[Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for Reservoir?

[Joe Campbell]

Dear Jeff,

Some thoughts about this comment of yours: "Further, we do NOT KNOW that the water issue must be dealt with soon."

I said that the water problem "needs to be dealt with soon." What I meant was that we need to begin THINKING about the water problem and PLANNING for the future. I did not say, for instance, that Moscow needed to build a reservoir SOON. I never even claimed that Moscow needed to build a reservoir!

The water problem is, as you note below, a management issue, since we already have available sources of water that we can utilize. A reservoir is one way to solve the problem, though perhaps it is not the best way. The panel at the general meeting last Monday agreed that we need to do a feasibility study before this idea goes any further.

One day we will run out of water unless we find a way to manage our current water resources. This is especially true if, as you said earlier on the V, Moscow must either grow or die and if, as you say below, Naylor Farms has a right to 10% of our water.

I am not an expert about water; nor am I an expert about economics! However, I am an expert about KNOWLEDGE. I studied the theory of knowledge (aka epistemology) at the University of Arizona in the late 1980s. At the time they had, arguably, the top epistemology program in the country. I am not making this up!

Your remark above suggests that we have a lack of KNOWLEDGE about how much water we have available in Moscow, and from this state of ignorance you conclude that we should carry on with business as usual.

First, that there is a lack of knowledge about our available water sources is debatable. Mark, for instance, predicted that the Wanapum aquifer would be unusable in 15-25 years unless the water problem is dealt with soon. He noted that the Wanapum supplies 30% of our demand.

Second, Mark also noted that we lack similar knowledge about the Grande Ronde. This does not mean that we lack complete knowledge about the Grande Ronde. We know that it is not endless, right? We know that if the Wanapum is declining, then likely so is the Grande Ronde, right? What we don't know is the RATE of decline. How big would the Grande Ronde have to be in order that none of what we do know matters?

Let's suppose that we don't know the rate of decline for the Grande Ronde but that we do know, or can make a lucky guess, that it is declining. What conclusions should we draw?

You suggest that we continue business as usual. This strikes me as irresponsible. Here is an analogy.

Suppose that you are in your friend's car, driving home to Moscow after a weekend in McCall. You pass a gas station in New Meadows and remember that your friend told you that the gas gage of his car was broken. You do not know how much gas is left in the car. Luckily, you can fill up here, now in New Meadows. Do you fill up at the gas station or do you continue business as usual and hope that you'll find a gas station further on down the road? What would be the responsible thing to do, given your current state of ignorance?

Think about this and get back to me. I'll try to respond to some of your other points but my day job is keeping me busy.

Hope that you are well!

All the best, Joe

-----------------------

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.