[Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for Reservoir?

[Jeff Harkins]

Thanks for the post.  It opens the door to 
correct some misconceptions that you have.

>2/ What I especially liked about last night's 
>meeting is that we discussed an issue that was 
>not "in our face." Yet it is an issue that needs 
>to be dealt with soon. The fact is that we use 
>more water than is being replaced. As long as 
>the water supply is not endless, it will eventually end. What to do?

Well, it has been in our faces - especially if 
you owned property in the previously designated 
Emergency Water Management Overlay Zone.  Private 
property rights were immediately co-opted without 
adequate discussion or proposed compensation.

Further, we do NOT KNOW that the water issue must 
be dealt with soon.  No long-term validated 
studies by hydrologists have been done.  The 
conclusions that have been thrown out for public 
consumption have been the result of pure 
speculation.  The fact is - we don't know if we have a water problem or not!

>A reservoir is one possible solution. Water 
>conservation is another one. But CAN we conserve 
>enough water to solve the problem? Shouldn't we 
>also look at other solutions? We're just 
>beginning this dialogue, I think. (We're just 
>beginning it as a COMMUNITY. It was clear last 
>night that there are quite a few folks who have 
>been thinking about these issues for a while.)
>
>3/ One thing that came across last night is that 
>we are in a rather unique situation, water-wise. 
>It is possible that there is a large -- though 
>limited -- body of water that is currently 
>available to Moscow. We need to think about how 
>we are going to use it and -- until we can 
>provide a way of increasing that amount -- we should plan to use it wisely.

The most immediate volume of water available to 
us is, of course, rainfall - but that requires 
collection.  Another available source is the 
Clearwater system - we can address the question 
of access at some point, but the water is there - 
and technology can be utilized to pump it up here.

>Naylor farms has plans to use a great deal of 
>our current supply. Forgetting about the other 
>costs of their enterprise, it is questionable 
>whether -- short of some long term solution to 
>our current water problem -- we should invest 
>our water capital to meet their ends.

Well, don't use hyperbole to describe their 
use.  Their initial application was for approx. 
200 million gallons per year - about 10% of 
Moscow-Pullman consumption.  The IDWR advised 
them that their right was for approximately 2 
billion gallons per year.  They, quite 
rationally, reapplied for their full right.

>4/ I wish Naylor farms would hold a public forum 
>similar to the one held last night. Which is 
>just to say, I wish that Naylor farms would give 
>me the feeling that they gave a rat's -ss about 
>how I and others think about these issues.
>
>I challenge Naylor farms to approach this 
>problem in a way that illustrates their concern 
>for the overall community. It is our water and 
>the supply is limited. If Naylor farms wants to 
>use some of that supply, then they need to tell 
>us how we might benefit from their use. So far I 
>have not seen the benefit. Nor have I seen any 
>recognition on their part that there is a 
>genuine problem here. Currently, there is just a 
>limited supply of water. We might debate on the 
>amount but that the supply is limited is not an issue for debate.

One part of your comment above does warrant 
specific acknowledgement - the water supply for 
the world is fixed - you can change its form 
(liguid, gas or solid) but you can't change the 
supply.  BUT you can change its location - and 
that is the challenge we must address - if our 
current water flows are not sufficient to meet 
our needs, how can we enhance our 
allocation.  That is an important issue for us to address.

Sorry, it is not YOUR or OUR water supply.  Idaho 
has a first in time, first in right allocation 
system.  Until that is changed, it is not YOUR 
water or OUR water.  As I understand it, Naylor 
has a senior or ancestral water right - and that 
right is recognized by the state.   At the last 
water summit I was surprised to learn that 
municipalities (Moscow) have no water rights - 
they have simply drilled for water and started 
selling it. And as a result of use, have a "claim" to water.

But again, from a science point of view, we DO 
NOT KNOW what the limits are to our water 
flows.  Estimates of 10-25 years of water 
remaining are pure and simple speculation - not 
unlike tea leaf reading.  Want to know the water 
supply limits?  Spend the money on a study - who 
knows - we might find out that all our water 
comes from Canada and Montana as a result of the 
prehistoric Columbia Lake system.  If that is the 
case, then we have NO water rights.

I appreciate your point about wanting Naylor to 
"illustrate their concern for the overall 
community".  But what concern have the water 
zealots shown for Naylor's rights?  Think of the 
things that have been said about them - and done 
to them.  The fact that their position was 
vindicated in court should be of some merit in 
having the Naylor's treated with respect.

>Until we can figure out a way to increase our 
>current supply of water -- through a reservoir, 
>conservation, or some other means -- it seems 
>irresponsible to allow Naylor farms access to it for their own personal needs.

I am encouraged by one outcome of all of 
this.  Just a few months ago, I was publicly 
harangued and scoffed by the likes of Jim Mital, 
French and members of the Protect Our Water group 
for my suggestion that we explore the possibility 
of a collection system for the approximately 200 
billion gallons of water that fall on Latah 
County each year.  The simple premise was that we 
have an adequate water supply, but our management 
of the supply is the question - not a shortage of 
water.  At least that concept is now in the 
public discussion arena and for that, I am 
pleased.  But a simple mantra will suffice - it 
is difficult to solve a problem until you understand what the problem is.

As an aside, while I have some questions and 
concerns about Prop 2 - there is one element that 
is appealing.  I recognize that one of the 
redeeming qualities of Prop 2 is that it would 
provide property owners with a clear legal 
recourse should another initiative similar to the 
Emergency Water Management Zone be 
adopted.  Property owners do have rights and it 
would appear that Prop 2 would help to protect 
those rights from the tyranny of the vocal minority as well as the majority.

>Best, Joe
>
>---- Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>=============
>Joe and Bruce,
>
>  I would love to attend your meeting, 
> however,  I cannot. You guys really need to 
> check with me before you schedule  these 
> meetings to make sure I am free, cause you 
> know, I work and go to  school and right now I  am also sick. ; )
>
>  But my advice  is that you work with Naylor 
> Farms to meet both your goals. Maybe the  money 
> raised from mining can be used to pay for the 
> reservoir. Working  with people you have 
> disagreements with rather than shutting them 
> down  all the time might work better to meet some of your long term goals.
>
>   Is there any reason why the water used by 
> Naylor Farms cannot be used  to fill the 
> reservoir? Is there any reason why the hole 
> they dig cannot  be the reservoir? Is there any 
> reason why the taxes and fines they pay  the 
> county to mine cannot be used to pay for the 
> project? I think a  reservoir on top of a hill 
> just a mile or town out of town is a perfect  place to have one.
>
>   Those are the questions I would ask if I could attend this meeting.
>
>   Best,
>
>   _DJA
>
>
>Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:Come  to 
>the meeting, Donovan! Note that the title of the 
>meeting is a  question, not a statement. We're 
>going to discuss the plusses and  minuses and 
>try to help folks reach an informed decision on the matter.
>
>--
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- Donovan Arnold  wrote:
>
>=============
>Won't  digging a reservoir cause health problems 
>with dust being less then 1.5  miles away from 
>Moscow? And won't it use a lot of water?
>
>   Why don't we just have Naylor Farms dig us a 
> hole, take the clay and dirt away, and use the water to fill the reservoir?
>
>Curious minds want to know.
>
>   Best,
>
>   _DJA
>
>Bruce and Jean 
>Livingston  wrote:              Reminder: MCA 
>meeting on whether Moscow should   consider building a water reservoir.
>
>   MCA General Public Meeting on Monday Oct. 9 at 1912   Building @ 7p.m.
>   Water   Solutions â€â€œ Is Moscow   Ready for a Reservoir?
>   Panelists:
>   Jerry Fairley, Professor of Hydrogeology, U of Idaho
>   Dianne French, founder of Palouse Water Conservation   Network
>   Gary Riedner, Moscow City Supervisor
>   Steve Robischon, Exec. Mgr. of Palouse Basin Aquifer   Committee
>   Mark Solomon, Palouse Water Conservation Network
>
>
>
>
>
>=======================================================
>  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
>=======================================================
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone 
>Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
>
>=======================================================
>  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
>=======================================================
>
>
>---------------------------------
>How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! 
>Messenger’s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.
>
>=======================================================
>  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
>=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061010/b81c7c9b/attachment-0001.htm