[Vision2020] The GWPZ Hearing

[Phil Nisbet]

Tom

A few things that you might just want to consider.

We have two and a half and soon to be three golf courses in the area.  Why 
allow additional golf courses and water use related to them from either 
surface or groundwater?  Are the three golf courses so over crowded, and 
then why not send some of those folks a few miles north to play at the new 
one up at the Casino.

Yes, the plan allows golf courses and does not let them use 'much' 
groundwater, but surface water is not exactly an unlimited resource either.

If we are going to save farm lands around here, we need to see farmers get a 
higher value crop.  Organic farming is one area that has been a success in 
that area and the organic farmers are irrigating.  To me, saving the water 
for irrigation of higher value crops, like organic produce, is a higher 
good.  That is for both ground and surface waters.

As for the 'evil' of minerals, the processing of gravel or sands in the 
area, right across the state line they are water washing crushed rock 
aggregate in Whitman county, using Wanapum basalt and drawing water from the 
Wanapum.  As a matter of fact, a brand new pit area was just permitted to 
increase crushed, water-washed rock production in the last couple of months. 
  Did you protest that?  It’s the same water and the same rocks, just across 
a political boundary.

The ban on sand is not a ban on all the sand or gravel we are using, just a 
ban on producing it here.  There is no restriction whatever on production 
over the bulk of the basin on the Washington side of the border.

The one saving grace is that the sands used here come from the destruction 
of riparian habitat along the ESA listed salmonid migration corridor down 
west of Central Ferry, where there is plenty of Snake River water.  You can 
not get construction sands from crushing basalts.  So our sand is hauled up 
from way down there in trucks that burn half a million gallons of 
hydrocarbon fuel a year.

So how much water are we talking about to process a years consumption of 
sands and construction aggregate used in the Moscow Pullman area and 
currently hauled in from down on the Snake?  There are 250,000 tons of such 
materials used in the two cities right now.  If you look at the amount of 
water required to process wet screened materials for that purpose, it takes 
about 60 gallons of water per ton, which would require about 15,000,000 
gallons of water a year to accomplish.  That’s half the amount of water used 
by a well managed water friendly golf course.

And if the gravel operator recycles their water, as most of them do in this 
day and age, the annual use drops significantly.  The crushed rock operators 
over in Whitman County are not recycling wash water now, not are they 
required to by ordinance.

The valid and deeper concern with regards to local sand and gravel is that 
expressed by Mark Solomon.  Mark has pointed out the need to restrict and 
sand and gravel operations form any of the possible units of the Sediment of 
Bovill which might be channels for movement of groundwater within that 
aquifer.  Since the Sediment of Bovill is one of the critical components for 
recharge in the Wanapum, we definitely need to insure that coarse sediments 
below the annual high groundwater zone are not disturbed.

So three things are needed long run in terms of ordinances.

1.  Requirement that a hydrologist certifies ground as not being in the 
coarse sediment below the annual high groundwater table, which should 
include stream areas and recent gravels.  Setting a requirement for the 
number of drill holes and presentation of the data should also be done.

2.  Require all operators to recycle water.

3.  Require all sand and gravel operations to use surface water collection 
and not groundwater.

Mark's concern at this time was that compliance from the county is not at 
hand.  How do we pay for setting up compliance mechanisms?  I have suggested 
that the ordinance require the operators to pay for compliance and planning 
issues through a per ton tax on production.

Then of course there is a need to identify areas for avoidance as critical 
for recharge.  And that is the area where Diana French and Mark have their 
strongest point on waiting for additional data and then revising and 
possibly removing the ban.  I would hope that that can be done in less than 
five years time.

I am talking about resources and total environmental cost accounting here.  
We need to encourage Whitman County to take steps like the three above for 
the minerals operations they have sitting right above the Moscow sub-basin.  
We need to consider weighing the 500,000 gallons of diesel fuel against 
15,000,000 gallons of water and also the habitat issues of taking from right 
on the banks of a major ESA listed fishes passage or on high and dry hills.  
We need to consider how to use all our resources more wisely and produce 
them more wisely and conserve them more wisely, not just water, but building 
materials and all the rest.

And we have to find a way to pay for more planning and compliance, without 
overburdening the taxpayer.

Phil Nisbet

PS, the bulk of the water Naylor’s sought were for irrigation of crops and 
the new ordinance does not restrict that in any way shape or form.  IDWR 
already suggested that they return and request the 30-40 million gallons 
they actually needed for Ag use without any industrial use and that is even 
contained in the order.  Organic growers are already using a significant 
amount of irrigation water in and around Moscow, so you think they should be 
discourage from growing anything but drylands wheat and lentils?

>

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963