[Vision2020] Water: What's your position

[Art Deco]

I have enjoyed the back and forth discussion on this issue (with one or two 
exceptions).  It is important that we seriously consider all the different 
perspectives from the concern about water availability and conservation, to 
the concerns from Matt about growth, and to the concerns about other 
economic/lifestyle (gardeners, etc) considerations.

There are a lot of factors to weighed.

Hence, I again opine that at present two related things need to be done and 
done well:  education and real, practical political leadership.  Unless the 
electorate are persuaded through education to embrace and endure changes in 
their water consumption habits, no amount of political leadership will be 
successful.  However, strong political leadership is needed to press forward 
with a relentless and engaging education program at this point.

Another consideration:  Last year several lakes in eastern Russia 
disappeared, some in a matter of days because of subsurface geological 
changes.  I remember reading some years ago the same thing about certain 
aquifers, although the aquifers disappeared over a matter of 1 - 10 years, 
not days.  Could this be a problem here?  If so, what plans need to be 
considered and made?

Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nils Peterson" <nils_peterson at wsu.edu>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 6:35 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Water: What's your position


>
> On 4/26/06 10:03 PM, "Matt Decker" <mattd2107 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nils,
>>
>> I do see your point and understand quite well. I don't know how much I am
>> sold on the I can't afford to conserve theory. Every one can conserve and 
>> do
>> it by simple little measures. How we can convince people to do that is 
>> the
>> problem. Another point I have is, yes low gallonage toilets will help,
>> however how much is up for grabs. But then again a gallon saved is a 
>> gallon
>> earned( maybe thats pennies but it sounded good at least).
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
> My point is that there are a number of conservation moves open to each of 
> us
> (however, not all the moves are open to all of us for structural reasons,
> like Donovan rents and has no yard to stop watering). Each available
> conservation move has costs, monetary, life-style, other. For example, the
> list had a good discussion about irrigation & management of lawns which 
> was
> offered as an alternative to swapping out toilets (more cost intensive).
>
> Of the conservation moves open to me, I need to stack up the costs, to me,
> and make choices. Some on the list have argued the merits of having a 
> green
> lawn -- going without it is a cost they won't bear. We've also explored
> structural changes (low flush toilets) that purport to offer the same life
> style and service, but at less water. That conversion has a monetary cost.
> Livingston has asked about the payback period of the investment, but it
> might not apply to all because either they can't afford the upfront
> investment needed to gain the savings, or they plan to move before the
> payback is realized. (I have nearly finished converting my house to 
> compact
> fluorescent bulbs, but I didn't do it all at once for cost reasons.)
>
> So what I'm trying to get the list to surface in this thread is, where are
> the members of the list on this continuum? Which savings options are they
> willing and able to undertake? With what perceived urgency? What 
> strategies
> could make other savings options seem reasonable to the list? (the toilet
> swap, paid for by new water users to secure a water supply within a tight
> budget is an example strategy -- I've not heard that it seems reasonable 
> to
> the list)
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>