12
CapitalPress.com
Friday, March 4, 2022
Ukraine: Russia and Ukraine export about 30% of world’s wheat
Continued from Page 1
devoid of selling, there’s no way of
picking a top.”
Russia and Ukraine export about
30% of the world’s wheat, raising
concern about the potential impact to
Black Sea ports.
Any wheat coming out of the
Black Sea region must move through
the Bosporus strait near Istanbul, Tur-
key, Steiner said.
“There’s a couple chokepoints
that are pretty important,” Steiner
said. “You start sailing warships
around and this is a major conflict
that blows up, the United States is
really the only other viable place
that has a supply of exportable
Getty Images
quantity and quality of wheat.”
But the U.S., Canada and Aus-
tralia have had their own production
issues in recent years. If Russia and
Ukraine’s production is suddenly off
the market, those countries will have
to cover some of that business, New-
som said.
“There’s no reason to sell (wheat
at) $8.50, $8.60, $8.70 (per bushel)
if it’s going to go up to $9.50, $10,
$10.50,” he said. “We won’t ever run
out of wheat — globally, it’s just not
going to happen, but we are tighten-
ing the supplies.”
Early U.S. wheat scores indicate
poor crops in Kansas, Oklahoma,
South Dakota and Texas, Steiner said.
He expects an overall below-average
crop out of the Pacific Northwest.
“The reality is, I think there’s
room for prices to go higher,” he said.
“I certainly wouldn’t want to short
this market.”
Until a good Northern Hemi-
sphere wheat crop is secured, prices
have a reason to be higher than nor-
mal, Behne echoed.
He recommends wheat farm-
ers contract new crop sales for cash
or with hedge to arrive contracts in
which farmers promise to deliver
wheat at a set time and the elevator
establishes a hedge.
“In history, you don’t get very
many opportunities to forward con-
tract new crop wheat at $9,” he said.
It’s unclear how U.S. sanctions
might affect Russian grains, since
food or humanitarian aid are not typi-
cally covered, Behne said.
“Is Russian wheat going to still be
available to the market this spring?”
he asked. “Is Russia going to decide
they don’t want to export wheat
if everyone’s mad at them? Who
knows?”
Russia is slated to have a large
wheat crop, Behne said.
“If this thing doesn’t turn into
World War III, probably whatev-
er’s going to happen is going to be
solved by the time we get to harvest
and Russian wheat is probably avail-
able to the market,” he said. “This is
probably temporary. Now, temporary
meaning, does this last a few weeks?
A few months? I don’t know.”
Q&A:
Continued from Page 1
Wymer Dam in the Yakima Basin.
And we’re exploring enlargement
of the Bumping Reservoir, Upper
Yakima System Storage and North
Fork Cowiche Creek.
CP: Do you have timelines yet?
Coffey: They’re all at different
phases. For Kachess, we’re look-
ing to put out a notice of intent for
an Environmental Impact Statement
sometime in 2022.
CP: You didn’t mention Ore-
gon. Does Oregon have storage
projects on the horizon?
Coffey: No, there’s not really
anything to my knowledge that
we’re doing in Oregon.
CP: Why? Is there anything
holding Reclamation back from
doing big storage projects in
Oregon?
Coffey: You know, that’s kind
of a tough question. Each state has
its own dynamics. I would say there
are probably things that are hap-
pening outside of Reclamation. It
doesn’t have to do with irrigation
districts not being engaged, because
they’re very engaged.
I think what sometimes happens
is dollars can be a challenge. There’s
a cost share that the state or dis-
trict has to come up with. We don’t
fund 100% of a storage project. So,
it could be something as simple as
coming up with the money. But I
can’t speak for the state of Oregon.
CP: What’s the plan for fixing
dams in disrepair in the region?
Coffey: We have a Safety of
Dams program that’s a model world-
wide. I’ll call out three specific proj-
ects we’re working on right now.
One is in Oregon: Scoggins Dam
in the Tualatin Basin. We’re look-
ing to reduce seismic risk at that
dam. Clean Water Services (a water
resources management utility) is
our partner, and the infrastructure
law (that Congress passed in 2021)
could potentially help us, because it
includes about $500 million for our
Reclamation-wide Safety of Dams
program.
The second one is Kachess (Res-
ervoir). That dam was built in 1912.
Over the years, voids have formed
along the outlet works because of
erosion from seepage. We’re look-
ing to reduce risk of failure.
The third one is Conconully
Dam in northcentral Washington.
The dam is a major storage compo-
nent for irrigation of the Okanogan
Project. That’s another dam with
issues — built in 1910. In the event
of an earthquake, you could see high
risk to that dam.
CP: What’s the timeline on
these?
Coffey: We’ve still got a ways to
go on Scoggins and Conconully.
On Kachess, we’re at the final
design stage, and by 2024 we’ll be
in construction. So that one’s a little
further along.
CP: Is Reclamation expanding
hydropower in the Columbia-Pa-
cific Northwest Region?
Coffey: There are big mainte-
nance projects and small expansion
projects planned.
Reclamation works with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and Bon-
neville Power Administration on
hydropower.
The big project the agencies
work together on is the Columbia
Basin Project.
In Washington, we in coopera-
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
The Snake River region of Idaho.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Work in the Eastern Snake Plain region of Idaho.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Scoggins Dam, northwest Oregon.
tion with the other two agencies are
doing an overhaul of the Grand Cou-
lee Dam powerplant. Grand Coulee
is the crown jewel of Reclamation.
You’re looking at the capacity to
provide power to 2 million house-
holds in eight states and Canada.
The overhaul won’t expand power
generation. It will just maintain it.
Think about a car. Like, the light just
came on in my car that says, hey, it’s
time for an oil change. That’s what
the overhaul is. It’s about ensuring
reliability for the next 30 years.
That’s versus a smaller set of
projects that are about expansion.
They’re called LOPP, or “lease of
power privilege,” projects. It works
like this: Let’s say a non-federal
entity wants to build a pump-stor-
age project for electric power gener-
ation at a Reclamation facility. They
need to propose that to Reclamation
and to the Federal Energy Regula-
tory Commission. If it fits Reclama-
tion’s purposes, they may be able to
do some power generation.
We have three active LOPP proj-
ects right now: the Cat Creek Energy
Generation Facility at Ander-
son Ranch Reservoir in Idaho, the
Banks Lake Pumped Storage Proj-
ect at Banks Lake in Washington,
and the Halverson Canyon Pumped
Storage Project at Lake Roosevelt in
Washington.
CP: Scientists in some states,
like Idaho, are studying “cloud
seeding” and other weather mod-
ification schemes that attempt to
change how much rain falls. Are
these unrealistic pipe dreams,
or is Reclamation on board with
considering seeding?
Coffey: We’ve been actively
engaged in cloud seeding work
for decades, but legal and efficacy
concerns effectively ended those
efforts. However, we’re continuing
to monitor the state of the science,
and we’re currently supporting a
research investigation on the poten-
tial of cloud seeding to enhance pre-
cipitation in the East River Basin of
Colorado.
California Great Basin
Region
California’s Central Valley, most
of Nevada, Klamath Basin
To preview upcoming projects in
the California Great Basin Region,
the Capital Press interviewed Ernest
Conant, the region’s director.
CP: What’s the game plan for
the Klamath Basin? I’m looking
for specific ideas or plans that are
under consider-
ation to alleviate
the crisis there.
Conant: As you
know, (2021) was
a terrible year for
the Klamath Basin.
It was the first year
Ernest
since the project
Conant
was put in place in
1907 that we deliv-
ered no project water. So, I’m not
happy to have been the regional
director that delivered no water to
the Klamath Project.
We don’t have any specific plans
right now. We’re looking at a lot of
different options to take a more stra-
tegic long-term approach. It’s just a
very difficult situation because we
have all these competing interests
over endangered species, the inter-
ests of various tribes and farmers.
CP: That’s still pretty broad.
Can you be more specific about
the “different options” you’re
looking at?
Conant: I can’t be much more
specific at this point. There may be
opportunities because of the bipar-
tisan infrastructure law to do some
projects in the Klamath. That’s one
of the focuses.
CP: So, you expect the infra-
structure funding will help with
some Klamath projects?
Conant: Yeah. The bipartisan
infrastructure law has $162 million
that goes to projects in the Klam-
ath Basin the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service will be handling. There are a
number of things that could be done
to improve the fishery, for example,
thereby taking off some pressure.
CP: Could federal funds also
invest in Klamath Basin infra-
structure, such as better piping?
Conant: Yeah. I think those are
all possibilities. There’s a process
being set up for people to apply for
the bipartisan infrastructure money,
so different districts in Klamath
could apply for conservation or
infrastructure grants like you’re
referring to.
I’m sorry I can’t give you more
specifics about grand plans. There is
no grand plan at this point.
CP: Let’s shift topics. What
specific projects does the Cali-
fornia Great Basin Region have
planned to expand water storage
in the near future?
Conant: I’ll highlight four proj-
ects that we’ve prepared feasibility
reports for and advanced to Con-
gress, which makes them eligible
for certain types of funding.
First of all, there’s the Sites Res-
ervoir Project, located in the San
Joaquin Valley. That project is a
plan for 1.5 million acre-feet of stor-
age capacity. There’s no dam there
now; this would be a brand-new
dam where water would be diverted
off the Sacramento River (and) put
into storage.
Then there’s the Los Vaque-
ros (Reservoir) expansion in north-
eastern California. The reservoir
is owned by Contra Costa Water
District, one of our contractors.
They’ve expanded the reservoir
once and now they’re expanding it
again, adding 160,000 acre-feet to
the existing reservoir.
We’re also doing a project at B.F.
Sisk Dam in Merced County. With
our partner San Luis & Delta-Men-
dota Water Authority, we’re looking
at adding another 130,000 acre-feet.
The last one is another poten-
tial new reservoir — the Del Puerto
Canyon Reservoir — that would be
in the Coast Range foothills west of
Patterson. It’s planned for 82,000
acre-feet.
There’s also a lot of interest in
groundwater storage.
We’ve got to be able to capture
water in wet years and store it for
dry years. It’s absolutely essential to
have sustainable agriculture.
CP: What’s the timeline on
these projects?
Conant: On Los Vaqueros, I
anticipate various stages of it are
going to start in the next couple (of)
years.
The objective is to have Sites
completed by the end of the next
decade.
Congress is very keen on Sisk;
$60 million has been allocated for
planning and development.
Del Puerto is not quite as far
along as the other three.
CP: Do you foresee any major
conflicts
surrounding
these
projects?
Conant: Dam projects always
have controversy.
There’s some concern from envi-
ronmental groups and tribes about
the proposed Sites Reservoir. But it
also receives a lot of support. I envi-
sion it’ll ultimately get built.
I fully expect Los Vaqueros’
expansion is going to move for-
ward. I don’t even think I’ve heard
of any opposition on that one.
CP: Are there any big upcom-
ing repair projects for aging
dams?
Conant: The main one is Sisk.
We’re doing an approximately $1
billion safety-of-dams project there
because of faults discovered.
I see the dam program as a three-
legged stool. First, we gotta fix what
we have. Secondly, we need new
capacity. And the third thing we’ve
got to have is regulatory certainty.
CP: What do you mean by reg-
ulatory certainty?
Conant: Under the Reclama-
tion Act, the federal government
must follow the water appropria-
tions of the particular states. So,
for instance, for the Central Val-
ley Project, we have permits from
the state that dictate how much
water we can store in a reservoir
(and) how much water we have
to release. With the proposed new
Sites Dam, we’ll need permits from
the state to divert water from the
Sacramento River.
Somehow the state of Califor-
nia and our public agency water dis-
tricts have to come together to have
a better approach and more certainty
as to what regulatory requirements
are going to be.
CP: Does the region have any
big hydropower expansion plans?
Conant: We’re maintaining and
upgrading plants. We’re not really
contemplating any new power
plants.
CP: With money on the way
via the infrastructure package, do
you have any advice for farmers
or districts that want to get in on
the action?
Conant: Most of these are com-
petitive programs. People through-
out the West are going to be com-
peting for infrastructure money,
so you’ve got to hire your engi-
neers and economists and so on to
put these applications together and
develop meaningful plans.
Reservoirs: ‘We’re in the middle of refill season for the Willamette and Rogue’
Continued from Page 1
“We may catch up a little,
but we would have preferred
this front had expanded far-
ther south. It could have
helped a lot more more,”
Petersen said. “We’re in the
middle of refill season for the
Willamette and Rogue. We
still have time before sum-
mer, but we sure need rain.”
The Willamette Val-
ley Project is primarily a
rainfall-driven system, as
opposed to streams and res-
ervoirs east of the Cascades
that rely more on mountain
snowpack.
Each year, the Corps
operates the dams on a “rule
curve,” meaning the reser-
voirs are gradually drained
in fall and winter to capture
rainfall during the typically
wet spring months.
Refill generally begins
Feb. 1, minimizing down-
stream flooding and build-
ing stored water supplies for
other authorized purposes
throughout the summer.
The “rule curve” is the daily
maximum elevation in each
reservoir needed to achieve
these goals.
As of Feb. 28, year-to-
date precipitation for the
water year dating back to
Oct. 1 was 93% of median
for the Willamette Valley.
That might not seem so
bad, though February pre-
cipitation totals indicate
most of the rain fell prior
to the start of the refill
season.
However, the Corps
expects the latest round
of storms will bring Blue
River and Dorena reser-
voirs up to near normal lake
levels for this time of year.
Both reservoirs are in the
southern Willamette Val-
ley, with Blue River in the
Willamette National For-
est east of Eugene and
Dorena located near Cottage
Grove.
Overall, the Willamette
Valley Project’s 13 reser-
voirs are currently 9% full.
System-wide reservoir stor-
age is 36% below the rule
curve.
The Corps also operates
two reservoirs in the Rogue
Valley — Lost Creek and
Applegate. Those are 33%
full, and 37% below the rule
curve.