[Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for Reservoir?
Mark Solomon
msolomon at moscow.com
Tue Oct 10 23:02:33 PDT 2006
Jeff:
I may not be a hydrologist, or any other kind of
"ologist" for that matter, but I have been
studying and working on this issue for close to
20 years. The graph below shows the historic
static well levels for two Wanapum wells in the
city. As you and any one else who looks at it can
see, water levels fell precipitously in the 50's
resulting in Moscow drilling its first deep well
in the early 60's and then switching over to it
for supplying the city. In 1990, the city started
pumping the Wanapum again when demand started to
exceed deep well supply. The Wanapum wells nw
supply 30% of the city's demand. The graph was
prepared by Dr. Dale Ralston and does not include
the past three years of well level data. In 2005,
static levels in city Wanapum wells fell 5-7'
continuing the scarily close match of the current
graph curve to the period of the mid 40's
(interpolated as the city data for those years is
not included in Ralston's graph). It is this
data, available to anyone to review, that is the
basis for my statement that we may be facing the
loss of 30% of our current water supply
(approximately 280 million gallons per year at
current demand) within the next 15-25 years.
As to your repeated assertions that 200 billion
gallons fall on Latah County each year so where's
the problem, I have responded in the past that
the vast majority of the precip is cycled back to
the atmosphere by plants (evapotranspiration).
You've ridiculed that fact in the past. If you
had attended the Water summit last week, you
would have heard a presentation on the Palouse
basin water balance by Dr. Fritz Fiedler, UI
Civil Eng. Prof, that at a minimum, about 70% of
precip in the Moscow sub-basin is cycled as
evapotranspiration, and possibly more. Another
goodly percentage (sorry, I don't have my notes
in front of me) leaves the area in the streams
which except during peak runoff events are needed
in the streams to support aquatic life (and to
provide dilution for area wastewater treatment
plant discharges).
Mark
At 10:03 PM -0700 10/10/06, Jeff Harkins wrote:
>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!
>>Messengerâ*™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/20061010/56db5a2c/attachment-0001.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: P3E72286C
Type: image/png
Size: 249445 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061010/56db5a2c/attachment-0001.png
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list