Re: Palouse aquifier

[Greg Brown <gregb@alaskapacific.edu>]

John Murray wrote:

> Local News Items:
> 1.  City of Moscow approves large development north of town, including over
> 100 new dwelling units.
> 2.  Whitman County approves 56 acre industrial park north of Pullman.
>
> In either case, impacts on the future of the Palouse regional aquifier
> system were not addressed.  Rather, both project reviews took the position
> that either the State was the responsible agency for review (Washington), or
> that until there was an emergency declared, the City had no authority to
> condition aquifier impact mitigation (Moscow).  This is an important
> regional issue.  A regional task force was formed some time ago, the Palouse
> Basin Aquifier Committee.  Why isn't this committee becoming involved in
> land use planning?  Does anyone think this is important?

    The issue is extremely important.
    As I remember (bad starting point for this discussion), the two
cities and the two universities entered into a cooperative agreement to
manage (and presumably, limit, if necessary)
consumption from the aquifer.  As I remember, the guidelines were based
on % increase rather than absolute volume (a dubious conservation
standard for aquifers).  The voluntary agreement looked good on paper
(hey, look at us State and EPA--we're doing something!) but was ignored
during my time in Moscow.   The City Council blinked on every
development issue that came before them as if development and water
usage are unrelated.

  What happened to the 4-way agreement between the 2 universities and
cities?


--
Greg Brown, Associate Professor
(gregb@alaskapacific.edu)
Alaska Pacific University
(907) 564-8267
Fax: (907) 562-4276