[Vision2020] Kirkland: Palouse region doesn ¹ t have a water crisis

[Nils Peterson]

For those of you who missed it, Larry Kirkland's opinion piece below.

The quote: "Yes, the deep aquifer system water levels have been slowly
declining for many years, but there is time for sound planning to deal with
the decline in a rational, economical manner."

Perhaps Larry needs to read our water discussion of a couple months ago. We
explored ideas for options, and explored ideas for costing water so that it
could fund expanded resource supplies.

Nils
----

HIS VIEW: Palouse region doesn¹t have a water crisis

By Larry Kirkland
Published: 06-20-2006

[View Photo]
Kirkland

When Mark Solomon in his Town Crier II column (Opinion, June 7) stated water
must come first before development, he implied there should be a plan
detailing where the water will come from to support the development. I agree
a plan for supplying water for the coming regional development is needed.
Such a plan presupposes a level of understanding about the water challenge
in the Moscow-Pullman area and a reasonable consideration of the options.
This is just what the Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee is about.

First, the region does not have a water crisis. Yes, the deep aquifer system
water levels have been slowly declining for many years, but there is time
for sound planning to deal with the decline in a rational, economical
manner.

Second, sufficient water falls on the area as rain and snow to handle all
foreseeable development. Approximately 650,000 gallons per year fall on each
acre in the Moscow area.

Thus the 77 acres of proposed Thompson development should receive about 50
million gallons in precipitation each year and the 220 acres of proposed
Hawkins development should receive about 140 million gallons per year. Using
best available technology to capture and efficiently use the precipitation,
the developments could be largely or entirely self-sufficient in water for a
price.

Third, the real water issue is the ³cost² to capture and make these unused
waters from precipitation and runoff available for municipal use. How much
are we collectively willing to pay for quality supplemental water to
stabilize the deep aquifer water levels and support development? And who
should bear the cost: existing users, new users, businesses (which is mostly
us) or some combination? What are growth and development worth to the region
and the communities?

Fourth, conservation ³creates² water for additional domestic use without
increasing the total supply of available water. It allows the existing
supply to go farther through more efficient use, but growth and development
will eventually require supplemental water supplies.

For the past 18 years, conservation by the pumping entities ‹ Moscow,
Pullman, Colfax, Palouse, UI and WSU ‹ has maintained total pumping from the
deep aquifer system at a constant without stabilizing deep aquifer water
levels. These facts strongly suggest a need for supplemental water in
addition to conservation.

Fifth, PBAC has a timetable for developing a plan not only to stabilize the
deep aquifer water levels but also ensure a long-term quality water supply
for the region. PBAC always has encouraged conservation but believes the
entities will need to find supplemental water sources to stabilize the deep
aquifer water levels and meet the increased demand from regional growth.
PBAC is seeking input from all sources: Water Resource Inventory Area,
Citizens Advisory Group, Waters of the West, state agencies and the public
to arrive at the best plan for the region.

Sixth, I commend Solomon and associates for publicly encouraging
conservation, but I also challenge them to help PBAC and WRIA and WOW
evaluate the options for providing supplemental water to the region.

How should more extensive conservation and the development of supplemental
water supplies be funded? Moscow increased sewer rates more than threefold
to finance the recent upgrade to the waste water treatment plant.

A three-fold increase in current water rates could procure a lot of
supplemental water, but the challenge is to provide the supplemental water
more economically. There is plenty of water available for a price. We are
not a water limited area. But without committed funding, progress toward the
best plan will continue to be slow and frustrating to many.

Finally, cooperation in developing a long-range water management plan is
critical.

Funds and manpower are in far too short supply to dissipate in needless
controversy. There is another water summit Oct. 3 where various options can
be positively presented in a public forum.

Anyone willing to help should contact a Latah or Whitman county commissioner
or the Palouse Conservation District.

Larry Kirkland is a technical advisor for the Palouse Basin Aquifer
Committee.