December
9, 1999 Meeting Minutes
University of Idaho, McClure Hall
Rm. 207
VISITORS: Kathleen Warnick (citizen, Moscow), Roy Mink (Idaho Water Resources Research Institute)
Vice-Chair Craig Benjamin called the meeting to order at 2:35 PM.
Minutes from the November 18, 1999 meeting were approved with no changes. (Approval of minutes motioned and seconded.)
J. McKenna introduced a discussion on Goal No. 5 (dealing with the PBAC’s stance on growth in the basin) by excerpting from a statement provided by Larry Kirkland, PBAC Chair, attached to these minutes, and by reading the following comments emailed to J. McKenna from Scott King of King Groundwater Science of Pullman, Washington.
“The
growth/water-use discussion was very important and the committee should keep on
thinking about this issue. I think that
there has been some recognition of the problems facing the Palouse by the
committee in the past, but the fact is more decisions will have to be made in
the near future
regarding
water use and growth. As more data and
knowledge is collected by the OK project, PBAC should be laying the ground work
for public involvement and education. I
believe that PBAC will need solid backing by an informed public in order to
meet some of its goals such as conservation and obtaining
more
funding for applied research or education programs.
By the
way, on page 2 of the 11/18/99 minutes, Mark Workman's comment that there are
no “ramifications" for exceeding the voluntary pumping limits is right on
from a legal perspective, but there are several from a long-term technical
perspective - continued removal of groundwater from storage (i.e.
mining),
lowering water levels, increased pumping costs.... How PBAC comes to grips with the 1% voluntary limits could be
quite important. By the way, just a 1%
annual increase in pumping means production rates would double in 72 years, 2%
in 36 years etc. A long time for humans but not that long for our aquifer.”
C. Benjamin provided the following summary of his commentary:
“The
committee needs to focus its energy and efforts on the issue of securing a
sustainable water supply, such that the water table stops dropping. I believe that to be the fundamental reason
for the existence of the PBAC. In fact,
if the water table were not dropping, we would not exist as a committee.
In my
opinion:
1. Conservation and education are the
responsibility of the entities.
2. Conservation is limited and will not provide
sufficient reduction in demand to solve the problem. Additional technology such as re-use, surface water collection,
aquifer recharge, etc. must be employed to meet the current and growing demands
for water.
3. The PBAC should define and quantify the
problem such that it can be presented to our entities. Since there is a goal of increased
enrollment and community growth, we are obligated to present the consequences
to the entities. It is not the role of
the PBAC to get information to the public so that the public can apply pressure
to the entities, but rather to investigate, define, and quantify the problem,
such that it (the PBAC) can take the information to the entities.
4. It is not the PBAC's role to take a position
on growth. If the entities intend to
grow, PBAC should use that information to further quantify the problem. County Commissions, City Counsels, and
University Administrations must make decisions about growth. The information provided to the entities by
the Committee should help the decision makers deal with the realities of the
problem and the impact of growth.
While
conservation, education, data keeping, and other Committee activities are
useful, we cannot lose our focus, which is to solve the overall problem. Comment by committee members acknowledged
that increased rates lead to a temporary reduction in water use, but that after
a while, use returns to its former level.
They also noted that entities seem to allow continued development
without regard to impacts
on
water supply and the water table.
J. McKenna noted that Goal 5, from the 1992 Groundwater
Management Plan, is to “Review and make recommendations on all water use or
land use applications with an anticipated impact on the groundwater system that
lies outside the stated goals or policies adopted by the member entities.” Is this how the Committee wants it to
stand? T. Townsend stated that it
should remain and it is the obligation of the Committee to discuss changes that
would affect quantity of water used. C.
Benjamin said that it is not the Committee’s obligation, but rather the
individual representative’s obligation to inform their respective Entities
about water use. Others pointed out
that the strength of the Committee is in that unlike political boundaries, the
Committee transcends these boundaries and represents all aquifer users.
No votes were taken.
A) Budget Update
The only outstanding invoice is $20,000 from the UI for the OK project.
C. Benjamin inquired about reserves in the operating
budgets. J. McKenna stated that the Committee has had an operating budget of
~$30,000 per year for the last several years and this year’s projected
operating budget is $30,800, as presented at the September 1999 meeting (refer
to September 1999 meeting minutes). C.
Benjamin noted that the Entities contribute a total of $20,000 per year to the
Committee’s operating budget, and that additional funds were not approved for
the operating budget. The Entities will
need to assess themselves more to maintain current operations.
R. Mink of IWRRI reported that he brought a draft of a
proposal for basin research to Karl Dryer of Idaho Department of Water
Resources in Boise. His suggestions are to limit the request to less than
$100,000 per year and to broaden the scope to look at other alternative water
sources perhaps revisiting older studies on importing surface water in terms of
today’s economics.
The PBAC website has moved to http://www.uidaho.edu/pbac.
J. McKenna noted she would be attending an initial meeting for a loosely organized group of “resource coordinators” in Latah County, organized by Ken Stintson of Latah Soil and Water Conservation Service to explore opportunities to cooperate on community projects.
J. McKenna encouraged entities to email her updates on all water-related projects on an on-going basis so relevant updates can be mentioned at future meetings.
Palouse - L. Kirkland’s request for the Committee to approve $500 for video-taping the borehole was put on the table until budget questions were resolved.
Pullman – J. McKenna reviewed the specifications for Well No. 7 and requested that funds be available for geochemical analysis of cuttings and logging the hole by Prof. John Bush of the UI.
Moscow – Via email, L. Kirkland requested that Moscow’s treatment plant design should allow for effluent from the new treatment plant to exit in such a manner that a variety of further uses are possible. This should include the possibility of tertiary treatment, feed to an off-stream storage site for feed to various possible uses, piping parallel to the creek for use or infiltration, etc. Moscow water reps were not present to comment.
Prior to the meeting, T. Scallorn of Moscow told J. McKenna that the location of the new well could not be moved further north, because there is no existing water main there and it would be cost-prohibitive to do so.
Latah County – T. Townsend obtained tax assessor records of the number of homesites within the basin boundary in unincorporated Latah County (675). Assuming this is equal to the number of wells, and 225 gallons per day per homesite, there is 152,000 gallons per day or 55.4 million gallons per year used. This is equivalent to 2% of the 2.666 billion gallons pumped by the four Entities in the basin (Moscow, Pullman, UI, WSU) in 1998.
WSU – A meeting is scheduled for December 10, 1999 to review options for the wastewater reuse project. Both City of Pullman and WSU representatives would be present.
J. McKenna announced that a calendar has been created and will be updated with events related to Committee activities and posted on the web site. A copy is attached. Entities are encouraged to review this calendar and provide items of interest to the Committee.
None
The next meeting is Thursday, January 20, 2000 at 2:30 pm in Room 207 McClure Hall at the University of Idaho. The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
NEXT MEETING
Thursday, January 20, 2000
2:30 PM
University of Idaho McClure Hall Room 207
Respectfully Submitted,
Juliet M. McKenna
Executive Secretary/Technical Advisor