Ellen Berggren, Study Manager
Bureau of Reclamation
1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100
Boise, Idaho 83706

September 19, 2008

Dear Ms. Berggren,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the bureau’s study of solutions to the Odessa Sub Area

problem, and for holding a public meeting on the subject in our area. Many of our members were unable

to attend, but have shown keen interest and have expressed their belief that the chamber should

register their hopes, fears and opinions regarding the issue.

First, we wish to make you aware that the study itself, regardless of the solution, is causing a severe disruption

in what had been a long-needed boost of economic progress. Past studies of the area have concluded

that our best hope for economic development is to boost tourism. We have been nurturing that

industry here for more than 30 years since the chamber-sponsored Project REV, an effort to revitalize a

community at once sustained and hampered by the large federal presence here.

Over the last decade or so, efforts began to pay off, until now. The area has attracted the interests of

developers who have put millions into SunBanks Lake Resort, which has in turn attracted more interest.

The Osborn Bay housing development would bring a completely new sector to our population and our

tourism development. We understand that both those entities have submitted their comments to you,

and we echo their concerns.

Because of the disruptive nature of the study itself, we urge you to consider whether any decisions can

be made earlier than planned that would quell the uneasiness of those or any other investors uncertain

about development in the area.

Second, evaluations of the economic impact of various proposed alternatives under study are incomplete

without multipliers for tourism and consideration of future gains lost under those alternatives. As

stated earlier, our decades of effort to build the recreation and tourism industry at the encouragement of

the Bureau are just really beginning to bear significant fruit. If it spoils on the vine and prevents further

gains in such development, that must be taken into account.

Third, WE need more information from YOU just to make meaningful and specific comment on the

study. What would the lake look like under the various scenarios? Abstract charts are fine for engineers

considering flow volumes, but we need a visual representation of how the lake and shoreline would look

to our customers under best-case, worst-case and average-case (mode average not mean or medium)

scenarios.

Fourth, earlier options no longer under consideration were removed before we knew about them or

could comment. We think they should be put back on the table.

While it may not seem practical or feasible right now to build a large storage reservoir for the Odessa

problem alone, studying this problem in isolation from the rest of the river may ultimately be a mistake.

The Dept. of Ecology is considering other factors and options to effect other changes that could at the

same time possibly address the Odessa shortage through the water budget process. For example, it is

not clear to us that such a facility at Crab Creek is completely out of the question in light of Ecology’s

direction.

Further, that agency is undertaking a study of what it may be necessary to do to adjust to global

warming, which might well entail more storage of the river’s water. Some of those solutions, deemed too

expensive just for Odessa, might be far more feasible when seen in that light. Would it not be possible

then, to budget more water for Odessa, through Banks Lake, if Columbia water now budgeted for other

downstream uses were stored for those uses in off-stream reservoirs, the original idea behind the Columbia

River Initiative?

In short, we suggest that it may be that the task Ecology has asked the Bureau to accomplish may be too

narrow in scope. Thinking bigger may solve more problems and use taxpayer dollars more efficiently.

And we would hate to see the ruination of our regional tourism economy come about as a result of a

piecemeal solution, the funding for which is likely to remain a large political question mark for years to come.

Sincerely,

Scott W. Hunter, president

Grand Coulee Dam Area Chamber of Commerce

P.O. Box 760

Grand Coulee, WA 99133

chamber@grandcouleedam.org

scottwhunter@mac.com