The summer of 2002 may well be remembered as the beginning of the end for Clark Kagele's 1,700-acre potato and wheat farm.

That is when two of the largest irrigation wells on his central Washington farm, including one 1,000-feet deep, ran dry, forcing him to run portable water lines more than 2 miles from one of two other wells to irrigate his crop.

The potatoes that are the farm's moneymaker survived the incident; most of the wheat crop did not. So Kagele did what most of his neighbors have done the past few decades: He closed the old wells and dug two more -- 2,400 feet and 2,200 feet, respectively -- at a cost of $700,000 each.

"It's like buying the farm all over again," said Kagele, 54, whose family has farmed atop the Odessa aquifer since the 1890s. "There's a point to where you run out of money trying to chase water."

Now, however, even the water at greater depths is disappearing, pushing Kagele and hundreds of other farmers in the four-county area along the Columbia River to the edge of ruin.

The Bureau of Reclamation has come up with some ambitious -- and in some cases controversial -- proposals to replace the wells with a steady supply of water directly from the Columbia River.

One alternative calls for spending $4.3 billion to build a miles-long canal to funnel hundreds of millions of gallons of river water to farms, vastly reducing reliance on well water. Another proposal, estimated at $2.2 billion, calls for enlarging and extending an existing canal by 2.3 miles to meet new and existing water demand. A third calls for raising water levels in nearby Banks Lake by as much as 2 feet.

Environmentalists, however, fear that the government's proposals to remove such large volumes of water from the Columbia River Basin will disrupt salmon spawning, degrade water quality and drive away scores of fish species like steelhead trout, sturgeon and Pacific lamprey. To bolster their argument, they point to a 2004 National Academy of Sciences study that concluded new water withdrawals would increase fish mortality.

"We have great concerns about additional withdrawals from the Columbia River Basin," said Brett Vandenheuvel, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper, a water conservation group based in Hood River, Ore.

Those concerns include the possibility that increased water withdrawals could raise the average temperature of the Columbia River to the point that fish will not migrate upstream. Most of the Columbia River already exceeds standards for freshwater temperature levels and are included on U.S. EPA's list of impaired waters in the state.

"Any additional increase in withdrawals will have a big effect," Vandenheuvel said.

But supporters note that Congress authorized the use of Columbia River water for irrigation purposes in the region in the 1930s, and that what is in the works today has been on the drawing board for decades.

"This is land that's already irrigated, it's just irrigated from the wrong source," said Mike Schwisow, a project director for the Columbia Basin Development League, a coalition of farmers, business leaders and government representatives that lobbies for the surface-water project.

Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology recently launched a feasibility study and five-year environmental assessment to determine what proposals have the greatest promise, and state officials have mailed more than 250 letters to property owners in the path of the proposed canals informing them that next month they will begin a wildlife survey of the area.

The projects are part of a much broader Columbia River Basin water management plan that aims to balance the desire to preserve critical salmon and wildlife habitat with the need to satisfy a growing demand for water.

The biggest problem with the aquifer the central Washington farmers depend on is that at more than 2,000 feet it is so deep it may be isolated and not connected to any recharge source, such as a river.

An ancient aquifer

The water the farmers are drawing up has been stored in the Odessa aquifer for 10,000 years or longer, said Derek Sandison, who directs the state Department of Ecology's new Office of the Columbia River that oversees all the water supply projects in the basin.

Because it is so deep, any rainwater that might recharge it is swept up in shallower areas of the aquifer instead of percolating down, Sandison said. And even if it was not so deep the region receives less than 10 inches of rain a year. What's more, the aquifer does not appear to be connected to any surface water that might help replenish it.

"There's just not a simple way to replenish water being taken out of the ground that deep," Sandison said.

The idea was always to irrigate the farmland along the Columbia with the river's water. In the 1950s, Reclamation built huge canals to provide irrigation to more than 670,000 acres, but the canals ended just short of the central Washington potato farming area. The bureau vowed that it would complete the canal system.

The Odessa aquifer is drying up, prompting proposals for new water diversions from the Columbia River. Photo courtesy of the state of Washington's Department of Ecology.

"That never happened," said Bill Gray, Reclamation's assistant area manager in charge of the Columbia River Basin project.

By the early 1960s, farmers east of Moses Lake in the central part of the state realized it would be decades before the surface water project reached them, so they began to drill wells. The state stopped issuing drilling permits in the late '70s when it became clear the aquifer could not support all the activity.

Complicating matters is the fact that Reclamation in 1993 placed a moratorium on new surface water withdrawals from the Columbia River Basin, citing concerns about damage to salmon habitat. The moratorium was lifted in 2003, and that is when efforts by the state officials and business leaders to bring river water to farmers dependent on the dwindling aquifer kicked into high gear.

Now, state regulators and farmers are just hoping the proposed surface water plans move through the regulatory process before all the wells go dry.

"We know we've got some serious problems," Sandison said. "That's why there's the urgency to push this project forward."

A pending disaster

The potatoes grown at these central Washington farms are processed and shipped across the world as french fries sold at fast-food restaurants like McDonald's to tater-tots sold at supermarkets.

Washington State University conducted a regional economic impact study in 2005 assessing the effects of lost potato production and processing in the four most affected central Washington counties if the aquifer is allowed to continue to decline.

Assuming all potato production and processing is lost from the region, the analysis estimated the regional economic impact would be a loss of about $630 million dollars annually in regional sales, and a loss of $211 million in regional income. The state, in a report to the Legislature last year, estimates as many as 7,500 jobs could be eliminated.

"It might be the state's number one priority to prevent that land from going out of production," said Gray, the Reclamation manager in charge of the Columbia Basin project.

Despite the enormous economic consequences of allowing the farms to dry up, a growing number of critics are voicing questions about whether Reclamation's proposals are responsible.

In addition to the risk of increased water temperatures, environmental groups fear that polluted water runoff from herbicide-treated crops will make its way back to the river, further damaging fish and wildlife habitat.

Such concerns have merit, particularly where they deal with salmon migration routes and spawning grounds, said Michael Garrity, Washington state conservation director for American Rivers, a national conservation group.

But Garrity, who sits on a committee that advises the state on the project, said he believes regulators are taking the environmental issues seriously.

"We support taking at least incremental steps to providing surface water, but there are limits to what the river can handle," Garrity said. "Building new canals could take out more water than the river can handle, but we're willing to consider some water coming out of the river as long as it does not affect salmon flows downstream. We're trying to look for a balance that improves things for fish and makes sure that not everyone has to quit irrigating."

Possible litigation?

The criticisms, however, could turn into more than just talk.

Columbia Riverkeepers and the Center for Environmental Law and Policy in December sued the state in U.S. District Court, claiming water mangers failed to adequately assess impacts to salmon and water quality when advancing plans to remove more water from Lake Roosevelt, which is hydrologically connected to the Columbia River.

While it is unlikely the Lake Roosevelt diversion would directly affect the proposed alternatives for the Odessa aquifer area, some water from the lake would be used to relieve water-starved farmers who can no longer count on the aquifer to meet their needs.

Rachael Osborn, executive director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, said the group has already submitted written concerns about the Odessa aquifer proposals to federal and state regulators. And while the group has not decided what it will do, litigation is possible if Reclamation approves the canal-building project, she said.

"There are many tools we can use," Osborn said. "Hopefully bringing rationale comments to bear will actually prevent the bureau from building the project."

The threat of litigation is one reason why federal and state officials are going to great lengths to design a solution that minimizes environmental damage.

The state, in partnership with federal water managers, is expected next month to begin a two-phased wildlife habitat analysis for areas where either a new water canal will be built or an existing one will be extended along Interstate 90, the massive highway that traverses the state.

"We'll record everything we see," said JoAnn Wisniewski, a wildlife biologist at the state Department of Fish and Wildlife who is leading the survey team. "That will include a look at deer migration routes that cut across the path of the canals, anything that could be impacted."

Wisniewski said they will pay special attention to impacts to species listed as threatened and endangered by the state: burrowing owls, golden eagles, greater sage grouse, black-tailed rabbits, northern leopard frogs and sage brush lizards.

The second part of the survey involves a detailed analysis of the findings by a committee of experts from the state and federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. The analysis will include a look at what kind of mitigation measures will be needed if environmental damage is unavoidable, said Steve Dauma, Columbia River water program regional coordinator for the state Fish and Wildlife Department.

The full analysis will be completed by Sept. 30, Dauma said, and a mitigation plan, if needed, by the end of October.

"We're trying to make sure that wildlife issues are identified so there's no loss of benefit to wildlife, recreational and habitat values," he said.

Other alternatives

Some say there are good alternatives to building the costly canals.

The simplest, and perhaps easiest alternative is better management of existing water sources, said Vandenheuvel, the Columbia Riverkeepers executive director.

"Just taking steps like lining the irrigation ditches we have can save tremendous amounts of water," he said. "Right now we keep going back to the river for more and more rather than using what we have more efficiently."

Garrity, the American Rivers conservation director, said another alternative is to study ways to recharge, rather than replace, the dwindling Odessa aquifer.

"This is an option worth exploring in some areas," Garrity said. "But it's a complicated situation, and it's tough because of the possibility of farmers having to make big changes."

Kagele, who said he is "working my tail off" in support of the water canal proposals, just wants federal and state regulators to adopt a solution quickly, before it is too late.

"I've got neighbors who have run out of water and can't redo their wells because of the economic situation," he said. "For me, too, it's just a matter of time."

Scott Streater is a freelance environmental writer based in Colorado Springs, Colo.