[Vision2020] Water - Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus

[Nils Peterson]

Since I feel Virginia Henderson's editorial (below) is at least slightly
addressed at me, I'm going to respond.

And Nathan, if you enabled ping and trackback on your site I could do it
from my blog, AND, if your local news and commentary were not behind a
password, I could do it without violating your copyright.

It seems the editorial argues "good plans are built on facts and the
aquifers are not giving theirs up" so we need to choose a course of action
based on the information we have (rather than wasting money and time trying
to gather more). The information we have is that the area's water resource
is finite -- we have reached the limits of the resource. We either need to
start designing and building Lake Carscallen or concede that new uses must
play in a zero sum game with current uses. So, I refer Virginia to the
discussion in this forum of a month ago -- the bold political decision that
she and the paper should have spent the editorial supporting is a City
ordinance creating a real water budget at the PBAC agreed maximum and the
halting of building permits until the new developments can secure "water
rights" by conservation measures taken by existing users. Then there would
be a way to get a handle on the marginal cost of water and we'd be able to
do the economic analysis on Lake Carscallen.

Or maybe that bold political decision is too much of a "blunt instrument
against development," in which case the editorial would have been better
spent proposing an different alternative to our dilemma.




OUR VIEW: It¹s time for new questions

By Virginia Henderson, for the editorial board
Published: 05-23-2006

It¹s time to stop arguing about how to define the problem and start
exploring feasible alternatives to dependence on the two aquifers that meet
the water needs of the Palouse Basin.

Some say there¹s no need to stabilize the larger Grand Ronde aquifer,
despite its consistent annual loss of 18 inches. Many of the naysayers
insist there¹s no reason to let aquifer hysteria interfere with their
property rights. Others want to know what options exist if the aquifers
aren¹t available.

Meanwhile, most people just hope their leaders are safeguarding resources,
coming up with creative and proactive ideas to guide planning and
development.

But good plans are built on solid facts, and the aquifers aren¹t giving
theirs up.

The Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee, known as PBAC, continues to sift
through research to figure out how the aquifers and water between Moscow,
Pullman and surrounding areas are connected. PBAC researchers have learned
that the smaller aquifer recharges from groundwater, but the deeper
aquifer¹s method of replenishing itself remains a mystery.

It¹s going to take a lot more money and time to learn the answer, and
there¹s no guarantee what will emerge.

People could argue indefinitely about when, how, where and whether to spend
money and energy in a quest for answers.

That¹s convenient for those who would use water as a blunt instrument
against development. Leadership of the highest sort is called for. There are
alternatives to endless political rock throwing or tossing millions of
dollars at the same questions.

It¹s time for a fresh approach. If PBAC is the group to lead the way, it
must build consensus among its members and advisory group, meet deadlines
and operate from a clear directive from the people it serves.