<!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] Water
Concern?</title></head><body>
<div>Gary,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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?).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>m.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 8:13 PM -0700 10/19/07, g. crabtree wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>?</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">From the
City of Moscow water dept. web site:</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>" Wanapum well levels in Moscow
area wells fluctuate some due to pumping and recharge but appear to be
quite stable."</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial"
size="-1">And</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>" Since 1990 in the Moscow
area, the water levels in the Grande Ronde have been very
stable."</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">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.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">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.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial"
size="-1">g</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">-----
Original Message -----</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">From:
"Joe Campbell" <</font><a
href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net"><font face="Arial"
size="-1">joekc@adelphia.net</font></a><font face="Arial"
size="-1">></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">To: "g.
crabtree" <</font><a
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><font face="Arial"
size="-1">jampot@roadrunner.com</font></a><font face="Arial"
size="-1">></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">Cc:
<</font><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><font face="Arial"
size="-1">vision2020@moscow.com</font></a><font face="Arial"
size="-1">>; "Tom Hansen" <</font><a
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"><font face="Arial"
size="-1">thansen@moscow.com</font></a><font face="Arial"
size="-1">>; "'Mark Solomon'" <</font><a
href="mailto:msolomon@moscow.com"><font face="Arial"
size="-1">msolomon@moscow.com</font></a><font face="Arial"
size="-1">></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">Sent:
Friday, October 19, 2007 6:51 PM</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] Water Concern?</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
face="Arial"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">There were
so many things wrong with the Super Walmart plan it is hard to
begin.<br>
Some people noted the water issue - which is as pervasive as water
itself - but I<br>
never did. For one thing, we have a problem with west-east traffic
flow that a Super<br>
Walmart located on Route 8 would only exacerbate. This 'plan' is
indicative of the<br>
GMA approach to grow first and ask questions later.<br>
<br>
In your original letter on this topic you wrote: "Could be 50-75
years, could be 115-120<br>
years? Could be we really don't know for sure?"<br>
<br>
But if we really don't know for sure, is it wiser to ACT like we have
water for the next<br>
200 years (Krauss: "We could have, at the least, 200 years of
water left"), or to act like<br>
we MIGHT have water for only another 50-75 years? Which would be the
better course<br>
of action if we wanted to, conservatively speaking, plan for the
future?<br>
<br>
The MCA candidates do much better on this issue. Look at the
original<br>
Johnson article for starters.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1"><br>
--<br>
Joe Campbell<br>
<br>
---- "g. crabtree" <</font><a
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><font face="Arial"
size="-1">jampot@roadrunner.com</font></a><font face="Arial"
size="-1">> wrote:<br>
<br>
=============<br>
I beg to differ, when a rational was needed for denying a change in
the<br>
comprehensive plan to accommodate a Wal-Mart in east Moscow water
was<br>
brought up as an issue. Water use is currently being used to meddle
in<br>
Whitman Counties Hawkins development. Water was cited as a reason to
oppose<br>
Naylor Farms.<br>
<br>
In reality the MCA candidates are not as knowledgeable on water issues
as<br>
they (and you) would like to have us believe. The science is not
settled and<br>
there most certainly is not a emergency currently. Pretty much like
Dan,<br>
Wayne, and Walt indicated.<br>
<br>
Water most certainly is an issue but it isn't a crisis and no quote
you can<br>
produce will change that fact.<br>
<br>
g<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: "Joe Campbell" <</font><a
href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net"><font face="Arial"
size="-1">joekc@adelphia.net</font></a><font face="Arial"
size="-1">><br>
To: "g. crabtree" <</font><a
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><font face="Arial"
size="-1">jampot@roadrunner.com</font></a><font face="Arial"
size="-1">><br>
Cc: <</font><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><font
face="Arial" size="-1">vision2020@moscow.com</font></a><font
face="Arial" size="-1">>; "Tom Hansen" <</font><a
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"><font face="Arial"
size="-1">thansen@moscow.com</font></a><font face="Arial"
size="-1">>; "'Mark<br>
Solomon'" <</font><a href="mailto:msolomon@moscow.com"><font
face="Arial" size="-1">msolomon@moscow.com</font></a><font
face="Arial" size="-1">><br>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:57 AM<br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?<br>
<br>
<br>
> No one is using the water issue "as a club to force other
ideological<br>
> visions."<br>
><br>
> The point is just that the GMA candidates are uninformed about
water<br>
> issues.<br>
><br>
> Voters need to know which candidates are and which are not
informed about<br>
> important local issues like WATER. Especially when this can be
easily<br>
> conveyed by merely QUOTING the candidates comments during a
DEBATE.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Joe Campbell<br>
><br>
> ---- "g. crabtree" <</font><a
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><font face="Arial"
size="-1">jampot@roadrunner.com</font></a><font face="Arial"
size="-1">> wrote:<br>
><br>
> =============<br>
> Conservation can never be a bad idea but using the water issue as
a club<br>
> to force other ideological visions on the community where they
don't apply<br>
> (big box ordinances for one example) is disingenuous. I don't
believe that<br>
> the GMA endorsed candidates are suggesting that we make a
desperate<br>
> attempt to suck the aquifer dry before their terms expire. To
suggest<br>
> otherwise is simply partisan politics at its worst.<br>
><br>
> g<br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: "Tom Hansen" <</font><a
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"><font face="Arial"
size="-1">thansen@moscow.com</font></a><font face="Arial"
size="-1">><br>
> To: "'g. crabtree'" <</font><a
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><font face="Arial"
size="-1">jampot@roadrunner.com</font></a><font face="Arial"
size="-1">>; "'Joe Campbell'"<br>
> <</font><a href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net"><font
face="Arial" size="-1">joekc@adelphia.net</font></a><font
face="Arial" size="-1">>; <</font><a
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><font face="Arial"
size="-1">vision2020@moscow.com</font></a><font face="Arial"
size="-1">>; "'Mark Solomon'"<br>
> <</font><a href="mailto:msolomon@moscow.com"><font
face="Arial" size="-1">msolomon@moscow.com</font></a><font
face="Arial" size="-1">><br>
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:29 PM<br>
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Water Concern?<br>
><br>
><br>
>>g -<br>
>><br>
>> You suggested that perhaps none of the city council
candidates have a<br>
>> firm<br>
>> handle on the water situation.<br>
>><br>
>> If this is true, wouldn't it be better advised to err on the
side of<br>
>> caution?<br>
>><br>
>> Both Lamar and Ament cited PBAC as authorities on the figures
they<br>
>> presented<br>
>> yesterday at the CofC Forum. Krauss cited
"something [he] read<br>
>> somewhere"<br>
>> and Steed simply wants to remove limitations and
controls.<br>
>><br>
>> Your thoughts?<br>
>><br>
>> Seeya round town, Moscow.<br>
>><br>
>> Tom Hansen<br>
>> Moscow, Idaho<br>
>><br>
>> "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college
students. The college<br>
>> students are not very active in local elections (thank
goodness!)."<br>
>><br>
>> - Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)<br>
>><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>><br>
>> From:</font> <a
href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com"><font face="Arial"
size="-1">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</font></a><font face="Arial"
size="-1"><br>
>> [mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com]<br>
>> On Behalf Of g. crabtree<br>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:33 PM<br>
>> To: Joe Campbell;</font> <a
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><font face="Arial"
size="-1">vision2020@moscow.com</font></a><font face="Arial"
size="-1">; Mark Solomon<br>
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?<br>
>><br>
>> I assume the statement that includes "...regarding<br>
>> the upper aquifer which if continued to be pumped at current
levels could<br>
>> be<br>
>><br>
>> in crisis as soon as 15-20 years from now." is couched
that way to leave<br>
>> room for the obvious corollary?<br>
>><br>
>> Could be 50-75 years, could be 115-120 years? Could be we
really don't<br>
>> know<br>
>> for sure? Could be that Krauss, Carscallen, and Steed have as
firm a</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">>>
handle<br>
>> on the water situation as any of the MCA candidates do.<br>
>><br>
>> g<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
></font></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>