[Vision2020] Water Concern?

[Mark Solomon]

Gary,

Rather than put faith in anybody, it's easy to look at the data 
itself as reported on the PBAC website under Local Water Use: Pumping 
and Water Level Summary. Data through May 2007. It's a pdf file so 
I'm not including or linking directly.

It's not a steady state system so if you'll allow me to explain a 
bit, I will. These are not my own observations, but explanations from 
Tom Scallorn, Water Dept. Supervisor when I asked him about some 
seeming anomalies in the data:

Moscow has two producing Wanapum wells and three Grande Ronde wells. 
Of the GR wells, #6&8 are in the uppermost GR basalt flow, #9 is in a 
deeper one. The two flows are hydraulically separated by a clay 
aquitard. #9 is the primary city well (remember the "water emergency" 
of a few summers ago when the #9 pump went down?).

Wells 6&8 are hydraulically connected: pump one you see a response in 
the other one. They are also limited in the volume they can pump by a 
piping bottleneck in the city pipes (I think it's somewhere in the 
6th and Main vicinity) so a few years ago the city reduced the volume 
pumped from 6&8 and made up the difference from #9 and the Wanapum 
wells. The result on the water level charts is that 6&8 are 
stable/rising. All the others are going down.

Whether Moscow intended it or not, they have performed a very 
valuable experiment: by reducing volume from 6&8 they have possibly 
found the sustainable level of pumping from those wells. They've also 
shown that it really is hydraulically separated from the lower GR 
flow as no bounce was seen in levels in #9: they continue downward a 
fairly steady 1-1.5'/yr.

m.

At 8:13 PM -0700 10/19/07, g. crabtree wrote:
>?
>From the City of Moscow water dept. web site:
>
>" Wanapum well levels in Moscow area wells fluctuate some due to 
>pumping and recharge but appear to be quite stable."
>
>And
>
>" Since 1990 in the Moscow area, the water levels in the Grande 
>Ronde have been very stable."
>
>Who should I put my faith in, Water dept. professionals or the 
>chicken littles who would prefer to see Moscow as some sort of story 
>book fantasy?It really seems to me that water is the scare tactic du 
>jour and campaign issue of the moment for the MCA shills. Till they 
>find a different drum to beat.
>
>I repeat,  Conservation can never be a bad idea but using the water 
>issue as a club to force other ideological visions on the community 
>where they don't apply (big box ordinances for one example) is 
>disingenuous.
>
>g
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Campbell" <<mailto:joekc at adelphia.net>joekc at adelphia.net>
>To: "g. crabtree" <<mailto:jampot at roadrunner.com>jampot at roadrunner.com>
>Cc: <<mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Tom 
>Hansen" <<mailto:thansen at moscow.com>thansen at moscow.com>; "'Mark 
>Solomon'" <<mailto:msolomon at moscow.com>msolomon at moscow.com>
>Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:51 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?
>
>There were so many things wrong with the Super Walmart plan it is 
>hard to begin.
>Some people noted the water issue - which is as pervasive as water 
>itself - but I
>never did. For one thing, we have a problem with west-east traffic 
>flow that a Super
>Walmart located on Route 8 would only exacerbate. This 'plan' is 
>indicative of the
>GMA approach to grow first and ask questions later.
>
>In your original letter on this topic you wrote: "Could be 50-75 
>years, could be 115-120
>years? Could be we really don't know for sure?"
>
>But if we really don't know for sure, is it wiser to ACT like we 
>have water for the next
>200 years (Krauss: "We could have, at the least, 200 years of water 
>left"), or to act like
>we MIGHT have water for only another 50-75 years? Which would be the 
>better course
>of action if we wanted to, conservatively speaking, plan for the future?
>
>The MCA candidates do much better on this issue. Look at the original
>Johnson article for starters.
>
>--
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- "g. crabtree" 
><<mailto:jampot at roadrunner.com>jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>=============
>I beg to differ, when a rational was needed for denying a change in the
>comprehensive plan to accommodate a Wal-Mart in east Moscow water was
>brought up as an issue. Water use is currently being used to meddle in
>Whitman Counties Hawkins development. Water was cited as a reason to oppose
>Naylor Farms.
>
>In reality the MCA candidates are not as knowledgeable on water issues as
>they (and you) would like to have us believe. The science is not settled and
>there most certainly is not a emergency currently. Pretty much like Dan,
>Wayne, and Walt indicated.
>
>Water most certainly is an issue but it isn't a crisis and no quote you can
>produce will change that fact.
>
>g
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joe Campbell" <<mailto:joekc at adelphia.net>joekc at adelphia.net>
>To: "g. crabtree" <<mailto:jampot at roadrunner.com>jampot at roadrunner.com>
>Cc: <<mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Tom 
>Hansen" <<mailto:thansen at moscow.com>thansen at moscow.com>; "'Mark
>Solomon'" <<mailto:msolomon at moscow.com>msolomon at moscow.com>
>Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:57 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?
>
>
>>  No one is using the water issue "as a club to force other ideological
>>  visions."
>>
>>  The point is just that the GMA candidates are uninformed about water
>>  issues.
>>
>>  Voters need to know which candidates are and which are not informed about
>>  important local issues like WATER. Especially when this can be easily
>>  conveyed by merely QUOTING the candidates comments during a DEBATE.
>>
>>  --
>>  Joe Campbell
>>
>>  ---- "g. crabtree" 
>><<mailto:jampot at roadrunner.com>jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>
>>  =============
>>  Conservation can never be a bad idea but using the water issue as a club
>>  to force other ideological visions on the community where they don't apply
>>  (big box ordinances for one example) is disingenuous. I don't believe that
>>  the GMA endorsed candidates are suggesting that we make a desperate
>>  attempt to suck the aquifer dry before their terms expire. To suggest
>>  otherwise is simply partisan politics at its worst.
>>
>>  g
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: "Tom Hansen" <<mailto:thansen at moscow.com>thansen at moscow.com>
>>  To: "'g. crabtree'" 
>><<mailto:jampot at roadrunner.com>jampot at roadrunner.com>; "'Joe 
>>Campbell'"
>>  <<mailto:joekc at adelphia.net>joekc at adelphia.net>; 
>><<mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>vision2020 at moscow.com>; "'Mark 
>>Solomon'"
>>  <<mailto:msolomon at moscow.com>msolomon at moscow.com>
>>  Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:29 PM
>>  Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Water Concern?
>>
>>
>>>g -
>>>
>>>  You suggested that perhaps none of the city council candidates have a
>>>  firm
>>>  handle on the water situation.
>>>
>>>  If this is true, wouldn't it be better advised to err on the side of
>>>  caution?
>>>
>>>  Both Lamar and Ament cited PBAC as authorities on the figures they
>>>  presented
>>>  yesterday at the CofC Forum.  Krauss cited "something [he] read
>>>  somewhere"
>>>  and Steed simply wants to remove limitations and controls.
>>>
>>>  Your thoughts?
>>>
>>>  Seeya round town, Moscow.
>>>
>>>  Tom Hansen
>>>  Moscow, Idaho
>>>
>>>  "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college
>>>  students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."
>>>
>>>  - Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)
>>>
>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>>  From: <mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>>>  [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
>>>  On Behalf Of g. crabtree
>>>  Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:33 PM
>>>  To: Joe Campbell; 
>>><mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>vision2020 at moscow.com; Mark Solomon
>>>  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?
>>>
>>>  I assume the statement that includes "...regarding
>>>  the upper aquifer which if continued to be pumped at current levels could
>>>  be
>>>
>>>  in crisis as soon as 15-20 years from now." is couched that way to leave
>>>  room for the obvious corollary?
>>>
>>>  Could be 50-75 years, could be 115-120 years? Could be we really don't
>>>  know
>>>  for sure? Could be that Krauss, Carscallen, and Steed have as firm a
>  >> handle
>>>  on the water situation as any of the MCA candidates do.
>>>
>>>  g
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071020/97ff2b49/attachment.html