Re: public water/private profit

[Burke <cburke@wsunix.wsu.edu>]

There is an additional point that I found troubling after reading the
reports in the Daily news regarding the Naylor Farms request and the
city's response. The city is planning to drill additional wells and feels
that by arguing against Naylor Farms, they will deny their own requests
for additional aquifer water. This response suggests that the city intends
to mine additional water to accomodate it's "growth" objectives
irregardless of the fact that we are currently depleting more water than
is recharged. If the aquifer is to be depleted, I'd rather have whithered
crops covering the ground than concrete.

Charles Burke

On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Bill London wrote:

> I would also welcome an end to closed-door discussions about our water.  I also
> wonder why the county is not involved in this discussion, since it is likely
> that individual farm wells will be directly impacted and since the pumps will
> be located in the county.
>    But I also question two basic assumptions about this request to deplete our
> aquifer.
>     Both assumptions have been repeated by city officials and in the Daily News
> editorial.  I believe both assumptions are wrong.
>     The first assumption is that we can negotiate and compromise a good
> solution to this request.  The request is to create a whole new industry
> (large-scale irrigated agriculture) here on the Palouse.  If we negotiate how
> much water this new industry will pump from our aquifer, we are only
> negotiating how quickly the aquifer will be depleted.  A few individuals may
> profit, but we would all lose because we will run out of water.  We need to
> just say no to this kind of request.  We are already depleting the aquifer
> because of our continued compromising.
>     The second assumption is that it would be bad to get state or federal
> regulators involved.  I welcome the involvement of any oversight agency that
> could control our continued mining of this aquifer.
>     BL
> 
> Priscilla Salant wrote:
> 
> > Visionaries,
> >
> > I have so many questions about the proposed irrigation project.  Does
> > anyone know more about the efficacy of applying clay as a pesticide?  And
> > our topography here on the Palouse would seem to preclude extensive
> > irrigation, especially of this magnitude.  What's the plan?
> >
> > I also don't understand why discussions are being held behind closed doors.
> >  The public will benefit by hearing both the pros and cons instead of
> > speculating about tidbits of information and rumor.  Open the discussions,
> > please.
> >
> > Priscilla Salant
> >
> > At 08:31 AM 11/6/2002 -0800, Bill London wrote:
> > >    Naylor Farms (located a few miles north of Moscow) has requested
> > >rights to pump 2.8 billion gallons of water from our aquifer every year
> > >to use for irrigated farming in this area.  The request to the Idaho
> > >water rights board was made by Brent Thompson, who owns the Sacajawea
> > >Motel in Lewiston.
> > >    2.8 billion gallons per year is more than the cities of Moscow and
> > >Pullman PLUS both universities used in 1998.
> > >    According to Mark Cook, Moscow's public works director, both Moscow
> > >and Pullman have filed a protest with the Idaho Department of Water
> > >Resources and will be meeting with them on Friday.  Both Moscow and
> > >Pullman are asking Naylor Farms to withdraw that request.  If Naylor
> > >refuses, the cities hope to schedule a public hearing here about this.
> > >    Stay tuned....
> > >
> > >
>