[Vision2020] Alternative Water Sources/ was Potential Opportunity from Perceived Necessity

[Garrett Clevenger]

Ted writes:

"Unless I missed it, management of fish was not mentioned in this discussion about piping Snake River water to the Palouse."


I didn't mention that specifically, though that was part of what I implied saying it would be a fight to use that water. I don't think anyone would just let water be drawn out without thinking how that will affect all those now dependent on the water.

Salmon, the creature responsible for bringing nutrients from the ocean back up to the forests, are facing serious challenges. If that nutrient cycle is destroyed, forest health is going to decline even more, with all the implications that imposes.

I think we should be doing what we can to ensure thriving salmon populations, as they provide a value beyond just being food for humans. They are the critical link between oceans and forests.

Tom replied to the first email of this thread saying there has already been a study on using Snake river water, and it was found to be not feasible. I'm not sure if they considered the affects on salmon, but it is possible that using that water on the Palouse would indeed add to the death of the salmon runs.

Another reason to use what water we do have access to wisely.

gclev

--- On Wed, 3/11/09, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Alternative Water Sources/ was Potential Opportunity from Perceived Necessity
> To: garrettmc at verizon.net
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 1:45 PM
> Unless I missed it, management of fish was not mentioned in
> this discussion
> about piping Snake River water to the Palouse.  Plans to
> remove dams on the
> Snake River to improve fish viability was once proposed,
> but one objection
> was the potential loss of irrigation water for farming (and
> of course
> hydro-power and recreation impacts).  Already hydro-power
> generation is
> sometimes/or has been sacrificed to facilitate downstream
> smolt movement in
> the Spring, letting water spill thus not generating power. 
> Turbines kill
> fish, though moving fish screens have been placed in the
> front of dams to
> remove the fish before they go through the blender, and
> barging (can you
> believe it?) has been employed to prevent mortality of
> smolt through the
> dam/river system.  They are shipped down river in barges
> turned into huge
> fish tanks...
> 
> If use of Snake River water to supply cities and industry
> dramatically
> increased, this might add another nail to the Salmon's
> coffin...
> 
> Ted Moffett
> 
> 
> On 3/10/09, Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ken writes:
> >
> > "Should such a project to build, for example, a
> 30 or 36 inch diameter
> > pipeline for a distance of at least as many miles,
> with associated pumping
> > stations and distribution lines, be shown to be
> feasible from an engineering
> > vantagepoint, then consideration of the legal rights,
> financing options, and
> > the public and commercial uses of such a resource
> could proceed with more
> > specificity and determination."
> >
> >
> > I agree that since water is crucial to everybody, we
> need to ensure we
> > don't run out and that we have enough to go around
> reasonably. My initial
> > reaction to the pipeline idea makes me think about
> Pheonix and other cities
> > that pipe out of the Colorado river.
> >
> > I think if you arificially introduce water to an area,
> you are probably
> > going to grow more than is sustainable since water no
> longer becomes a
> > limiting resource. Perhaps the Snake River has enough
> water to meet all
> > expected needs. Perhaps it is high enough quality to
> be potable, and not too
> > high in minerals that if it were used in irrigation it
> would leave too much
> > salt in the soil. Perhaps it would be an economically
> feasible and wise
> > project.
> >
> > Are people using Snake River water for residential
> uses now? Lewiston uses
> > Clearwater River water. The Lewiston Orchards
> irrigation district uses
> > mostly groundwater, and they are right near the snake
> and clearwater rivers.
> > Their ability to use surface water has been curtailed
> over the years. Some
> > farms are irrigated with snake river water.
> >
> > I think people are probably as possesive of that water
> as any, and it
> > probably would be a fight to gain access to any of it.
> >
> > I think if a project like that is seriously proposed,
> they need to make
> > sure to study other irrigation projects around the
> country, because things
> > always tend to cost more than initially planned,
> whether economically or
> > with unintended environmental consequences (like using
> up the colorado river
> > completely. Most times it doesn't reach the
> Pacific Ocean anymore, and the
> > water that's at the end of the river is so
> brackish as to be toxic.)
> >
> > I like the idea of building resevoirs to store
> precipatation that falls in
> > the area. It seems like a less expensive and more
> locally derived solution
> > to water problems we may face. It's possible that
> the water would be more
> > prone to contamination (by air pollution and less time
> to filter out
> > contaminates) Perhaps if it were planned well, it
> would go a long way in
> > securing water.
> >
> > I agree that there are other options than relying
> solely on groundwater,
> > though that obviously is the easiest and cheapest
> option (unless it runs
> > out!) It seems like it would be wise planning to study
> the feasibility of
> > those other options.
> >
> > gclev
> >
> >
> =======================================================
> > 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
> >
> =======================================================
> >