<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for
Reservoir?</title></head><body>
<div>Jeff:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Mark</div>
<div><img src="cid:a0623090ec15233c3eb8e@[192.168.0.100].1.0"></div>
<div>At 10:03 PM -0700 10/10/06, Jeff Harkins wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Thanks for the post. It opens the
door to correct some misconceptions that you have.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>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?<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
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. <br>
<br>
Further, we do NOT KNOW that the water issue must be dealt with<b>
soon</b>. 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!<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>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.)<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
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.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>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.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
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.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>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.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Best, Joe<br>
<br>
---- Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com> wrote:<br>
<br>
=============<br>
Joe and Bruce,<br>
<br>
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. ; )<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Those are the questions I would ask if I could attend this
meeting.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
_DJA<br>
<br>
<br>
Joe Campbell <joekc@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.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Joe Campbell<br>
<br>
---- Donovan Arnold wrote:<br>
<br>
=============<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
Curious minds want to know.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
_DJA<br>
<br>
Bruce and Jean Livingston
wrote: <span
></span> Reminder: MCA meeting on whether Moscow
should consider building a water reservoir.<br>
<br>
MCA General Public Meeting on Monday Oct. 9 at 1912
Building @ 7p.m.<br>
Water Solutions â*â*œ Is Moscow
Ready for a Reservoir?<br>
Panelists: <br>
Jerry Fairley, Professor of Hydrogeology, U of Idaho<br>
Dianne French, founder of Palouse Water Conservation
Network<br>
Gary Riedner, Moscow City Supervisor<br>
Steve Robischon, Exec. Mgr. of Palouse Basin Aquifer
Committee<br>
Mark Solomon, Palouse Water Conservation Network<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since
1994. <br>
<span
></span>
http://www.fsr.net <span
></span
> <span
></span> <br>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>
=======================================================<br>
<br>
<br>
---------------------------------<br>
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
countries) for 2¢/min or less.<br>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since
1994. <br>
<span
></span>
http://www.fsr.net <span
></span
> <span
></span> <br>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>
=======================================================<br>
<br>
<x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><br>
---------------------------------<br>
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengerâ*™s low
PC-to-Phone call rates.<br>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since
1994. <br>
<span
></span>
http://www.fsr.net <span
></span
> <span
></span> <br>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>
=======================================================</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>