausted for the time being in terms of those willing to participate. A 

much higher price may be required to induce the remaining landowners to convert to 

groundwater. The need to maintain surface water diversions for a few holdouts would also be a 

limiting factor. 

Potential for Alternatives that Do Not Involve MVID

It is possible that some alternative that does not involve MVID at all might be more costeffective. The options under consideration may not be cost-effective because some other option 

not yet identified may provide more biological benefit at less cost. These options might involve 

the Methow River basin, but options outside of the Methow basin might prove to be more costeffective for restoring a given depleted stock.

With the current flow problems on the Twisp River, alternative projects to provide flow past the 

MVID diversion might be considered. There are two possible options within the Twisp River 

basin: 1) upstream water storage, and 2) water acquisition. In both cases, water would be placed 

in the State Water Trust to protect the flow past MVID’s diversions. With screening, the existing 

MVID diversions might then be tolerable. 
Review of Proposals for the Methow River INTERIM REPORT

Independent Economic Analysis Board IEAB 2002-2

June 2002

page 10

With new storage, water would be appropriated for diversion and storage during high flows, and 

water would be released from storage during low-flow periods. Major concerns are 

environmental impacts, and costs. Off-stream storage locations that would not impair fish 

passage should be available.

Water acquisition would obtain water from willing sellers upstream for use as in-stream flow. 

To be most useful, the water right should be senior to the MVID right. Apparently, there are 

water uses on the Twisp that might qualify. The amount of water diverted by all other diversions 

is about the same as the amount diverted by the West canal.6

Conclusions

At this time, and based on the information available, the effectiveness of the options in terms of 

hydrology or fisheries is unclear. More information is needed about hydrologic impacts before 

we can adequately assess effectiveness. Some of the needed information is technical. A 

hydrology study is expected in July of this year, and in-stream flow studies are forthcoming, but 

these studies will not dispel all uncertainties. There is additional uncertainty about future MVID 

operations in low-flow conditions. Absent full information on hydrologic impacts, it is not 

possible to judge accurately the cost-effectiveness of the project.

The local options were all developed by local stakeholders. Future litigation, development and 

negotiation costs might be avoided by proceeding with a locally-developed option. Another 

dimension of accomplishment for a solution to salmon enhancement projects may be simply 

reaching agreement. We recognize that successes of this sort may be essential to building the 

“social capital” – the social cohesion and working relationships – needed to address salmon 

recovery more broadly. It may be the case that the Council will want to consider an investment 

in “social capital” as part of this project, but we recommend that this investment be approached 

with caution because it is only loosely connected to fish and wildlife enhancement.

References

Bonneville Power Administration. 1997. Methow Valley Irrigation District Project. Final EIS 

and Finding of No Significant Impact. In cooperation with Washington Department of Ecology, 

Methow Valley Iirrigation District, Yakama Indian Nation and Confederated Tribes of the 

Coleville Reservation. December. DOE/EA-1181.

Barwin, Bob. 2002. Washington Department of Ecology. Personal communication.

Dunau, Andy, 2001. “Methow Valley Irrigation District Rehabilitation Project,” Draft October 

2001.

Dunau, Andy, 2002. “Methow Valley Irrigation District Rehabilitation Project,” Draft May 2002.

 

6

 The Methow Subbasin Summary lists these diversions from the Twisp and their estimated flow in cfs: Aspen 

Meadows (1.3), Buttermilk (7.0), Culbertson (1.0), Hottell (1.3), Twisp Power (9.0), and West Canal (20.0)
Review of Proposals for the Methow River INTERIM REPORT

Independent Economic Analysis Board IEAB 2002-2

June 2002

page 11

Foster, J. “Draft Methow Subbasin Summary”, prepared for the Northwest Power Planning 

Council, October 5, 2001.

Konrad, Chris. 2002. U.S. Geological Survey. Personal communication.

Montgomery Water Group Inc. 1996. Methow Valley Irrigation District Water Supply Facility 

Plan. Volume 1. For: Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia.

Price, Mike. 2002. Mayor of Twisp. Personal Communications.
Review of Proposals for the Methow River INTERIM REPORT

Independent Economic Analysis Board IEAB 2002-2

June 2002

page 12

Excerpt from Draft Methow Subbasin Summary (pp. 120-121)

• Water resources are important to the residents and ecosystems of the Methow Subbasin. People 

depend on reliable, high-quality water supplies for their domestic and agricultural uses, and 

aquatic organisms depend on streamflow from snowmelt and groundwater discharge to survive 

in an otherwise arid environment. To improve the understanding of the quantity and quality of 

water resources of the Methow Subbasin both spatially and temporally, it is important that 

hydrologic data are collected throughout the basin over periods spanning a range of climatic 

conditions. Long-term hydrologic data have been collected at some points in the basin, but 

generally, the information is limited. Hydrologic data of interest include long-term records of 

streamflow discharge, temperature, and sediment loading, irrigation diversions and application 

rates, and groundwater levels in the unconsolidated sediments of the basin. Currently, an 

extensive network of 27 streamflow gages is operated in the Methow River Basin. Except for 

seven USGS gages that have been in operation for more than a decade, most of these gages have 

been in operation for about one year. Once continuous records of hydrologic conditions have 

been measured throughout the basin over a period spanning wet and dry years, the records can be 

evaluated to determine whether some stations indicate broader conditions and thus provide the 

core physical information for a water-resources management system.

• The “natural-flow” watershed model in the Methow Subbasin needs to be updated by including 

the effects of diversions. Currently no watershed-management tool exists for the Methow River 

Subbasin to estimate the cumulative effects of natural variability in streamflow and irrigation 

diversions and returns. The USGS recently completed a watershed model that can be used to 

estimate natural streamflows, but it needs to be improved by incorporating newly collected data 

and by simulating irrigation diversions and returns.

• Leaking irrigation canals are expected to return some of the diverted river water to the 

groundwater system. The valley-fill groundwater system is connected to streams and contributes 

groundwater discharge to streamflow along selected stream reaches. Increased groundwater 

levels that may result from leaking irrigation canals may increase groundwater contributions to 

streamflow. To date, the timing and amount of the possible increase in groundwater 

contributions to streamflow are not known. In a current study, the USGS has instrumented part 

of the Twisp subwatershed to investigate the groundwater/surface-water interactions. Data have 

been collected since the beginning of the 2001 irrigation season and will be analyzed later in 

2001 and 2002. Continued data collection in the existing study area and, potentially, other areas 

of the basin would improve estimates of irrigation canal leakage and groundwater discharge to 

streams, particularly during non-drought years.

• Forest management, including tree harvesting, road building, and fires, alter the density and 

type of vegetation in parts of the Methow River Basin. Cumulative effects of these land-use 

changes may affect the accumulation and melting of the snowpack, snowmelt and rainfall runoff 

patterns, and soil erosion. If it were known what the effects of different forest management 

practices were on the timing and amounts of water and sediment yields in streams prior to their 

implementation, forest practices could be planned to minimize potential adverse impacts and 

increase potential benefits to salmonid habitat in the basin.

• Changing land use may affect streamflow temperatures by changing the quantity and timing of 

streamflow and by changing the degree of shading from vegetation. If streamflow temperatures 

are changed significantly from natural conditions, habitat may be less favorable for salmonids. 
Review of Proposals for the Methow River INTERIM REPORT

Independent Economic Analysis Board IEAB 2002-2

June 2002

page 13

Currently, no management tools exist for the Methow River Basin to predict the effect of landuse practices on streamflow temperatures. Bank protection and flood-control projects in the 

Methow River Basin have modified the development and maintenance of floodplain and offchannel habitat for salmonids. Determining the extent of structural changes to stream channels 

and floodplains in the Methow Subbasin and assessing the effect of these changes on geomorphic 

processes (channel migration) and aquatic habitats would be very useful in future restoration and 

planning activities.

• Prior to converting the Methow Subbasin open ditch irrigation systems to closed systems it 

would be useful to design and implement a test case to determine if conversion to a closed 

irrigation system would provide the benefits linked with such a system e.g. increasing in-stream 

flows without deleterious effects at another time of year.

• There is a great deal of conflicting information about actual water use in the Methow Subbasin. 

An assessment of agricultural use including all water rights, claim and certificates and actual 

acreage of irrigated land is needed. In addition an assessment of municipal, industrial and 

domestic water use is needed.
Review of Proposals for the Methow River INTERIM REPORT

Independent Economic Analysis Board IEAB 2002-2

June 2002

page 14

Attachment 1. 

Cost Estimates Used in IEAB Evaluation of Methow Costs

Capital Costs

DESCRIPTION

Yakama

Alternative

MVID

Alternative

Preliminary 

Revised 

MVID 

4/15/02

Project Development: Facilitation, 

Conceptual Plan Development, and Legal 

Consulting

$183,000 $183,000 $210,000

Engineering $396,000 $357,750 $362,250

Regulatory Compliance (EA, NEPA, etc.) $100,000 $150,000 $175,000

Miscellaneous Items: Gages and Monitoring $100,000 $100,000 $112,000

Downstream Pump Station for West Canal

2X150 HP LOW LIFT, SCREENS, PUMP HOUSE, 

VARIABLE SPEED DRIVE, FLOW METERS300' - 24 

INCH STEEL

$340,000 $340,000 $430,000

Upstream Pump Station for West Canal

HIGH LIFT PUMP, SCREENSPUMP HOUSE, VARIABLE 

SPEED DRIVE, FLOW METERS24 INCH STEEL & PVC 

PIPE

$255,000 $0 $0

West Canal Rehabilitation - 8.3 Miles

 CLEAN & RESHAPE CANAL, REBUILD AND 

SEAL CONCRETE CANAL, INSTALL TURN-OUTS, 

FLOW MEASUREMENT & CONTROL STRUCTURE

$421,600 $506,600 $821,250

West Canal Intake Rehabilitation

REPLACE PUSH UP DAM WITH DIVERSION DAM & 

1000'-30" PIPE

$0 $140,000 $140,000

NEW WEDGE WIRE FISH SCREENS WITH AUTO AIR 

PURGE SYSTEM

$0 $130,000 $130,000

East Canal Intake Rehabilitation

CONSTRUCT NEW DIVERSION DAM&2000' OF 30" 

STEEL PIPE

$199,750 $199,750 $199,750

NEW WEDGE WIRE FISH SCREENS WITH AUTO AIR 

PURGE SYSTEM

$123,250 $123,250 $123,250

East Canal Rehabilitation: 9.4 Miles

CLEAN&RESHAPE CANAL, REPLACE CANAL WITH 

PIPELINE REBUILD&SEAL CONCRETE CANAL, 

INSTALL TURN-OUTS, INSTALL FLOW 

MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL STRUCTURE

$570,400 $570,400 $403,750

Lateral Replacement

REPLACE OVER 6 MILES OF LATERALS IN THE 

DISTRICT. REPLACE 15 LATERAL ON EAST CANAL & 

16 LATERALS ON WEST CANAL

$391,000 $391,000 $520,000
Review of Proposals for the Methow River INTERIM REPORT

Independent Economic Analysis Board IEAB 2002-2

June 2002

page 15

Attachment 1. 

Cost Estimates Used in IEAB Evaluation of Methow Costs (Continued)

Yakama

Alternative

MVID

Alternative

Preliminary 

Revised 

Estimate 

4/15/02

On-Farm Conservation

 SOIL MOISTURE MEASUREMENT, ON-FARM AUDITS, 

EFFICIENT. SPRINKLER REPLACEMENT, PUMP 

TIMER, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOP

$40,000 $40,000 $40,000

Total Project One Time Cost $3,120,000 $3,231,750 $3,667,250

Annual Costs

O & M for pump stations $36,800 $18,750

Power Costs for pumping $35,000 $8,750

Monitoring $0 $20,000

Total Annual Costs $71,800 $47,500 $45,000

IEAB Extensions

NPV of Annual Costs (50 yrs, 4%) $1,847,397 $1,222,164 $1,157,839

Total One-time cost equivalent $4,967,397 $4,453,914 $4,825,089

Cost per Irrigated Acre (1286 acres) $3,863 $3,463 $3,752

________________________________________

q:\tm\ww\fish\ieab\methow interim report.doc