Members Attendance

VISITORS:  John Bush, UI Professor Geological Sciences; Nancy Chaney, Moscow City Council-elect; John Dickinson, Moscow City Council-elect; Farida Leek, WSU Ph D student; Angie Petersen, Drinking Water Analyst, ID DEQ; Hansue Qui, WSU Post Doctorate Researcher; Kathleen Warnick, interested citizen.
 

1)      Call to Order and Approval of November 20, 2003 Minutes
Jay Becker, the PBAC Chair, called the meeting to order at 2:30 PM.  The minutes of the November 20, 2003 meeting were approved by consensus.

2)      Continued Discussion of possible Declaration of Idaho side of Palouse Basin as a Ground Water Management Area (GWMA)
Becker reviewed past discussions of the options that have been mentioned or proposed by various parties for the Idaho side of the Palouse Basin: Critical Ground Water Management Area (CGWMA), GWMA and continuing the present de fault GWMA under PBAC as expressed in the Ground Water Management Plan signed by the two state water agencies.  Becker used two maps created by Latah County technicians for a County Commissioner hearing to point out how small the portion of the Basin located in Idaho is and the need for Basin-wide action to stabilize falling Grande Ronde aquifer system water levels.  He emphasized that the role of PBAC becomes more important than ever as more pressure is exerted to stabilize the falling water levels.  Becker reviewed some of the recent projects and accomplishments of PBAC and emphasized that the earlier PBAC goal of stabilizing pumping has shifted to stabilizing Grande Ronde water levels.  The technical research undertaken by PBAC has as its goal providing policy makers with the needed information to make a decision on how best to bring about the stabilization of the deep aquifer water levels.
        This was followed by a discussion of immediate PBAC priorities.  Getting the 2002 & 2003 annual reports out and working on better communications were emphasized.  The PBAC web-site needs to be kept up-to-date.  Having good data immediately available has become very important.  The topic of geologic truth versus speculation was mentioned based on some comments at the City of Moscow groundwater hearing.
        Becker proposed having a project report and a budget update at each meeting.  He proposed mailing these out before each meeting.  The above needs also led to suggesting a more successful effort to get student help starting next semester.
Townsend said he did not want to see the State of Idaho pre-empt PBAC’s local, interstate co-operative efforts based on the poor outcome that resulted when the Paradise Creek WAG interstate cooperation was largely nullified by state intervention.
The discussion then turned to whether PBAC should make a recommendation regarding the petition presented to IDWR for declaration of the Idaho side of the Basin as either a Ground Water Management Area or a Critical Ground Water Management Area.  A number of important topics were brought up and/or discussed.  Is not a basin-wide effort such as what PBAC is currently pursuing in the best public interest?  Should not any declaration differentiate between the shallow aquifer system, which is being adequately recharged at this time, and the deep aquifer system, where water levels have historically been falling fairly consistently?  Will a declaration help or hinder progress and funding support?  At this point Steve Busch recommended that PBAC avoid a statement that could undermine its effectiveness as research based cooperative.  Mark Workman took this further and recommended that PBAC stay its course following and upgrading the Ground Water Management Plan as it has been doing and avoid getting involved in politics.  Energy should be put into strengthening PBAC and procuring more funding.  Several members concurred.
        Busch said he was excited about the flattening trend exhibited in the data presented by Les MacDonald on Moscow’s deep well water levels.  The data and trend line appear to show that Moscow’s deep aquifer water levels have been dropping less and less in recent years.  That is, the water levels appear to be stabilizing.  However, Busch also expressed concern that there be a formal review of the data and its presentation to make sure there are not any surprises in the conclusions drawn.  Kirkland agreed to review the data and have it checked against other local water level data.  When asked how the water level figures were arrived at Tom Scallorn said that multiple water level readings are taken each day which are averaged and the averages for each day are used to arrive at the average for the month.  The March monthly average for each year was used in the graphics because that would give a reasonable estimate of water levels before each summer pumping season. 
        John Dickinson asked about Karl Dreher’s stance on possible declaration of the Idaho portion of the Basin as a ground water management area.  In the ensuing comments, Latah County  Commissioner Tom Stroschein, who owns farm property in southern Idaho where water rights adjudication has been going on for years, said he did not want to see local water issues go the way they had in southern Idaho.  Based on his experience in the Snake River area, approaching Director Dreher with a united plan is highly recommended.  He said PBAC is a unique group with a plan for arriving at a solution to the local water supply problem, which will not be improved by getting the State of Idaho involved.  He encouraged entities to strengthen PBAC and expand monitoring to surface water as well as ground water in Latah County.  And he encouraged all parties to make an effort to reach a collaborative agreement on what should be done to present to Director Dreher at the IDWR hearing to be held in February.  Stroschein also said he was committed to coming up with additional funding to move the PBAC plan forward faster if necessary.
Barney Waldrop said he though Becker’s statement about PBAC providing technical expertise to help area entities make the best decision on how to proceed was good and he hoped that IDWR Director Dreher would allow PBAC to continue the needed technical studies so that a more reasoned decision could be made in a couple years.  This was followed by a question of whether a new model was needed for the basin.
        The discussion next turned to a question about the “model” of the basin presented by Phil Nesbet at the City hearing.  Mr. Nesbet stated that the eastern portion of the basin is divided into subbasins by east-west ridges in the basement rock and the apparent subbasin divide between Moscow and Pullman is caused by a north-south fault line.  John Bush said there is no evidence he is aware of for Nesbet’s proposed ridge under “D” Street in Moscow.  He did say he agreed with Phil about the ancient streams flowing westerly and then out to the north rather than south to what is now the Snake River Canyon. 
Tom Townsend asked Bill French, a member of the coalition petitioning IDWR for declaration of the Idaho side of the Basin as a GWMA, what he wanted to see come out of the request.  French said the local entities cannot supply enough water to meet the needs of growth following present practices.  Conservation should be a major part of all programs to deal with local water supply and the falling water levels.  So far there has been very little conservation in French’s opinion.  PBAC’s timeline for stabilizing deep aquifer water levels by 2020 calls for considerable conservation at the present time which is not happening.  Becker disagreed with French that little conservation is occurring and sited several examples at WSU and UI which he was personally familiar with.  He said there is a lot of common ground between PBAC and the coalition and encouraged the coalition members to work with PBAC and the entities to put more conservation in place.
        Townsend stated that the universities have made tremendous strides in conservation because they have clear control over their water systems.  It takes longer and is harder for the cities to accomplish conservation because of all the individual decisions involved.
With the PBAC meeting time almost gone, Busch said the City of Moscow will probably pass a motion at the Monday evening meeting and asked what input, if any, PBAC would make.  Les MacDonald recommended that PBAC continue to focus on the planning and technical aspects of finding a long-range solution.  Mark Workman moved and Rob Corcoran seconded that PBAC take no action regarding a recommendation to the Moscow City Council.  The motion passed unanimously. 
Tom Stroeschein again urged the coalition and all other involved parties to sit down together.  There is a need for a cooperative effort and an immediate opportunity to show the State of Idaho that local interests can agree on what needs to be done.

3)      City of Moscow Update on Water Use based on Cleaning of fouled Meters- PBAC members agreed that the details in water use and measurement need not be brought before the Committee.  The details can be mentioned in the reporting. Nancy Chaney reiterated PBAC’s mission and stated that PBAC should stick to its mission but should be careful to provide definitive data and a clear reporting method so that there is no quibbling over which figures to use and rely on.  

4)      NEXT MEETING DATE
Because a lot is planned for the next PBAC meeting, it will start at 1:30 PM rather than 2:30 PM on January 15 in the Pullman City Hall.

The meeting was adjourned by consensus.

Respectfully Submitted,

Larry Kirkland