[Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for Reservoir?

[mark seman]

Here's another approach to water supply issues:
http://www.waterexchange.com/auction/.  I'm curious as to how this will
play-out.  I'm also still trying to understand how water works here in AZ.
It seems to be more about paper "rights" that actual liquid "water."  I'm
encouraged that Moscow is continuing to address the issue.  I expect it will
take a long time to resolve, but an extended discovery & discussion period
will help in the long-term.

Mark


mark r. seman, architect
v=928.925.7617   f=928.776.9107


-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of Joe Campbell
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:59 AM
To: vision 2020
Subject: [Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for Reservoir?


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.

=======================================================
 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/20061012/43735164/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 39742 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061012/43735164/attachment-0001.jpg