Water at a Crossroads

By lordoflys
(2 votes) (report abuse)
Effortless kayaking on the Yakima River near Wade's Pond

There may never be another time in modern history for Yakima River Basin water users to collectively endorse a plan that meets all current and future water needs. What is at stake is whether this group, the Yakima Basin Water Enhancement Project, can all agree on a single plan. Without it, federal and state agencies will not be able to put forth a single effort to protect and enhance fish, to alleviate crippling droughts that hurt area farmers and ranchers, and to ensure local communities get enough water to prosper and grow.

A successful outcome of the Arboretum Talks could be the single most important event affecting the lives of citizens in Kittitas, Yakima, and Benton Counties for decades.  The plan includes additional water storage, improved fish habitat, irrigation upgrades and more. Key proponents of the plan, Reclamation, Ecology, the Yakama Nation, and irrigation managers all agree. What is holding the plan up are, yes, County Commissioners. Without an endorsement from the commissioners from the tri-counties, the plan will stall and die a natural death.

It is truly amazing that, after millions of dollars in studies, crippling droughts that have made life miserable for agriculture and fisheries, and false starts on other water storage projects....that a lack of leadership may destroy this one chance at success.

My single Christmas wish this year is that we will finally be able to move forward on a water plan that benefits everyone. I have no other details on why the commissioners failed to move forward except what I read in the papers. Yakima County Commissioner Mike Leita was quoted as saying "We have to digest this material", and that  "We don't sign blank checks in Yakima County".  Excuse me for digressing here, but what a moronic statement. The commissioners also collectively stated that they were not authorized to express their county's position on the plan. Well, hell boys, then who is?????? The librarian?

After years of trying to move forward on this subject my patience as well as many others are being tested yet again.  The sad truth is that unless this effort is supported by everyone, it will go nowhere except history's dustbed of past failed water efforts...if there is room.

More Moratorium bylordoflys2 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
The DOE's emergency rule regarding groundwater use in the upper county has been extended. Talks are on-going but are they serious? In good faith? Ground appropriation from aquifers reduces stream flow. We don't know by how much yet...but will soon. Who cares? Local politicians blame "outside agitators" (Hinkle), or Roslyn "malcontents". In reality, the Roslyn group, Aqua Permanente, submitted the actual petition but the move has been supported by more than Roslyn residents. Irrigation groups, including the Roza Irrigation District and the Yakama Nation are on record of supporting DOE's decision. Not on record but ready to pounce are irrigation and farm groups from Thrall to the Tri-Cities.

Kittitas County Commissioners have failed to mitigate or even negotiate in good faith with DOE on this issue and likewise have failed to comply with the Growth Management Act. What is the reason? Well, this county seems mired, ankle-deep in political dogma. Even after the Republican AG, Rob McKenna upheld DOE's right to withdraw water from appropriation they still didn't get it. Written testimony was requested from the County. Two out of three Roslyn writers support the moratorium, given that except for a gift of water from Suncadia, city water would have been shut off despite a water right that goes back 100 years.

Marshall Madson, speaking on behalf of the Ellensburg Chamber of Commerce, says simply that the "DOE has no interest in relieving the economic anguish and emotional suffering of our citizens". He goes on to say that DOE has used "poor judgement" etc. etc. He then urges the local politicians to "resist the intimidating tactics" of the DOE. Where has this kind of mud-slinging gotten us, Marshall? All of us upper county residents thank you for your thoughtful input.

Again, Madson and other civic leaders seem to think that DOE has a bullseye on Kittitas residents. The big picture, surely big enough for all to see, is that:

1. there is not enough water and that...

2. the existing water resource is threatened

3. Most of the water user groups in the Yakima Basin SUPPORT the DOE in this decision...and finally,

4. The moratorium could have been avoided.

Instead of pointing fingers and name calling the commissioners have a chance to really contribute to the well being of this county by supporting the Yakima Basin Arboretum Plan which will add significant water supply to the basin. This would make any headwater ground appropriation question a non-issue. It's not too late. Get busy. You're being paid to make the right decisions. Otherwise, move on.
RE: More Moratorium bycountrygirl112 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse)
A representative from Kittitas County BOCC only showed up for about 4 of the 4 months (2 meetings a month)worth of meetings. I hope one of them is reading the e-mail up dates.
A little economics refresher:

* The economic crash predated the moratorium by nearly a year.

* At the time of the crash there was in excess of 24 months of homes on the market in Kittitas County (Center for Real Estate Research, WSU)

* Although many factors contributed to the crash, it was, by definition, an unsustainable level of development created by the building ponzi scheme that imploded at the county, state and national levels.

* The bsnks that do not want to loan now are sorry they made the previous shaky loans that played an important part in the economic crash. The moratorium is a convenient excuse not to make those mistakes again.
Clearly, it is pretty lame to blame the closure for the econmic woes in the county.

The moratorium was a last resort to protect senior water rights holders from the building bonanza that refused to recognize and address the abuses to the system. The permit-exempt system was put into place in 1945 to assist the small family farmers; not during the time of massive mansion-scale developments.

At a hearing on Dec. 4th before the House Committee on Ag and Natural Resources Mark McClain publicly stated (and it's on tape) the moratorium is about 2 people in Kittitas County that want to stop growth. Also present were Sean Northrup and Anne Watanabe who pointed out that the problem originated with the abuse of the permit-exempt well system. If we could just fix those darn serial short plats none of this would be a problem. . . . they did fail to mention, however, that their respective development groups (and dozens and dozens of related LLCs) were the biggest violators of this pattern of development.

The pattern of approval or non approval of comp plan amendments, code updates and rezones, etc. by the BOCC is a clear indication that they want the farmers to fail and sell off to the developers. Slamming the door on community wind, which is a way for farmers to off set their energy use from the conversion of flood irrigation to pumps and sprinkler systems to CONSERVE WATER, was a big disappointment.

The BOCC put all their eggs in the residential, 2nd and recreational home boom. The issue of where all the water was going to come from never entered their minds, blinded as they were by the dollar signs.
Moretorium Reality byJeremy2 months ago (7 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Now don't make it sound like there are more moratorium supporters than there really is. 3 people signed a petition, 2 lower valley groups wrote letters of support, and some outside anti-everything groups jumped aboard. Hardly sounds like a majority. I'm sure you attended the public meetings, an overwhelming majority of LOCAL residents opposed this moratorium.

Our county leadership has looked at the facts and stood their ground. DOE created an MOA that was based upon the re-defining of the exempt well rule, the AGO was clear that the exemption can not be curtailed. If it was not for the County Commissioners asking the AG for clarity we would have been entered into an agreement that violated states rules.

Second, state rules already ask for anyone who is claiming impairment to demonstrate the impairment. This is simple if there is an impairment problem you should be able to show examples easily. But still no examples of this so-called impairment have ever been shared.

The supporters of the moratorium have no evidence or facts. Just the same old, the sky is falling and complaining about local politics. Nothing new.
RE: Moretorium Reality byAureliux2 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse)
It does not sound like the real issue is the moratorium or exempt wells. Someone apparently just wants to keep hammering on the issue of trying to shut down ALL new construction in the county.

And not to mention the cheap shots at our present popularly elected county representatives because they may appear to be of a slightly different political platform.

Do believe there are some proposals to solve ALL the problems all the way around to please all interested parties. So far all I've seen, which is no solution at all, is to create some kind of new well water utility, meter wells, charge more, and send the money to the senior water rights holders. Which MAY be the bottom line, $$$ for someone, under the pretense of protecting the environment.

This will inconvenience some but it will also not really stop unlimited growth in this county. Why keep pushing to only inconvenience someone which will, ultimately, not solve any part of our concerns?

I had a nice well, about 800' deep N of E-burg, 3hp pump, fantastic water on 22 acres and I "TRIED" to put in a little orchard and a nice fun garden. I know I wasn't pumping anything near the atrocious 5,000 gallon a day limit. When I was watering 3X a week, my electric bill jumped up over an extra $40.00 a month!

So how could I have possibly been creating any problems with the surface water supply? There's supposed to be a thick, heavy impenetrable clay layer so the water wells are drilled into can't get up to the surface. Unless there's an artesian somewhere that "I" don't know about?

Seems to me that if there were MORE places up north pumping a little bit out for simple small yard irrigation, there'd be BETTER surface water run off and fish would be happier and life would be just grand.

Just because water is pumped up through a well, it doesn't automatically get piped off to Mars or Venus, you know? Once upon a time I used to fill a big thermos bottle of well water to take with me when I traveled but I have since apologized, repented, and promised mother earth that I would never do that again!

There's more to this impairment situation, too. As far as being a true blue wonderful earth loving environmentalist? Fences impair wildlife, are those next? Then we could reintroduce antelope, bison, moose, and caribou. The elk could run around a little better. Then we'd need to have grizzly bears and wolves back, they are a real vital part of a healthy vibrant ecosystem.

Have heard all the wonderful earth first arguments to tearing out all the dams. There's another good impairment argument, dams impair rivers.

Wind machines that generate electricity supposedly impair birds.

Eating meat impairs the quality of life for animals. So to be a true environmentalist, should we ultimately all choose to become 100% v'gans? Only eat raw veggies, live under ground, make it illegal to cut any more trees to build cheap stick frame houses?

Twisting this water problem around to fit a certain political platform and agenda, to me, is dishonest and unethical. Claiming possible impairment of the water supply and screaming about this county administration is as kosher, to me, as getting wound up about the missing weapons of mass destruction to justify the war in Iraq.

L'o' Flies SEEMS to be on track to finding a solution that might work for everyone. Thank you very much for doing that, while we may not agree on everything I appreciate your postings. And I want to get out in my kayak, too.

In the last few weeks I've seen MORE new well drilling outfits around the county than ever. So this fine discussion has set off a panic to get them drilled now. And I'm sure that hasty little shacks will pop up with them, with a big stale "FOR SALE" sign to keep them company.

A.
Moratorium Issues bylordoflys2 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
First, I hope that I am correct when I say that we are all against the moratorium and we all hope it ends soon. Good to see you all back. I note that Aureliux is getting a bit metaphysical. Must be the holidays.

1. Jeremy is right in that the DOE does not know what impact the pumping of groundwater has on the total water supply. But A NUMBER OF PARTIES have asked the DOE to close new appropriation of water until the groundwater study is completed. DOE release 11/30 09-280

2. This is not about construction. This is about water. But they are related closely. The moratorium's initial impact is to shut down any new appropriation. It does not affect vested or anybody whose received building permits in the upper county by July 16, 2009 UNLESS they have mitigated the water appropriation (this is where is gets scary).

3. We know that the DOE is trying to push the "water banking" concept. The million dollar question is...When the USGS study is completed, will the DOE, based on the results, REQUIRE mitigation for all new appropriation? My experience tells me that this will get expensive. Possibly too expensive for average home builders, even 2nd home builders. Unless DOE awards grants the way the did the City of Roslyn, when they needed water. It will probably be the developers burden eventually, to buy a fraction of a share and divide it up among a cluster plat. Now that's food for thought. No wonder developers want to get inside the city limits.

4. The proliferation of development, and resulting well digging, in the Yakima River headwaters is what is giving DOE cold feet. Unfortunately, the USGS study may indeed offer proof that x amount of wells are affecting stream flow. Or, it may be inconclusive, which in a way could be worse. What there will be, unless the study concludes that there is no proof that wells have this affect, is a series of unending lawsuits. A water rights attorney is the best job in this basin. Plenty of work.

5. Let me get back on my soap box and preach once again, that, additional water storage could make the moratorium a moot point, despite any USGS conclusion. If we let the Arboretum Plan pass without everyone embracing it our future in agriculture, development, and recreation is iffy at best. At long last there is a plan that is good for business, agriculture, fisheries and civic needs. It's success is solely on the backs of County Commissioners, although a high five from any one of our State Reps would be a good thing at this point in time.
Moratorium Issues, Yes... byAureliux2 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse)
Metaphysical, YES! Must have been too much tofu in the early 70's, sorry about that.

BUT I don't see any problem with more storage. How could anyone resist that Arboretum project? Is the last and final obstacle the funding?

A.
RE: Moratorium Issues bywhatatrip2 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
This is where DOE is on the issue of ground water and surface water and the connection between them. I quote from a letter to Chelan and Douglas county commissioners.

"Recent scientific studies conclude that most of the basin's groundwater flows into the Yakima River and its tributaries, and that new groundwater wells would affect streamflows and "capture" water supplies that would otherwise be available to senior surface water right holders in times of drought. Thus, the increased use of new permit-exempt wells further contributes to the basin's already critical water supply problems."

Maybe I am reading this wrong but it seems pretty clear to me impairment via connection is a reality. It makes good logical sense and the only question is one of time. How long does it take groundwater to recharge and discharge. Some transfers happen very fast and other transfers make take days, weeks, months or even years. Ground water sources close to lakes and rivers will likely transfer back and forth rather fast and those sources further away will take longer.

However, even in those that are further away if they have water or had water before pumping, they will likely be recharged by the lakes or rivers and that will draw water from those surface waters. Bottom line is, the more wells there are with permit-exempt water, the larger the problem becomes. With a County like Kittitas County that has no limits on the number of wells that can be drilled, the problem could easily get to the point where everyone suffers.

If I were a senior water rights holder in the lower valley and my livelihood depended upon a supply of water, I would have no problem shutting off the taps of those who don't have a water right to go with their well. If the number of wells that could be drilled could be numbered by land use policies that have boudaries, then the water could be quantified and dealt with. Currently those boundaries don't exist.
Impairment? byJeremy2 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Impairment has to be shown, not based on a departments agenda. A notification of the impairment has to be filed, WAC 173-150-070. Any senior water rights holder can do it but they have to also describe the impairment. Last time I checked none have been filed with the state pertaining to Kittitas Countys Exempt Wells. Dont you think that if impairment was happening that at least one notification would have been filed?

Exempt wells do not use much water to begin with, especially when you are talking about 3-5gpm wells. Second homes do not use as much water since they are part time. Most homes in the upper county have natural landscape which also lessens the water use. So when you are talking about the wells that have been drilled in the last 5 years the water use is minimal. Especially when you introduce the recharge to the wells being used and the recharge produced by them.
Chapter 173-150 WAC, Protection Of Withdrawal Facilities Associated With Ground Water Rights bywhatatrip2 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
You will have to come up with a different sitation. 173-150 has to do with ground water rights, not surface water rights. This chapter is to protect well owners and ground water rights, not surface water rights.

Impairment has been shown otherwise why would junior water right holders be restricted during dry years. If there were no impairment, junior water right holders would not be restricted. Since the connection between surface and ground water has been established, senior surface water rights holders will going after ground water in addition to junior surface water rights when they become impacted.
Groundwater in Kittitas County byJeremy2 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Aren't we talking about groundwater? Exempt wells use groundwater. Defintion provided by the WAC "Ground water" means all waters that exist beneath the land surface or beneath the bed of any stream, lake or reservoir, or other body of surface water, whatever may be the geological formation or structure in which such water stands or flows, percolates or otherwise moves.

Looks to me like there are to seperate terms in this defintion, groundwater and surface water. Just like surface water rights and groundwater rights.

Once again no demonstrated impairment has been shown.
RE: Groundwater in Kittitas County bywhatatrip2 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
Yes, we are talking about ground water but not in the sense that you are nor from the point of view that you are. I am talking about ground water from the point of view of the senior water rights holders and from the point of view of the law which supports the view of the senior water rights holders.

Senior water rights holders have a right to a precribed amount of surface water. That includes all the water that comes in the form of rain or snow. It also includes any water that is stored on or in the ground that serves as a storage capacity for surface water. Such bodies of water include lakes, ponds, swamps, wet lands and yes, even water beneath the ground stores water in the form of underground lakes, ponds, swamps, wet lands and and ground that acts like sponge. As the level of surface water lowers, ground water is given up to surface water. Water always falls to the lowest point and if the lake or stream is lower than the ground water, ground water will flow towards the lake or stream and vice versa.

There is a constant flow back and forth but whatever was, could be or ends up being surface water is surface water and surface water has been over allocated. The current view of water is that it is all one body of water and the science proves that view to be true eventhough the common sense view of it has been around for a long time.

It is true that some bodies of underground water was formed by surface water a long time ago after the ice ages and they may not be recharged with current surface water but most undground bodies of water that are dealing with do get recharged by surface water and recharging takes away from surface water. Senior water rights holders are calling the shots unless the law changes and I doubt that will happen. It takes a lot of water to grow our food and fish.
? byJeremy2 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
So you have your own definition of groundwater? The definition of groundwater that I gave comes straight out of the WAC, the states definition. Im sure that you would like it differently but that is the whole reason for Surface rights and Groundwater rights.

If it were as simple as you try to makes it sound, then the examples of impairment would be easy to demonstrate. That is the proof that it takes, without proof its just a concept that was made up to fit political agendas.
RE: ? bywhatatrip2 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
I am using the same definition of ground water that you are using. I am also adding the reality of connectivity between ground water and surface water. I don't understand why you are having such a hard time understanding the concept.

It is as simple as I make it sound, that is why impairment is a reality, the question is to what degree the impairment exists. How many wells will it take to cause a problem? Should there be a very dry year and a lot of ground water is pumped out, how long will it take to recharge, months or years? Should there be a second dry year and ground water hasn't fully recharged, how much worse will the impariment be.

Impairment has been demonstrated, it has been proven. That is what the studies have been all about. It is not just a concept, it is observable and it can be demonstated. You can do it yourself. Get a big tub or some kind of lined container, fill it with dirt then drill two holes in it some distance apart. Start filling one hole with water and at the same time watch water in the other hole "magically" appear and fill to the same level as the hole you are filling. There will be some delay but they will equalize to the same level.

Next start pumping water our of one hole and watch the water in the other hole "magically" disappear. You can label one hole ground water and the other surface water.
Impairment byJeremy2 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Then show us your example of impairment, real impairment not the idea of it. The definition of groundwater that the state gives is pretty clear. If it was as connected as you make it sound wells would be drying up all over. You still need real evidence, not just a concept.

I think a lot of your questions you have on the wells and dry years has already been studied. Look at the USGS, the years that it covers include drought years. They might help in answering some of your questions.
RE: Impairment bywhatatrip2 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
You have got to be putting me on. You are a well driller. I would expect that you would already understand the fundamentals of ground/surface water and hydrology. I wish I could post the whole letter from DOE to Chelan and Douglas counties for you to see. It has their position, a lot of references and lots of pictures and diagrams of how ground water and surface water interact. OK, I found a place to post it. See below. You can view it online or download/save it and view it on your computer or print it out. It is more the 8mb so not for dial up internet connections and I don't know if I can leave it up there for more than a week.

As for why wells don't go dry, there is recharge from rivers and lakes. Some wells will be recharged fast, others slowly depending upon how long it takes the water to travel through the ground. That is the point of senior water rights holders, they are saying surface water is continuing to recharge ground water WITH THEIR WATER. Logic and science back them up. Water does not magically appear underground or disappear nor does God put it there.

If there were no more rain or snow, the lakes would dry up, the rivers would not flow and ground water sources that are pumping water will go dry, some very quickly and other more slowly. The Odessa aquafir east of us was formed, I am told or read, by the last ice age. It is being pumped for irrigation. I believe the water level is dropping 7 feet per year. Too bad we couldn't use excess Comumbia River water to recharge it. Here is the document.

http://pws.cablespeed.com/~cvs/media/Letter.pdf
RE: Impairment bycountrygirl112 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse)
The RCW that allows Ecology to close a basin to further withdrawls is:

RCW 90.54.050(2)
Setting aside or withdrawing water - Rules - Consultation with legislative committees - Public hearing, notice - Review.

In conjunction with the programs provided for in RCW 90.54.040(1), whenever it appears necessary to the director in carrying out the policy of this chapter, the department may by rule adopted pursuant top chapter 34.05RCW:

(1) Reserve and set aside waters for beneficial utilization in the future, and

(2) When sufficient information and data are lacking to allow for the making of sound decisions, withdraw various waters of the state from additional appropriations until such data and information are available. Before proposing the adoption of rules to withdraw waters of the state from additional appropriation, the department shall consult with the standing committees of the house of representatives and the senate having jurisdiction over water resource management issues.

Prior to the adption of a rule under this section, the department shall conduct a public hearing in each county in which waters relating to the rule are located. The public hearing shall be preceded by a notice placed in a newspaper of general circulation published within each of said counties. Rules adopted hereunder shall be subject to review in accordance with the provisions of RCW 34.05.240.



There is no need to show impairment or prove impairment. A complete study of the headwaters of the Yakima Basin has never been done. Yes, there are studies ad nausium, and all of those studies are out dated.

The current, recently completed study by the USGS covers the LOWER basin. While Kittitas County may in the scheme of things use very little of the total water available ALL of that water is allocated - ACTUALLY OVER ALLOCATED. The science proves a connection between surface and groundwater. This is why the Yakima Basin Storage Enchancement Project (YRBWEP) is so important.

I would advice anyone concerned about water to contact the BOCC and urge them to endorce the YRBWEP.
Considering the facts byJeremy2 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
You can talk about connectivity all day long, the point is that if these wells in the Upper County are as connected as the state claims there should be proof of it some where. Either in the flow measurements of the rivers and streams or in an impairment of a water right. Neither of which have been demonstrated.

Studies take a long time, you cant simply say that some are outdated just because they don't show the information you want them to. We cant have costly studies done constantly just because a 3 person group complains, lots of studies have been done on the area. Hopefully the next study will put some of these concepts to rest.
Comments bylordoflys2 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Mr. Scott Nicolai wrote a good letter to the editor on Dec.18th. Interestingly enough, some the comments posted after were just as good.


water so good wrote on Dec 20, 2009 9:59 AM:
" Part of the hypocrisy is the the DOE didn't put a moratorium on all of kittitas county, yakima county and benton county all of which are in the Yakima watershed. If they were truly trying to protect water rights, that is the thing to do.

This comment deserves an answer from the DOE so have asked Melissa Downes and Judy Beitel of Ecology. Stand by. Meanwhile, though, the there IS a moratorium on non-exempt wells per the paragraph below.

In 1999, ecology imposed an administrative moratorium on
issuing any ground water permits for new consumptive uses in the
Yakima basin, which includes Kittitas County. That moratorium did
not apply to permit-exempt withdrawals (Chap.173-539A Upper Kittitas Ground Water Rule).

Other comments from the letter deal with salmon recovery in the Yakima watershed. My own feeling is this: I've lived along the river for 50 years and it's only been the past few years that I've spotted steelhead and salmon as far upriver as Thorp. A month ago was the first time I've ever spotted a pelagic fish jumping up a diversion dam. Obviously, the Cle Elum hatchery has something to do with as well as the millions that BPA pays the Nation in fish mitigation. But, to tell the truth, I don't care where the money comes from. I see so much of it wasted anyway that as far as Im concerned it's money well spent.

op wrote on Dec 19, 2009 7:36 PM:
" What part of, by the time there is impairment it's too late, do you not get? The basin is OVER allocated, there is scientific proof of the connection between surface water and ground water. Anyone with 2 functioning synapsis can see the need for responsible planning for future water users. Since the BOCC of Kittitas County refuse to plan responsibly the DOE had to step in.
Heck they can not even be bothered to go to the YRBWEP 2009 Work Group meetings. "

Amen to that, op. I am convinced at this point that the BOCC screwed up to begin with, and now are likely to miss the boat on new storage by playing politics.

whatatrip wrote on Dec 20, 2009 1:11 PM:
" Ob is right, anyone with 2 synapses cans see the need for responsible planning. I will admit that several years ago I thought there was plenty of water. Most years there is plenty of water but during dry years there is not enough water. As a junior water rights holder, my water has been rationed a couple of times in the past decade and the trend seems to point to it happening more often. Back then I didnt know much about water law or that all of the water in the Yakima Basis is already spoken for. There is not enough water to go around in dry years and it is only wise to plan for those years.

There is a letter going around from DOE (I believe to Chelan County) explaining the water situation and it does a good job of explaining where we are. Impairment has been shown. All the scientific data, including new studies show connectivity between ground water and surface water and as such, there is a connection between ground water and impairment. Jeremy is arguing a losing argument. All the senior water rights holders have to know is that their supply of water is in jeopardy. When that happens, they can cut back or shut down all junior water rights holders and all exempt wells that dont have a mitigated water right.

We decimated the salmon population because of poor policies, including over fishing. Had we planned wisely and not allowed this resource to be destroyed, we would not have to be spending millions, if not billions on salmon recovery. If we continue with unwise use and management of water, we will find ourselves in the same sad situation as we do with fish. "

whatatrip is right on the money. By the way, Citigroup is paying the US back the $20 billion it borrowed. Maybe someone can contact Doc Hastings if he's returned from his latest junket and ask him for some of that to expand Bumping Lake.

The next two comments are diametrically opposed. There are two sides here and maybe the truth lies in between or not.

Gill net wrote on Dec 22, 2009 9:02 AM:
" Sorry Nemo, Fish and River are correct. They have a friend who just quit at DFW salmon recovery. She talked with the Bio's and saw the reports. Tribes do not count or monitor the number of fish they take and they never put a ban on a poor return year. There is no data that shows hatchery fish make an impact on overall returns over time (that study was not released). The "historic" run up the Manastash went only a few hundred yards. I used to see it when I was a kid. If you want an example of how well the tribe regulates their sporting activities look at the Clockum elk herd. Hundreds of millions are being spent on a poor return. "

Report Abuse

Salmon wrote on Dec 21, 2009 10:31 PM:
" The level of ignorance and rumor mongering exhibited by River, Little, and Nemo is truly staggering. First of all, Tribal salmon harvest is closely regulated by the Tribes, in their role as co-managers with the State. Second, Tribal salmon harvest numbers are collected and become part of the data base utilized by all the managers. Third, salmon and steelhead historically utilized all tributaries in the Yakima Basin, including Manastash Creek and others in Kittitas County. Fourth, a significant per-centage of spring chinook returning to the Yakima Basin are a result of the Cle Elum Supplementation Facility. I expect that River, Little, and Nemo will not participate in the spring chinook sport fishery projected for next spring, since the recovery of spring chinook in the Yakima Basin was, and continue to be, a major Tribal effort.

Scott's thoughtful comments pointed out that water issues are indeed difficult, but not impossible. Over the last 25 years in the Yakima Basin, people have been able to come to the table and work trough many difficult water and fishery issues, including a number of thorny issues in Kittitas County. We now have incubation flows in the Upper Yakima Basin; we have fish passage at most irrigation diversions; we have implemented significant habitat restoration projects; we have salmon and steelhead spawning in areas where they had been absent for 100 years. We have people working together towards common goals that was impossible 25 years ago. And then we have people llike River, Little, and Nemo; they don't get it and they never will. "

Ouch, that last sentence kind of makes it an impasse. I'm just happy that the fish are back, after a 100 year absence. And to anyone who have helped with this recovery....Conservation Corps, Indian Nation, BPA, KRD, Water Purveyors, farmers, fishermen, guides, whomever.
A big Thank You from me.
RE: Comments byJeremy2 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse)
I know you guys really are trying to connect two types of water rights, Surface rights and groundwater rights. But proving that a groundwater domestic well in Kittitas County to a surface water right in the lower valley is obviously harder than you claim. That is what this Moratorium and issue has been based on. Since it cant be proven then the claim is false.

If there was really evidence of this impairment then we wouldn't be having this discussion, the state would have all the wells shut down permanently.

This argument is what is keeping property owners/exempt wells protected.
RE: Comments bylordoflys2 months ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
Jeremy;
I'm not claiming anything. Just looking for facts and voicing my opinion. And, remember, we want the same thing. Where we differ is that you seem to be taking a hardline approach at the DOE whereas I blame the hardline approach by the CCs for enabling the moratorium in the first place. Drawing a line in the sand and daring the DOE to cross it has gotten us nowhere. We not only need more water for future development and agriculture, we need it for the present. The groundwater/surface water relationship is, literally, academic. It will be decided on past studies, and the present DOE study. The more I look into it the more it seems to be getting over my head.

1. You were right on with your comments on irrigation recharge. The USGS estimates that irrigation has increased groundwater recharge by 30% since before basin development. This figure will be key in DOE's final decision ( http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5007).

2. Irrigation is responsible for 60% of ground extraction in the basin ( http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir20065205/).

3. The irrigation users (above) are permitted and, one assumes, own water rights. There currently IS a moratorium on new groundwater extraction permitting in the three counties. Exempt permit extraction is in affect only in upper Kittitas County.

The DOE took this action after County Commissioners canceled talks and, according to the DOE, "did not negotiate in good faith". Whether they did or not is immaterial now as far as I'm concerned. All local Republican local officials jumped in at the same time and denounced DOE at the onset. Fair enough, I guess. Since the AG backed up the DOE's right of action, however, Holmquist, Warnick, Ross, Johnson, Chandler, Taylor, and Hinkle, who all sounded off earlier have silently backed off for two reasons. One, is that the moratorium has widespread backing among senior water rights holders. And two, they now know that "playing politics" with the Democratic-controlled state administration is hindering any progress on the moratorium issue.

Why am I writing this on Christmas Eve? Think I'll take a walk on the river.
One well-no problem; Thousands of wells-big problems bywhatatrip2 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Let’s remember that the petition filed by 3 or 4 people to the DOE was DENIED by the DOE. After that point, they had nothing to say about what was going to happen. They have been out of the picture and have no more say, influence or power than anyone else in the county. DOE, presumably, knew there was a problem and had been pressured by senior water rights holders, the City of Roslyn and the Yakama Nation. Well, of course they knew it was a problem, they knew water was over allocated in the basin and they knew there was one body of water, so to speak, and they knew the BOCC was handing out rights to water through the exempt well provision in unlimited numbers. They knew someday there was going to be a reckoning. Maybe the petition was the straw that broke the camel’s back and DOE decided they had better do something or they would be liable for any harm done it exempt well permits were not brought under control. At that point DOE decided to bring the offending county into the discussions for a resolution in order to avoid serious problems down the road. DOE gave the BOCC every possible benefit of the doubt and every courtesy possible and the BOCC sat on pogo sticks.

Connectivity, once again, has been proven and demonstrated. I’ll just keep adding the evidence that I know about in hopes that at some point a light bulb will go off and the reality behind the concept will be apparent. Studies have shown that salmon traveling upstream during the hot summer months will stop at certain pools and areas of a stream where a “natural” cooling takes place so they can cool down. The researchers have found that cool water from below the surface enters the stream from the cool ground below. Flow before and after these areas show an increase in flow due to the connection of the ground water entering the surface water in the stream.

If wells are drilled into this source of ground water and used to water a half acre of land multiple times by exempt wells, that source of cool ground water will be reduced or even eliminated for a period of time. Multiply the above source of consumptive use by thousands of exempt wells, to that add other sources of consumptive use multiplied by thousands of exempt wells and you will have a decreased flow of water at the Parker measuring point. Once that happens, the senior water rights holders get very upset.

If you know government, they will not act until forced to act. Those 3 or 4 members or whatever the numbers are in Aqua Permanente had no power to do anything except to point out there is a law that needs to be followed. This has been known by DOE for a very long time. Ten years ago I had a well drilled on a parcel I own because of talk of a potential shut down of exempt wells. The housing bubble forced DOE to come to terms with the reality of what they were facing.

If anyone thinks it couldn’t get any worse, all they have to do is consider what would happen if exempt wells were allowed to be drilled and there was a serious or multi year drought. I can assure you exempt well permit holders would be suffering from cotton mouth if the senior water rights holders got their way and well drillers would be totally out of business. Exempt well misuse is not a new issue but it is becoming more critical.

FWIW – I just read in the paper that DOE may open up drilling before the end of March for those with advanced building plans/permits or something.
RE: One well-no recharge lotto wells lotto recharge byMaxtodon2 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse)
underground aquifers dont appear to run uphill come up out of the ground like artesiens do heard that water stays deep and runs deep. Only way it can come up at all that I might know of is either get a well down to it pump it up where somthing like 90% of it is always becomes good surface ground water to run in the rivers and streams to help fish and irigation.
Unless otherwise somehow some old growth hard wood forest is planted with tap roots which could get through that hard clay layer and they will bring water up from deep underground to the surfice and improve things greatly. Would probly only take 200 years for old growth hard wood foresst to extablish itself for some kind of surface water recharge from down deep.
So all this trouble and problim bickering about wells turning them off rationing them out and keeping them from pumping up water really could make things worse in the long run but someone did say there is a difference between on top water rights and deep ones.
But it still seems to me that the wells could be better not worse for a lot of the troubles talked about on here.
And I still feel I here that excuse about using this water situation to knock off any more building and developing rather than realy saving our nice streams and protecting fishes all over the county.
Except for jeremy and lord of flies seem to have some good ideas without damaging more good surface recharge with more wells and good new above ground storage for irigation waters for ag.
Building more big high altitud ponds coud help. Who wrote long time ago raising levels of all high alpine lakes just another foot high too?
But I still cant see water running uphill to fix surfice water in lower county and go in streams never seen artesien anywhere ive been around here.
Merry Christmas to you all, find way to make this work for everyone and plenty of water for here forever. Solve this and stop the bickering around good get on with life and solve some real problims.
YRBWEP bylordoflys2 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Heck of an acronym. But the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project is our biggest, and best hope for plentiful water in our immediate future. For some reason, the feds like that word enhancement. Fish enhancement, irrigation enhancement, water enhancement...etc. More to the point, this project should be entitled `Last Chance for Water` project, or `Finally, someone may do something about our lack of Water` project, or the like.

I refer to it as the Arboretum Talks, referring to the Yakima Arboretum where the YRBWEP has met this past year. The BOR and the DOE are carrying these discussions, which is a very hopeful sign. Dawn Wiedmeier, who works for the BOR, and who is a very nice person, tells me that there should be a news release concerning the last, and most important meeting, today. The final integrated plan should be posted on the USBR site next week. This is because there is good news.

There are reports that a consensus has been reached to move the Basin Study program forward...to further evaluate the group of projects that have been identified.

I want to go over all of the irrigation, fish ENHANCEMENT, storage, and other projects briefly on my next post. There is something for everyone here...To me, however, the most important is storage. Without additional storage none of the other projects seem to be feasible. I know that I`ve kicked this seemingly dead horse many times but now I have reason to hope...Black Rock may someday be resurrected, but I pin my hopes on a Bumping Lake enlargement. In past posts, I`ve shared some of the letters coming in from armchair environmentialists who wrote from places like Boston, New York, and Hartford, places where water magically appears from faucets, agriculture is restricted to indoor wandering jews, and fish enhancement refers to white sauce on dory. These people do not see the need for any additional water in the Basin. Instead, they say more conservation is needed for the water we have. Yes, that can be done. And a lot has been accomplished over the past decade in regard to conservation. But without additional storage every water user in the basin, senior water rights or not, is in danger of losing the very essence of what makes life possible for wildlife, agriculture, and us.

My thanks to all of the members and alternates who are keeping our well being in mind, and who are not letting our future dry up due to a lack of momentum from some who should know better. Good job. And good luck.
RE: YRBWEP byAureliux2 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
Thank You VERY much for providing me, and everyone else with good information. Please keep up the good work.

NOW what could be argued about with this one?

A.
RE: YRBWEP byMaxtodon2 months ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
good info what can be done now to help this along are there people to write to or comments can be made somewhere?
I see no problem with anything in this storage concept.
RE: YRBWEP bywhatatrip2 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
It will be very difficult to get the feds to pitch in for anything like Black Rock unless it would employ many thousands of workers who are out of a job because of the economic decline. But let us assume the project would be safe and see if water users could pay for the project and yearly maintenance. I don’t know all the specifics so I will be making some assumptions and look forward to others supplying more facts, particularly what senior what rights holders pay, if they do.

The first question would be how much would construction costs be per acre foot of water and how does that compare to other water rights? I believe KRD water costs about $16.00/acre foot per year and I think that is just for maintenance. You pay the yearly bill based upon acreage whether you use the water or not. From what I gather, the project could cost up to 7 billion dollars and provide 1.3 million acre feet of water each year. If I created the amortization table correctly, at 3% interest, paid back over 100 years , it would cost $107.00 per acre foot of water per year. That is about 7 times what KRD charges, again, for maintenance. KRD allows 2 acre feet of water per acre per year so Black Rock water would cost about $214.00 per acre per year plus maintenance costs. If we assume maintenance to be the same $16.00 that it costs for KRD, now we are up to $246.00 per acre for water. I’m not sure how many farmers will be able to afford that.

So, who is getting water that is not paying for it? Municipalities charge for their water as do other water rights holders. Should we consider collecting from exempt well users who currently don't have to pay for their water? That could be used to help pay for the storage facility at Black Rock.

Let’s start with how much of a water right does an exempt well have. It has 5,000 gallons per day times 365 days divided by 325,850 gallon per acre foot equals about 5.6 acre feet of water per year. At $107.00 per acre foot for water and $16.00 per acre foot for maintenance 5.6 acre feet would cost $688.80 per year. Hmmm, not that bad but considerably more than free.
RE: YRBWEP byJeremy2 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse)
Its always interesting that the same anti-development groups and members complain about a problem, then when a solution arises they are the first to complain about it.

These groups/people have no long term stake in water issues or development. They have nothing beter to do than gripe and look for the next chicken little scenerio to take advantage of.
Moratorium Lifted for 150 Days byClem2 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
It looks like the County and the State are coming to some sort of agreement to lift the moratorium this summer for 150 days in which wells can be drilled without getting mitigating water. The article was originally in the Yakima Herald. Here is a link from the Seattle Times.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010642520_a

Paul Jewell in the article mentions he has "spoken with developers who have lost millions". Thats part of the myth of the moratorium that dozens if not over 100 houses would have been built starting in late summer. Nobody has ever mentioned where these house were that were going to be built. Now that there is a 150 day "window" I suppose well drillers from all over the state will descend on Kittitas County to drill hundreds of wells plus hundreds of homes will be built next summer. Somebody needs to tell Jewell and the rest of the Commissioners that the speculative real estate market in Kittitas County is dead.

The Moratorium was the number one story in the County this years. But as Lordoflys has brought up water or lack of will continue to be a very big problem without additional storage. Already this year with the light snow so far we might be looking at a problem. In 1987 I think the junior irrigators were cut off on Sept 1 and water was pumped from below the dam level on Kachess. One of the things that has happened in the 23 years since is that the demand for water in Yakima and Benton County has grown quite a bit. Agriculture is 10x bigger in Yakima County than it is here. I mentioned this in the past but we might see water rights sold downstream to Yakima over time.
RE: Moratorium Lifted for 150 Days bylordoflys2 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse)
Thanks, Clem, for bringing this up. All water issues are related. Hopefully, the 150 day window will help those in the upper county with advanced development plans and maybe ease their financial burden somewhat. It will also help with the transition to the water bank system proposed by the DOE.

By the way, I did get ahold of a letter from the Kennewick Irrigation District Manager, Scott Revell, written to Jay Manning dated back in November. In it, KID states that they consider the actions by DOE possibly a bit heavy handed, but agreed that the moratorium was needed to protect senior water rights. It went on to say that the District would do `whatever was in their best interests to protect those rights`. Water groups are a militant bunch. Always have and always will. Water is too precious.
YRBWEP Moves Forward!! bylordoflys2 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Here is the link regarding the Yakima River Basin Study as promised by Dawn from the BOR. http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID

While not supplying the details of the plan it does tell us that there is a consensus and that the final details will be ironed out by the fall of 2010. Interestingly, the environmental organization, American Rivers, is part of this study group. Why this group was invited over other environmental organizations is unknown but let's see what they have to say.
Further Musings Concerning the Moratorium byfishmonger2 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
One only has to examine the state of affairs in Colorado to see why the DOE is playing hardball with Kittitas County. The State of Colorado and BOR didn't take the 100 year climate change data seriously until the situation reached critical mass. "Drill Baby Drill" didn't work so well for them. Jeremy, it's not just small bands of anti-development folks who are advocating regulating our most precious resource. Look at Colorado's situation and you'll see some very unusual, and effective alliances. For those who are interested in this debate but feel a bit uninformed about hydrology in general, here's a link to an informative article that I found simple and helpful...

http://www.uni.edu/~andersow/geologyandwater.html
RE: Further Musings Concerning the Moratorium byCleElum12 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
Great link, thank you for posting it.
Ah, Colorado! byAureliux2 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse)
Real interesting state of affairs, there, in that fine state. California seems to believe they own most of the water in the Colorado River if I remember right. And that state also has an odd underground aquifer which no one is really sure WHERE it comes from.

Which could also be interesting IF California also, again, tries to make a run on Columbia River water. This has been discussed off and on for a V E R Y long time and I really hope that if it comes up again "WE" can circle the wagons and prevent such a measure.

I still think that the whole environmental argument is a smoke screen from someone that only wants to charge big bucks for what has been relatively free so far. And once everything has a price, and once everyone has to pay, there will no longer be a shortage and all of this will pretty much be forgotten.

Can't wait until someone in Canada wakes up, decides THEY have even MORE senior water rights than anyone down here, figure out that the water MUST be coming from UP THERE, and the USA has to pay them for it.

A.
RE: Further Musings Concerning the Moratorium bycountrygirl112 months ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
1/3 of the world population lacks access to fresh water. Permit exempt wells are a problem in all western states, a problem DOE, BOR and local government has been aware of for a long time. If the government agencies charged with protecting the resources of the citizens of the this country from the greedy few, small citizens groups would not has to spend their time and money to make sure it is there for everyone. The whole thing in Kittitas started because of the ABUSE of the permit exempt well law.
The Yakima River Basin Study presents some solutions to the water storage problem. It is all about good water management. No one wants to pay for water but the free ride may be over. As a property owner I paid to have a well drilled. I paid for the pump, pipe, pressure tank, and valves to get the water from the well to the house. I don't pay a monthly fee but I've paid for my water.
Objections to a DOE proposal? $50 pls. bylordoflys2 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I've supported DOE in many of their actions and decisions. However, I see a very disturbing trend with state and federal services. Recently, for example, the DOE requires a $50 "filing fee" for any protests or objections to their proposed action. Letters of support are free, of course....send 'em in by the truckload. Fifty bucks? Are you kidding me? Well, I'll do their filing for them for half that...say $25 per objection. I'll do it. Save the taxpayer some money.

As a frequent traveler, I cringe every time I arrive at Sea-Tac and am forced to pay the US Government $7.00 for an immigration fee. It takes the officer about 45 seconds to process me. Isn't this covered by taxes? And, don't forget another $6.50 for an airport security fee. And expect these fees to rise. State and federal parks have begun a "pay as you go" system. It used to be that the high taxes we paid covered these public services. I made fun of the "tea party" participants as screwballs. Now I'm beginning to feel that they may be on to something after all. Will we be finally forced to cut back on our military budget, which eats up nearly 37% of our GNP when you consider past and present expenditures? I'm gettin riled up. Sorry to digress from the water business at hand.
American Rivers and the YRBWEP bylordoflys2 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
The more that I read about this conservation group the better I like them but I'm always suspicious about the motives from any group or individual located far from the Yakima River. I was also concerned that American Rivers was the group responsible for "seeding" the BOR with preprinted anti-storage feedback awhile back (I was told they weren't).

Michael Garrity is the conservation director for Washington State for AR and is also the group's representative inside the YRBWEP. He has registered his formal disagreement with the inclusion of the Bumping Lake expansion proposal as well as a general concern of the assumption that more water storage is necessary until other methods are studied. I've communicated with Michael and like his style. As a representative of AR he is compelled to toe the line with organizational doctrine but as an individual he seems to understand the plight of local agricultural and other water user concerns. He also seems to be a realist. I'll listen to anyone with an agenda but who is pragmatic enough to think things through. Alternately, David Ortman of the Sierra Club, who was at the July meeting, has criticized the whole process and rants on endlessly about conservation.

American Rivers wants a sound fish restoration/water quality management package. This package would contain such measures as floodplain restoration (hopefully not in my backyard), fish passages at headwaters dams, improved tributary flows, etc. These are things other members of the study group want as well. In the end they will probably support a storage plan as well once they understand the need for it. He is, after all, based in Seattle, not in Ellensburg.

Let's talk about the county commissioners. I believe that McClain is Kittitas County's man onboard. According to the BOR meeting notes McClain had nothing to say at the July meeting ( http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/meetings/2009-07-15/m). The county commissioner was also described as being "suspicious" of the intentions of the other members. We heard that the other members of this workgroup were "frustrated" with all the commissioners present. Is this really who we want to represent Kittitas County? In perhaps the most important water council in 100 years we have a representative who has shown that he has problems working closely with state and federal officials. Maybe I'm just not giving him enough credit. But I for one, in light of this country's current economic problems, hate to see an opportunity to finally get what we desperately need, wasted.

Well, we have no choice but to carry on and give our commissioners the benefit of the doubt. I just hope that they do understand what is at stake here. Despite the fact that the commissioners did not sign off on the preliminary plans at the Dec. 17th meeting, Ecology and Reclamation will allow the process to continue. The BOE and BOR are trying their best to help this county and others. It will NOT be Kittitas County taxpayers shouldering this burden. I would ask the commissioners to please not pull the teeth from this particular gift horse.
RE: American Rivers and the YRBWEP byAureliux2 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
What argument could possibly be used against this set of ideas? How could increased water storage and improved fish habitat and more water for irrigation be a problem?

Sounds good to me.

A.
RE: American Rivers and the YRBWEP bycountrygirl111 month ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
This just broad speculation but it seems to me the Kittitas County commish only interest is promoting residential development in rural lands. If you do too much to help the farmers, the farmers will not throw up their hands and sell to a developer. The DOE had to beleive the BOCC were operating in good faith and look how that turned out. The political system is so entenched with self-preservation many elected officals have lost sight of the big picture. More storage would benefit EVERYONE and Bumping Lake expansion would have a very negliable impact - a caveat, if done correctly.
The Arboretum Meetings bylordoflys2 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
The initial meeting of the YRBWEP was June 30th. At that time 21 members were in attendance, including Ken Hasbrouck and Urban Eberhard from KRD, as well as Mark McClain. Skip ahead to August 12th. 44 additional attendees were present and as diverse as Melissa Bates from Aqua Permanente, a rep from the League of Woman Voters, the office of Maria Cantwell, etc. Word is out. Be a part of this council or forever hold your peace. It may be the last opportunity to add something to whatever results from this multi-integrated approach for solutions to the water problems in this basin. At the Nov. 9th meeting 60 people showed up, all of them with a vested interest, as does anyone reading these notes.

Public input to date has been mostly organized conservation group complaints about one possible piece of the solution puzzle: The enlargement of Bumping Lake. I mentioned the Sierra Club previously. They continue to complain about damage to old-growth forests, roadless areas, Northern Spotted Owl habit, and impacts to the William O. Douglass Wilderness Area. The truth? The measurable impact to old growth forest surrounding the lake is about 1.5%. The impact to Northern Spotted Owl habitat as a result of the enlargement is negligible. All this from a presentation by Ann Root of ESA Adolfson, 11/23/09. Meanwhile, the additional water would have a huge positive affect on agriculture, wildlife, and the people living here. The Sierra Club's statement mission is to "protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment". Something they need to be reminded of.

There is some speculation on an interbasin storage solution, but not Black Rock. Instead, Columbia River water would be pumped behind a new dam on Selah Creek. Mention a new dam to the Sierra Club and they are against it, no matter what the circumstances. Pragmatic conservationists understand that the existing water reservoirs in the Yakima Basin hold less than half the needed water for irrigation. New storage means additional water for bull trout and anadromous fish, as well as everyone and everything else (including kayakers!).
RE: The Arboretum Meetings byAureliux1 month ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
I don't get the resistance to the Bumping Lake proposition. Only thing I can think of is that there is a loud active minority out there that enjoy stubbornly blocking anything that changes things that will not directly affect them.

One thing that I used to know about Bumping Lake had to do with golden trout and that it was only one of 3 lakes in this state that had them.

Good comment about the matching world record large mouth bass in Japan, by the way...

But this "environmentalist elite" that won't raise the level of Bumping Lake, I suspect, is the same sordid bunch that wanted to hike in and poison ALL the fish in our Alpine Lakes Wilderness Lakes BECAUSE the fish weren't native. I posted a thing on that a few months ago. Incredible.

But whoever that "they" may be don't seem to be disturbed about the King County Metro/Seattle SLUDGE from their sewage treatment plants which is sprayed on the trees in forest lands which brings in pathogens and heavy metal contamination to the water sheds.

Wonder how long it will be before the United Nations decides to try to pass a conspicuous consumption tax on the USA because we have access to decent water? Yes, there is a large portion of the world without. And there are places where there are no underground aquifers no matter how deep you go.

So I don't see how anyone in the NW should feel guilty about drilling a well for home use.

Going to be plenty of "recharge" over the next few days according to the forecast.

A.
Public Hearing Wed. byCleElum11 month ago (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
KITTITAS COUNTY — Kittitas County commissioners will conduct a public hearing at 6 p.m. Wednesday in Cle Elum on a proposed agreement with the state to manage the drilling and use of exempt wells in Upper County.

The hearing will be in the courtroom of the Upper County District Court. The draft agreement is the latest version of a memorandum of agreement, or MOA, between county government and the state Department of Ecology.

http://kvnews.com/articles/2010/01/19/news/doc4b561edc9e64f5
Weather Changes and River Plans bylordoflys1 month ago (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
When I mention the term Global Warming it's funny how so many normally rational people get defensive to the point of anger. My conservative friends quickly state that "nothing has been proven" when it comes to man-made greenhouse gasses. Some agree that the weather may be changing but that it's a "natural" phenomenon. While driving my Jeep near Satus Pass awhile back I listened to a right wing wacko claiming that global warming is a liberal hoax and that the world is actually undergoing global cooling. And, of course, Al Gore is every Republican's favorite object of ridicule. I don't care about any of this political crap. No matter what the cause, something IS affecting the weather. This change may precipitate another ice age or we may start raising oranges and grapefruit in the Kittitas Valley. Nobody knows for sure. That much is certain.

I read a small article in today's paper about changing dam operations in the Northwest. The gist was to make dam operations more efficient in light of changing weather variables, for power, irrigation, fish recovery, recreation, and utilities....a tall order.
Quoted was a climate researcher from the UDUB, Alan Hamlet. I had communicated with Alan a year earlier for information on changing snow pack in the Cascades. Alan says that all future weather models point to a diminishing snow pack for the Eastern Cascade slopes. As much or more precipitation will fall, but as rain, not snow. This, of course, will be devastating to all residents when it does happen unless new water storage is made available. Which brings me to YRBWEP. The River Basin Management Plan Final Report has now been posted by Reclamation on their site. I'm still digesting it but will go over some of the plans on another posting a little later. It goes without saying that what is written into this document has far-reaching implications and consequences for all of us.
RE: Weather Changes and River Plans bycountrygirl111 month ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
Yeah, the term global warming does produce a real knee jerk reaction. Looking at historial records we see there were climate fluctuations that predate the industrial revolution. Regardless the cause, the weather changes. Eastern Washington requires more storage and conservation of the water resource right now. The document/report that came out of the YRBWEP meetings will hopefully convince the Feds to let loose of the money needed to create more storage and tighten up the leaks in the existing system.
Meeting byJeremy1 month ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I hope you guys took the chance to show up to the last Cle Elum meeting discussing the MOA. Even though the anti-development crowd was few you all seem to have such strict criticism for the commissioners I would think that you would all want to let the public know your views. Its one thing to criticize in a chat room under a made up name but it is another thing to do it in public using your real identity.

This last meeting once again demonstrated how the DOE is playing politics with the exempt well issue. Their 150 day plan would not be helpful to many people, and not being fully open with their intent on the rule only ruins the little bit of trust that they have left. Instead of finding loop holes in the law and continuing their political agenda maybe its time to for them to listen to the public. Come up with rules that allow people their right to water while at the same time use current laws to protect Senior Water users.
RE: Meeting bywhatatrip1 month ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
I did show up at the last water meeting. No reason to say any more; the deal is done; it is on the table and now the BOCC have to decide whether to take that 150 day grace period or not. If they choose not to, then new wells will have to be mitigated all the way through the 150 days they would have had. It is the BOCC who are playing politics with the water issue. I would say take the 150 days and get on with it. Mitigation is an extremely small price to pay for development.

Those of us who expect responsible water law have been saying all along that not many people are really being hurt by the moratorium and you have just admitted it by saying “Their 150 day plan would not be helpful to many people”. It will certainly help those who were so hurt they couldn’t go forward with their plans. Now they can unless the BOCC rejects the proposal. I suspect by the end of the 150 days, the water bank will be in place. The DOE has listened to the public and they have come up with a plan that is very fair, allows people to use their right to water and it protects senior water rights. The solution is plain and simple.
RE: Meeting bylordoflys1 month ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
Jeremy..though it may not always be apparent to you and some others reading these blogs we are all supporters of the upper county, economy included. Nothing will ever be the same where water is concerned. Land rights is just a term. We are outnumbered and outspent. If I could I would return to a Teanaway where land was $300 an acre and you could successfully hunt elk before the county road ended.

Unfortunately, I am physically unable to attend the hearings, otherwise I would be there...seriously. And you can refer to me as Dale, my real name, but I prefer my avatar, Lord O'Flies.
Mention the word, "DAMS" and wonder about the different reactions... byAureliux1 month ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I was once led to believe that almost all of the high country lakes are there because of dams. One of the best examples that I can think of and what was used as an illustration to me once upon a time in a lesson on such naturally occurring phenomenon was Spirit Lake by Mt. St. Helens.

The way it was described and taught to me by someone who had the knowledge, research, and experience in such matters kindly explained to a large interested class that lakes like that were created by glacial action. BIG boulders would get picked up by huge layers of ice which would then slide along, melt a bit, float a while, then melt more and dump the rocks in a narrow area down stream. After a few years of this kind of action a little lake would form. Like Spirit Lake.

Now there's all kinds of noise about tearing dams out. Some apparently well informed and positive intentioned people that seem to know what they are talking about and want to raise some natural lakes a bit and/or create more storage areas.

So we get into some kind of odd debate about what is really natural, and what is man made?

Who is to really decide in the great balance of things what is really supposed to be there holding back some water for everyone to use and enjoy? What could possibly be wrong with fixing up Bumping Lake a bit for more storage? Or creating more good reservoirs?

I have been completely and totally unavailable for the meetings, and have been missing in action from the forum for a while. Did just in fact actually have one real weekend off from work, and that is a good thing.

IS ANYONE out there in forum land opposing the increased storage situation? I sure as heck don't see any problem with it. Please let me know.

Is there any specific detailed resistance to this concept from our county leaders? If there is, can someone please politely post the opposing arguments?

Bike ride imminent. It's a nice day, hope all is well out there with everyone else... And I REALLY want to get back out in a kayak for a good paddling.

A.
Meeting byJeremy1 month ago (6 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Well considering that everyone there who testified was directly impacted by the moratorium minus the two residents who are for it, shows that it has paralyzed the Upper County's building and real estate. If you listened to the DOE they explained that during the 150 days you have to drill your well, build your house and occupy it within the 150 days. Plus if you throw in that some banks probably wont lend under such ridiculous time frames this M.O.A. will not due.

Still to this day no proof of impairment and no Senior water right holder has filed any claim of it. No evidence of the so-called problem has ever been presented. You would think that if a problem existed that in 3 years they could find at least one example.

Its easy for non-stakeholders in the issue to say that the moratorium has had no effect on our economy but if you work and do business in this county its easy to see the effects. If the state was really honest about finding answers to the so-called problem they would have started the groundwater study 2 years ago, when they were allocated the funding.
RE: Meeting and Yakama Nation byClem1 month ago (4 votes) (report abuse)
Unfortunately didnt make it to the meeting. Jeremy we are now in the middle of the "great recession" if not a depression in the Upper County. We will not go back anytime soon to the type of development we had in 2006-2007 and all the speculation. I would like to get back everything I lost in the past two years. I dont think its going to happen.

I dont think anyone who owns property is "anti-growth" in the upper county. My home is worthless unless we can attract new people into the county. People were moving out and leaving the Upper County long before the moratorium hit. You can probably trace part of the problems to high gas prices. Lets get real in the future we are going to have to encourage growth into the established areas that have services including natural gas and that means less growth with wells and 5-20 acre parcels.

Nobody ever talks much about the Yakima Nation. They are the "elephant in the room." Jeremy, how do you think the BOCC and the realtors should deal with the Yakama Nation and how much money do you think the County should spend to defend itself? Are you willing to take the case to Federal Courts? These court decisions work both ways you know. Things could get worst.
RE: Meeting byCleElum11 month ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
When you state:

"If you listened to the DOE they explained that during the 150 days you have to drill your well, build your house and occupy it within the 150 days."

You have 150 days to get your well drilled, ... but also have another 5 yrs. to build your house and show-up that you've started using the water for domestic use, whether it's an individual home or several lots broke out from a larger one. Plus you don't even have to have your permit "ducks-in-a-row" for the building of these homes at the time of the well drilling.

If at the end of the 5 yr. period you have not built your home, or any lot homes not finished(in the case of multiple lots) and can't show the "domestic-use", then, these homes/lots have to be "water-mitigated", ie: you have 5 lots, but only get 3 lots built and in use, then, the other two lots that haven't been built and can show water for domestic use have to have their water mitigated.
RE: Meeting bywhatatrip1 month ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
Also a part of the 'deal' is the notice that wells drilled during this time period that are not water mitigated could be subject to water restrictions if senior water rights holders push the issue. The fewer non mitigated wells there are, the less chance they will be subject to restrictions. I think that acceptance of this deal will not result in large numbers of wells being drilled but if there are, all those with exempt wells without mitigation could be restricted in use. Let us hope not too many are drilled.

The question still remains, what about all those wells that already exist and don't have on their plats that there is no guarantee of water. I heard the the County has been putting a warning on the platt paperwork but mine don't have it and I suspect those more than 5-6 years old do not have that language.

Perhaps a tax on all new wells could be used to purchase water rigths for all the old wells that don't have mitigated water.
RE: Meeting bycountrygirl111 month ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
Under the possible 150 day free for all you don't need a building permit. All you have to do to get started is a start card from DOE and driller who can get a rig in. Put in your garden, corral a few horses and water it all from a frost-free fixture. There you've put the water to benefitial use. BUT, remember you did not mitigate and are now low man on totem pole (NO PUN INTENDED) if senior water rights holders demand the well be shut off. When you get around to doing the house tee off the water line going to the frost-free and run it to the house, you have 5 years to get the house done. I see the Yakima Nation does not support un-mitigated well drilling.
Mitigated water will have to come from the PURCHASE of senior water rights. The free ride is over, who pays is what needs to be determined. Water is a re-newalable resource. Re-newable does not mean unlimited.
A New Water Tax? Oh Boy. byAureliux1 month ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
So, do I hear this right, again? There will be no shortage of water IF it's taxed? THEN all new wells will be OK?

Once again I see the possibility of a new utility being created and once it's TAXED, REGULATED, METERED, and CONTROLLED you can drill as many wells as you want.

So nothing really gets fixed. The big deal really is attempting to control growth in the county and has nothing to do with protecting natural resources and habitat.

And the "CONTROL" that so many (few?) seem to want, will only come by way of higher fees and more taxes. Wonderful.

A.
RE: A New Water Tax? Oh Boy. bywhatatrip1 month ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
It appears you read wrong. Tax or no tax, mitigation or no mitigation, the amount of water stays the same. The only thing that changes is who owns the rights to withdraw water.

To be clear you said "Once again I see the possibility of a new utility being created and once it's TAXED, REGULATED, METERED, and CONTROLLED you can drill as many wells as you want."

That is only true as long as there is a water right purchased or new storage area created to create new water rights. Those who now have rights to water are metered, regulated, controlled and taxed. That won't change either. The only thing that will change is that everyone will be treated the same.
Meeting byJeremy1 month ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
You may want to call the state to get your information correct. You do not have 5 years to build. The five years pertained to a Class B system, which is 2 or more hook ups. The well you drill in the 150 days has to be put to the intended purpose it was meant for. Sure you can water your garden then you established your beneficial use for only your garden.

You have to pay attention to the details and read what it says, call the state if you don't believe me. This is not a free for all, it will only benefit those who can drill, build, and move in during the 150 days.
RE: Meeting bywhatatrip1 month ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
From what I have read, Jeremy is right. I went to the meeting but could not get into the room, couldn't hear much of what was being said so I may have missed something. The next time they have a meeting that as overcrowded as the water hearings have been, the fire marshall is going to be involved. We have occupancy limits and fire codes for reasons and just because the BOCC are in charge, it doesn't mean they can break the law and ignore codes. I saw quite a few people leave because of the lack of room. Parking was also a problem. The BOCC never cease to amaze me.

Back to the MOA, it states "During this 150 day window of time, any person who seeks to devleop a new water use on his/her property in any portion of Upper KIttitas County will not be subject to a withdrawal rule." The withdrawl rule is in reference to WAC 173-539A, which stopped water withdrawls without mitigation. The MOA goes on to say they plan to implement a new rule that will require mitigation. As I understand it from reading it, the group uses and 5 years to perfect a use applies to development under the new rule. But I could be wrong. I didn't hear much and left early.

If lawn watering, stock watering and domestic use was, by law, the same use as I think it was intended , then all a person would have to do is use new water for any one of those uses and all uses would be covered by the same 5,000 per day limitation. But the water guzzlers are seeking to make sure they are three separate uses each covered by their own limitations of 5,000 for domestic, unlimited for lawn water of 1/2 acre and unlimited for stock watering. I understand lawn watering and stock watering are in the courts so if the courts decide they are one use, there may be a possibility that a person could begin using a new well during this 150 day window for lawn watering or stock watering and at any time in the future use it for domestic purposes.
Separate but Related bylordoflys1 month ago (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Jeremy is right. The 150 day reprieve is pretty constricted. But best to take advantage of this, as future opportunities for wells will be much harder to come by. I cannot see Ecology ever reversing the new restrictive policy concerning upper county exempt wells...unless, the new USGS/Ecology groundwater study proves that no surface water impairment exists...and I'm not optimistic.

Aureliux is correct that this issue has nothing to do with anti-development groups, whether they exist or not. And this was my disappointment in the reactions of Rep. Hinckle and others, whose initial comments were preposterous and politically motivated. This issue has to do with water. Get it? It has nothing to do with so-called land rights, manifest destiny, or flag waving. Senior water rights irrigation entities, Republican, Democrat, red-neck or tree hugger(makes no difference) south of Roza (including the Yakama Nation), the City of Yakima, BPA, and every conservation society in America will have suits filed immediately stopping any easing of this moratorium until the Ecology study is over. Sad but true.

Meanwhile, the state of the economy has made public work plans dependent on funding, rather than budgeting. So there are questions whether the Yakima Study Final Plan, which supports the enlargement of Bumping Lake and other storage projects, will ever be given the green light. I'm worried that these must-have projects will never get built. And if they do will additional irrigation be authorized further down the basin? Are water users wasting resources instead of conserving because they are worried about losing their allotments? Why aren't many large water users using sprinkler systems right here in the Kittitas valley?

And, as if we don't already have enough to worry about, what's up with this weather?
RE: Separate but Related byCleElum11 month ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
Good question, where's all the snow? I haven't had to shovel even once this year. Not that I'm complaining about the lack of shoveling on my part but I am concerned about the lack of water and fire season this year.
Question byCleElum11 month ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I heard in reference to page "what-ever", paragraph "whatever" of the handout that not everyone had, that had something to do with if the MOA is agreed to that the right to appeal is relinguished. Does anyone know what that is about? As it has already been stated here, the room was over-full. The microphone used by the people speaking just recorded, didn't amplify, and many speakers didn't speak very loud.

They admitted they didn't make enough copies of the handout for everyone who showed up, and lack of parking was awful. One of the stranger things I did notice was how often someone would have a question pertaining to the definition of specific language that even the DOE couldn't answer and it was brought to everyone attention that there used to be a set of definition's, that had since gone by the wayside, that would be of use in this situation we're in today. Thank you in advance.
RE: Question bywhatatrip1 month ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
You can download the MOA by going to the County's home page web site at: http://www.co.kittitas.wa.us/

It is in the upper right hand portion of the page. With reference to not being able to appeal the MOA, see part II A 4. It only relates to parts II.A.2 (a) – (d) of the agreement. The MOA also states "The County is free to advance a legal challenge to any aspect of a new Ecology rule that is inconsistent with, or substantially different from, the description in II.A.2 (a) – (d)."
whatatrip byCleElum11 month ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
Found it ... downloaded it ... and thank you again. Now to find my chest waders to get through this doc., ahahahaha! Wonder what if anything becomes of the moratorium bill after the state hearing on Wed.?
Bumping Lake bywhatatrip1 month ago (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I didn’t know much about the Bumping Lake proposal so I looked it up. It will increase in capacity from 33,700 acre-feet to 458,000 acre-feet of water. That is almost 14 times as big as it is now. It would take several years to fill it since the annual run off is estimated to be 124,000 acre-feet using a minimum Bumping River flow of 130 cfs. Hmmm, 130 cfs doesn’t seem like a lot of flow to me.

It looks like it will wipe out 2 forest service camp grounds, a marina and many private cabins. Even if they could be replaced and I doubt that they could, the fluctuations in lake level may make it not feasible to be used as recreation any longer. Currently the lake is kept full until late summer. As a result, recreational opportunities abound.

I don’t know how many people use it today but it used to be very popular. I did take a drive to Bumping Lake in 2004 which was the first time since 1968. The campgrounds are very nice and there are lots of camping spots. For me it is just like the Teanaway is to many local residents in the upper county. Our family went camping at Bumping Crossing almost every weekend during fishing season during the 50’s and early 60’s. In fact, during my first day fishing the river, I caught my limit of 25 rainbow trout. We ate a lot of trout for years. It used to be surrounded by lots of green evergreens but today most of the trees are dying for some reason.

We made quite a few trips to Bumping Lake but much favored fishing the river. As a teen I would hike up to Twin Sisters Lakes which were above Bumping Lake. The last time I was at Twin Sisters, my girlfriend and I decided to hike up there for a picnic and other fun things. It was during the week in 1968 and we didn’t expect to see anyone but as we were having fun, a father and young son happened down the trail. I often wondered how the father explained to the son just what it was we were doing. LOL.

Bumping water combines with American River and becomes the Naches River and that enters into the Yakima River just north of Yakima. I don’t know how the irrigation ditches run but it could take quite a load off of the Rosa district. The three storage lakes in Kittitas County store about 834,000 acre feet of water. Bumping would add more that 400,000 acre feet of water to the system.

There was a proposal to build a storage site just downstream from the North and West Forks of the Teanaway. It would have provided 390,000 acre feet of water which is almost as much as the Bumping proposal. There are many sites but all include a price to be paid for more storage. If Bumping is a necessity, then it will happen.

We are bumping up against a lot of hard realities. Population increases and diminishing resources are going to clash and we are going to have to consider, for example, whether we need more new roads when oil resources will be in increasingly shorter supplies and we are having trouble maintaining the road we already have. At some point the same is true for water. If past growth patterns do not continue because of limited energy resources, will conservation measures be adequate or will we indeed need more storage capacity. I am at a an age that those choice are going to be made by younger generations.
RE: Bumping Lake bylordoflys1 month ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
Wow! 25 trout limit! Any size to these back then? In an age of catch-and-release it's interesting to hear about historic catches. Can you imagine what it was like to see the big kings coming up the American and Bumping Rivers? I don't know this lake well but I visited Rimrock and Clear Lake last year. This is also a beautiful setting and probably holds a fish or two.

Speaking of, you must have seen the news release concerning fish passage at the Lake Cle Elum Dam. I love how Reclamation's Bill Gray describes the project..."construct fish passage facilities at Cle Elum Dam that will provide fish access to historical habitat and restore biodiversity and the natural production of anadromous salmonids in the upper Cle Elum subbasin". Or, in other words, to once again allow salmon to spawn in the lake.

They're also talking about restoring lampreys. I'd probably die of fright the first time I waded into the Yak and stepped on a 30 inch suckered parasite. Nevertheless, the biologist-in-residence says that these creatures actually help salmon populations by providing alternate food sources for fish predators. And, the Indians still harvest lampreys on the Columbia. Maybe they taste like unagi or unaju sushi. I'd like to try one.

The Record article didn't mention cost, but the YHR article said that the cost would be $65 million in 2004 dollars. Ha. How about $3 million in 1982 dollars or $10,500 in 1938 dollars? And $300,000 annually for operation and maintenance. Where can I apply for this job? I'll do it for $500/yearly in 1949 dollars.

Mother Nature did it for free for centuries. But, this is part of the Yakama Nation mitigation. They want fish. Good. So do I. I'd much rather have Congress appropriate this money for fish restoration on the Yak than spend it on another "pacification" project in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Yemen. Who fishes there anyway?

In the Dec 31 edition of the NKC Tribune (great paper), there is an article referring to the moratorium as a "Water War". As my copyright on this phrase has not yet expired I'm considering a lawsuit.
RE: Bumping Lake bywhatatrip1 month ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
I don't remember the 25 fish limit being changed while I was actively fishing. I quit fishing when girls became more important. The only other limit was on size and that was 6 inches. Most of the fish were 8-10 inches. In those days the game department did a lot of stocking of the lakes and rivers. They would stock a few weeks before fishing season opened so the fish were nice and firm by opening day. River fish were always more firm than lake fish. I don't know what they do today but there were always lots of fish to be caught if you knew where the right pools were and the kind of water that fish hung out in.

You could look and look and not see a fish but drop that egg in the water, wait for a short time and they would come out of hiding to check it out. Most of time I would let them take a little swipe at it. You could also feel that it was just a little nibble. Then almost always the second strike on the egg was more than a nibble, almost a tug and it was time to hook the fish.

I don't know if it was legal or not but the eggs we used were home canned salmon eggs. I was always told to not tell anyone about it. Every couple of years we would go to my grandparents house and can the eggs outside in the back yard.

The first time I went out salmon fishing, the first salmon was 29 pounds. The second was 35 pounds. After 20 minutes of reeling the second one up to the boat, I told my dad to take the pole and finish bringing it in or I was going to throw the pole in the water. He took the pole just in time. I couldn't hold back the vomit any longer. I spent the rest of the day with my head hanging overboard or laying down in the cabin wishing I was back on shore. I never got over being sea sick.

We were at West Port and went 17 miles offshore so my dad and grandfather were not going back in until each of us had our 3 salmon limit. It took 8 hours more and I was sick the the rest of the day until it was time to go back in. As long as we were moving, I was ok but after about 1-2 hours of rocking, rolling, up, down, around and inside out and I was sick.

We also went up to Neah Bay. I always enjoyed going there because after my dad and grandfather came back from fishing for salmon, they would take my sister and I out to catch bottom fish. I actually prefered cod to salmon except for kippered and smoked salmon. We would go for a week and the first days catch of salmon went to the local smokehouse. Some was smoked and canned, some was just smoked and some was kippered. I liked the kippered salmon the best.

The road up to Bumping Lake was very bumpy in 2004 and unless they fixed it it still is. It used to be a pretty good road many years ago. It is well worth the trip up to see Bumping Lake if there is any chance it will be dammed up. The proposed new dam site is just up the road from the bridge that crosses Bumpling River at what is called Bumping Crossing. It can't be more than a 1000 feet or 2000 feet up the road since the new dam is proposed to be 4500 feet below the existing dam. There is a campground there.
RE: Bumping Lake bylordoflys1 month ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
Well, I did the same thing. Went out at Westport, hooked a 22lb king and got sick. Years later I discovered a Japanese OTC pill called Aneron Caps. It has scopolamine as it's active ingredient, same as the patch. You can take this pill 10 minutes before you go out in the roughest water on earth and never get sick. They sell it in every drug store in Japan. No side effects, unlike the patch. And much cheaper. Have someone over there send you a box.
Always wanted to visit Bumping Lake... byAureliux1 month ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Rainbows? Any of you ever get to see one of those rare and beautiful Golden Trout that were supposed to be in there? Dad and I were looking into that, heard it was one of only 3 lakes in this state that had them.

Check this out, stimulus for the other side of our fine state, $590,000,000.00 for light rail. That's great, now how about some $ to get a decent dependable water supply for irrigation so we can keep the farms going to feed the people that are going to be riding the trains around?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010910788_h

Anyway, there's the link for this morning's news on the rail plan.

And by the way, loved Westport. Did that quite a few times when I lived on the left side of the state. Did Ilwaco a few times too. Camped at Pacific Beach, fished Joe Creek, hooked some nice sea run cutthroat and dolly varden's in there back in the early 60's. Now i have to wonder if those dolly's were really the now rare bull trout?

Anyone else ever go out when there was no limit for red tailed surf perch? Was the LAST thing in this state that I could do without a license or permit. And they were GOOD. Took my little one handed barbecue down with me, would light it up, and cook fillets as they were caught. Great stuff. Kids would mess around building their sand fortresses against the incoming tide, I'd fish, we'd eat, and life was good.

Might find one-self in a bit of a predicament with anything regarding scopalimene in the USA as I don't believe it's OTC here and it might kind of not be a good idea to get discovered with it in an unpleasant encounter with an aggressive member of law enforcement... Just thought I'd throw that in free of charge.

A.
fish vs irrigation (2) bylordoflys1 month ago (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
In 1916 the US Bureau of Fisheries sent a young biologist, Dennis Winn, to investigate why the salmon stopped running up the Yakima Basin. They thought irrigation might have something to do with it. Dennis counted an average of 20 salmon per acre lying on the ground under fruit trees and in hay fields. By that time (1916) the Bureau had figured that 90% of the salmon returns had already disappeared on the Yakima and Naches Rivers. The Bureau later formed the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I've got a few friends who work for this agency.

I fished everything from seasonal irrigation ditches to the Teanaway Forks and later the river itself and I heard rumors of large fish but I never spotted or caught anything larger than 15 or 16". It wasn't until a few years ago that I started spotting the kings, and just recently, steelhead. Spent king carcasses now litter the shore in the upper stretches and are probably attracting attention from certain marauding mammal species. Now coho have been reintroduced and the fish "gate" at Lake Cle Elum might be enough to bring the delicate sockeyes back. Pretty exciting stuff, really. Large fish jumping up the Thorp Diversion Dam? Unheard of, but happening. We even have Salmon Spawning Tours and "watching areas" on the Cle Elum.
I won't be happy, though, until I actually hook one of these large fish....and eat it.

Generally, Indians are blamed by sports fishermen on the coast and on the Columbia for poor fishing etiquette, to put it mildly. Ironically, here it has been the Yakama Nation's insistence, over decades, for salmon recovery that has made most of the salmon's return in this basin possible($). So thank an Indian the next time you're playing blackjack.

Irrigation concerns were at odds with fish recovery people for most of the last 50 years. It was embarrassing to listen to local irrigation officials declare to the feds that since rainbow trout and steelhead were genetically identical, they were one and the same fish, so the steelhead population in the river was booming!
Both sides hired "experts" to prove their cases, usually retired F&W biologists who had started their own companies for hire. Fishery people and irrigation people sued each other over the smallest proposed change in water policy. This has mostly changed now. Today, it is water users suing each other. Old nemesis are now unlikely allies. There is much more at stake now than, for example, being forced to equip your ditch with a water measuring device or a fish screen.

Irrigation districts, who once acted like spoiled kids, are now progressive and are some of the biggest proponents of water conservation and quality anywhere. They stopped fighting the system and joined it. At some point in time our groundwater users and their champions will also "get it" and begin to work with their own "nemesis".
Tribune article- Well Moratorium bywhatatrip1 month ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I read the well Moratorium article in the Tribune. It seems to say that if you put your well to use for any of the covered exempt well uses; it is good for all exempt well uses. The article states:

“Tebb said the definition of a ‘home’ in this case included various types of mobile homes, as long as the home is occupied and water is being put to beneficial use.

Beneficial use, he said, means using the water to any beneficial use associated with normal occupancy of a dwelling, such as watering the lawn, the garden, stock, or consuming the water for domestic use.”

The article didn’t elaborate on what types of “mobile” homes qualify or why he mentioned it. Presumably a temporary shack would not qualify. I wonder what other types would quality.

I don’t believe developers should be able to grandfather in homes to be built after the moratorium. It is ok if an individual wants to take a chance and get water that is not mitigated but it is an entirely different matter when developers are building “sub-standard” housing. I would say that a home built by a developer is building a defective product because there is no certainty of water. Real estate agents should be very wary of selling homes that may have their water cut off during times of a low water supply. This could very well come back to haunt developers, real estate agents and the County.

If people today think this water moratorium is a big deal, wait until the public becomes aware that they may be buying a home with a real possibility that their water use could be curtailed because their water is not covered by a senior water right. That could halt sales of homes even more so than the current “crisis”. The BOCC should move quickly to make sure developers will not be able to build sub-standard housing in the Upper County. The BOCC should also work to acquire water rights for existing homes or the resale real estate market could be killed forever. If potential buyers of homes are at risk, I hope someone or some agency puts a warning notice in the “homes for sale” section of all local newspapers so those potential buyers are forwarned.

To all those who think DOE is to blame, they should take notice of the position of the YN (Yakama Nation). This is what they had to say in their letter that I believe is a part of the public record as reported by Tom Ring:

“Pumping and consumptively using groundwater,” the letter read, “captures an equivalent amount of surface water. There is no surface water available in the Yakima Basin for new appropriations. The only legal and fair way for those who propose additional consumptive uses in Upper Kittitas County is through acquisition and retirement and/or transfer of existing [water] rights …”.

I have read the letter and the position of the YN is clear. They say “The amount of water that can be consumptively used in Upper Kittitas County without impairing senior water rights is zero. That is the stark reality in a fully appropriated basin like the Yakima.”

They are right. They have waged a 33 year court battle over surface water rights and have ample evidence there is no difference between surface water and ground water when all water in the basin is considered. I believe they are right. They have a slam dunk case.
RE: Tribune article- Well Moratorium bylordoflys1 month ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
Nice posting...and I've always been of the opinion that the Kittitas County Commissioners never acted in good faith with DOE in the beginning, which prompted the DOE, which is tasked with protecting water rights, to take this action. A less contentious relationship might have resulted in simple measuring devices mandated for all exempt well users instead of the moratorium...at least until the USGS groundwater study was completed. Just my opinion. But one thing I know for sure is that things will never be back the way they were as far as groundwater in the upper county. My odds are 99-1 that, after the grace period is over, groundwater will be mitigated, all of it. And, the lower valley could very well be next. Don't be surprised at this. The free-for-all for exempt wells in the Yakima Basin in over. Exempt well water extraction will be monitored everywhere in the valley and the USGS will calculate evaporation/ground extraction/irrigation recharge/seasonal usage/snow pack/ etc. models to determine if senior water rights are threatened in any given year. It is coming.

If anyone thinks it couldn't get any more intense than an upper county moratorium you are hiding your head in the sand. A Water War is just that. Eventually, blood will be spilled. This is a bit alarmist but, blessed with plenty of cold, clean water for so long has made us all complacent. We have already moved irreversibly from one point to another, both in terms of water usage and climate. The changes that are occurring need to be managed. All sounds a bit Al Gore-ish and I apologize for that.

If I was developing in the upper county I'd dig more wells in 150 days than I could ever hope to use. Call it what you want but the alternative is to purchase water rights which is expensive and will ultimately be more precious than owning land. Owning water rights will eventually give you power over life itself. Well, maybe not.

I blame whatatrip for starting my engine on this subject. For more interesting information relating to whatatrip's post check out this letter from DOE's new Director, Ted Sturdevant, to Kittitas County Commissioners, sent last week. Read it with your morning coffee. It will give you something to think about during the day.

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cro/images/pdfs/ecy_to_kittitas/commissioners12010.pdf
Things Changing byJeremy1 month ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
First, only a few senior water rights holders have filed letters or sent their employees to comment on the exempt well issue. None of these letters demonstrate any real impairment. Just because the DOE can issue a mortorium and hide behind their lack of science idea does not mean a senior water right holder can do the same. They have to actually present science and demonstrate this so-called impairment by state rule. If they had the evidence they would have shown it by now.

This moretorium has been terrible on the Upper County. Even though we are having a hugh dip in the economy nationwide a stop on all rural development only makes a bad situation worse. If this mortorium did not exist there would still be some homes to build. DOE could have approached this on a more fact finding and information gathering way, instead they have created a situation that they dont have a solution to. Our commissioners are elected to watch out for the countys best interests, which they have.
RE: Things Changing bycountrygirl111 month ago (4 votes) (report abuse)
The BOCC is not looking out for the best interests of all the citizens of Kittitas County. The BOCC was aware of the abuse of the permit exempt well law for years. While many objected to Suncadia (called Trendwest in the beginning), they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars purchasing water rights. The abuse of the well law has been outlined and discussed before. Ecology and residents of Kittitas County made the BOCC aware of the problem years before a petition by Aqua Permanente. All the BOCC needed to do was stop the abuse of the permit exempt well law. Ecology does have the science behind them, but the moratorium has been brought on the basis of "there not being enough known". There are bills before the house and senate to change how Ecology can implement a moratorium.
I think the dollars of WA State tax payers could be better spent finding ways to conserve water, purchase water rights and better plan rural developement than paying lawyers to find ways to do an end run around a resource that belongs to all citizens not just a greedy few. All of the bils before the house and senate look to protect special interests NOT the resource.
Water...or lack thereof. byfishmonger1 month ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I hate to sound like a broken record, but one only has look at Colorado's situation to understand why DOE issued a moratorium. Furthermore, the BOCC has NOT looked out for the welfare of its citizens, only those who profit from land sales and development. They have had the neanderthal belief that it's someone's God-given right to drill and extract this critical resource. Fact: In 2002 the town of Beulah, Colorado, ran out of water. All summer water for the town’s residents had to be trucked in. Local officials did not have the funds to haul the more than seventy thousand gallons of water that residents used in a typical day. County officials authorized emergency water shipments, providing only 10 gallons a day per person. Take a look at Beulah...it resembles the upper county in geography, topography and enviroment.

Our DOE can be a real pain-in-the-ass sometimes, I'll acknowledge that, but they know how all this is going to play out in the courts based on case law in Colorado and California and they are acting proactively. Exempt wells will be a thing of the past. Chopping the upper county up into 2-20 acre lots and sucking the aquafir dry is not going to happen; the stakes are too high. It's laughable to see our three stooges state representatives trying to act like martyrs in this situation with their cries of "need for sound science". Case law has already established that groundwater is presumed to be tributary to a natural stream. Clear back in 1965 Colorado integrated its groundwater and surface water administration, but they continued to allow exemptions for private domestic wells (after heavy lobbying by the real estate industrial complex). Look where it got them.
Thing of the past? byJeremy1 month ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Our situation is not Colorados or Californias its Kittitas Countys. Unlike your example no wells have gone dry, and studys(USGS) have already been done showing the bonus recharge that our valley enjoys. Every situation is different, here in this county the Mortorium was brought on by anti-development groups complaints, no facts or science.

Our commissioners are not in charge of policing exempt wells, that the states job. If there are wells being abused its the DOEs job to stop it and correct the problem, thats what our tax dollars pay for.
The DOE receives money for every well drilled and the information on each well is filed, they have loads of information pertaining to exempt wells.

Domestic water will never be a thing of the past, this has been a state rule since the 1940's. Most of this side of the state relys on domestic exempt wells. If the state was acting responsably they would have started the groundwater study years ago, the funding is there. You cant fix a problem if you dont know what it is.
RE: Thing of the past? byAureliux1 month ago (5 votes) (report abuse)
Ownership, rights, and big bucks for who owns the water. Do believe that is the ultimate end of this whole tired sordid scenario. SOMEONE wants to end up holding title to it so they can charge fees and end up quite rich over the whole meal deal.

And once that is accomplished and whoever owns it can charge for it, there will not be a shortage of water for wells.

There may be a decent opportunity to find some reasonable regulation for growth in this county. Beating this water issue around and trying to beat it to fit a peculiar need and political platform isn't going to work.

Creating more ground water storage would definitely be a good sound answer. Getting more water up and out of the underground system which is sealed beneath a tight layer of clay way down deep could be another solution.

Unless someone wants to try to make me believe water runs uphill? Or if the wells quit pumping a little bit of water for household use in upper county, suddenly artesian wells are going to pop up and explode all over the lower altitudes for plentiful irrigation?

Water does not burn up and disappear once it's in a well. It goes into recharge at a very high percentage. Does anyone know of a place where the huge underground aquifers come up and flow into the valley? I've never heard of it. It stays deep, runs deep, and continues on below that thick clay or shale layer.

And no one really knows where it originates, or where it goes. It's all assumed.

In my so humble opinion? Everyone need to quit blowing these magnificent snow jobs around about things that don't apply, find something that will work, and get busy on it like more storage.

And, to the dear pseudo new age pretend enviro wanna be varieties? Want to get REALLY concerned about ground water contamination? Take a look around at illegal private junk yards and derelict vehicles parked all over the place. There are SEVERAL around that have junk cars and trucks parked mouldering away within 25' of a stream. Brake fluid? Oil leaking? ANTI FREEZE? It's going into the water system.

And no one seems to want to pick up the ball and run over the heavy metal contamination from spreading sewage sludge via helicopter on the high country forests. Dare I mention the possibility of blood borne pathogens, too?

Let's get more storage ideas going. Stick with the facts, quit the insane name calling, and get on with what is really good for our county.

A.
RE: Thing of the past? bycountrygirl111 month ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
But the BOCC ALLOWED the abuse by looking the other way at the daisy chain of LLCs all owned by ONE developer. Further the permit exempt well law NEVER was intended for one well on every 3 acre parcel or stringing wells together to serve cluster plat developement. Not to confuse water and land issues (tho they are intimately associated) The EWGMHB has found the County in violation concerning 3 acre zoning and cluster plats on rural lands. The reason we don't have a problem yet is population. Responsible planning leads to responsible water use.
DOE - GMHB - Water Law bywhatatrip1 month ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
The issue of water is and always has been tied to issues of growth. Growth requires water. Too many people think water is free. The truth is that it is no different from land or anything else you hold title to or own or have a right to. Our situation, from a legal standpoint, is just like California, Colorado, Montana or any other western state.

It is and it has been the responsibility of our BOCC to enact laws and regulations that protect not only rural character but also to protect the quality and quantity of water in our county in addition to implementing laws and regulation that support and supplement DOE’s regulations. It is a GMA mandate that Kittitas County has woefully neglected to do. If you don’t believe me, look into the Growth Management Hearings Board’s findings. Their ruling has been appealed and is now before the court of appeals. Furthermore, DOE has entered into the same court case. See the following web site for the full amicus curiae brief:

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cro/images/pdfs/11510_amic

Just one quote from the DOE brief: “The DOE has authority over exempt wells, but the County has the authority over land use decisions and planning, which serves to support and supplement DOE’s regulations. Although DOE is the ultimate authority on just how a permit for an exempt well is obtained, the County still controls its own grand/surface water and the GMA requires protection of these resources.”

What DOE is saying is the County has failed to protect water quality and quantity as prescribed by law. The BOCC have done a horrible job on land use issues. And as such the County is in charge of policing exempt wells. Of course the appeals court has not yet ruled so this is just my opinion, the opinion of the Growth Management Hearings Board, the Yakama Nation, DOE, Ridge, Futurewise, KCCC and thousands of citizens.

All the study is going to accomplish is who’s wells will be shut off first and for how long if there is a water shortage and exempt wells are not somehow mitigated. The first use of a well establishes priority date but proximity to surface water will establish to what extent wells impair surface water flows. If you have been following, the position of the Yakama Nation is that any withdrawal by an unmitigated exempt well is impairment. I presume that is the position of the senior irrigators also.

It is too late for responsible land use laws to do anything as far as water is concerned. If there had been reasonable land use laws in place, this issue might not have surfaced for decades.
RE: DOE - GMHB - Water Law byJeremy1 month ago (4 votes) (report abuse)
DOE has the ultimate say in exempt wells, water resources is a big part of their job. Like I said before they handle the permit applications, well logs, and the fees. So the lack of information idea is far fetched, they have data on thousands of wells.

Until someone can actually prove that impairment is going on with facts and documentation the whole idea is just a concept. Too much of this issue has been clouded with potentials and opinion. Its time for facts and proof, outside groups that have been supporting this moratorium have nothing to loose. Its a lot different if you make your living here and have to deal with the fallout.
Kittitas Valley and the World bylordoflys1 month ago (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
The economic premise of Kittitas County is, or was, sustainable natural resource harvest. Most of the citizens are now, however, government employees be it federal, state or local. And these government employees enjoy a higher mean wage than the other sectors, ag, services, etc. The easiest road to wealth here was natural resource extraction...develop and sell land, cut trees, suck the water out of the river and the earth. As long as there was a demand outside the county things were rosy. But the national economy has tanked. So now the quickest way to financial freedom is to become a government employee. Or maybe a quasi-government organization, like Kittitas Reclamation District, which, incidentally, has just voted themselves a pay raise.

The Republican Party, God Bless 'em, are seemingly in resurgence. It's all about jobs and the 1.6 trillion deficit. The President, it seems, is really screwing up. Of course, he inherited 1.3 trillion of that deficit one year ago and the economy had already tanked. The Tea Party'ers were not evident when most of that money was being spent overseas during the previous administration. For myself, I'd rather see money pulled from Americans, spent on America. I only mention the Republicans because that is who is governing our fine County. And I do not wish do demean, in any fashion, government employees...except certain employees who have been dictating failed policy for some time.

China, on the other hand, is enjoying another 10% increase in economic growth. Americans, it seems, are running out of money so the need for cheaper imports is growing. Patio furniture, sneakers, paper clips, etc. And, a growing appetite for Chinese food and ag products (of which less than 1% is even inspected). Maybe one day we won't even need to grow wheat, corn and timothy....if we can import cheaper Chinese product. Free trade is laughable. We have never even come close to that. And China has spent those dollars buying American's debt, modernizing their armed forces, and into research and development. We may be buying airplanes from China in the future, if we can afford any.

What the US needs is to build it's manufacturing base back up, and to protect agriculture. One dollar should not be spent on China unless the equivalent is spent by China on US goods and services. Without additional water storage the little goods that this County produces is in jeopardy. And the spiral will continue. Maybe a little bit of that money saved from our canceled NASA Mars program can be spent on enlarging Bumping Lake. Maybe we can stop buying Chinese-made picnic tables made from imported California redwood logs and make them here! Then maybe the exodus of employees into the government ranks will begin to reverse.

What does this all have to do about water policy? Not much, I'm afraid. But I wanted to get this off my chest. Your thoughts?
RE: Kittitas Valley and the World bycountrygirl111 month ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
Nice rant lordoflies. I happen to agree with you. The land is never "worthless", some people bought into the land scam in our county and over paid. But the land can be used to grow food or raise some form of protein. We can not allow good ag land to be covered with houses. This country needs to get the manufacturing jobs back. I saw a documentary on Haiti - the clothing manufacturers there pay the workers $5 dollars a day. OMG! So I don't know how we can compete. I don't fish, but if salmon in numbers came back to the Yakima I think I'd give it a go.
RE: Kittitas Valley and the World byAureliux1 month ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
Good comments. Would like to see more local grown ag ect available to purchase around here. Seems we've got just about everything growing and raising, should be able to get it without having to purchase left coast commodities.

Salmon would be a big hit for many different reasons. Think having them around again would boost the overall health of the river in many different ways. And it would be nice to have something to bring home.

China trade is going to be a problem. Had heard that they are beginning to export hay at a significant discount which is impacting our exports.

Then there is always the stampede from general consumers to purchase cheaper imports from large stores in another county.

Plenty of issues, situations, and questions with no easy answer.

And please allow me to carefully caution those that feel they oppose me on the water issues in our fine county? I don't think that those who will ultimately end up with control over this will hold your values and views in a good light.

I don't agree with how crazy development of land got in this county at all. I didn't support Trend West. Hacking good land up into 3 acre mini ranches may have worked in some instances. But in other areas seeing the postage stamp sized lots and instant plywood cabin ghettos really didn't work for me at all.

Wonder if anyone can remember what happens to stray dogs during salmon runs? Some kind of toxin in raw salmon puts them down real quick. Used to see it happen out on the coast all the time.

A.
RE: Kittitas Valley and the World bywhatatrip1 month ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
I don’t know what Kittitas County is going to do. The whole country has reached its “peter principle” as far as governance goes. This has been brought about because of a changing world that we haven’t been able to adapt to. I can remember 40 years ago Americans saying they wanted the rest of the world to be as affluent as we were not realizing that if they did, our standard of living would have to go down. Much of the rest of the world has taken us up on working towards the kind of lifestyle we have enjoyed over the years. As a result, relatively speaking, we have priced ourselves out of the labor market and cannot compete in a global economy. This will change slowly as countries like China and India improve their standard of living just as it changed when Japan improved their standard of living. American products are much more competitive with Japanese products today than they used to be. We and Japan are competitive compared to years ago.

I heard not long ago that China was complaining about “cheap labor” in other countries like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Indonesia. Many of the Chinese companies moved because of the cheaper labor. I don’t see how we are going to be able to maintain our standard of living in a world of increasing population, limited resources and increased competition. We have been able to keep up with the “Jones” by borrowing money over the past 30 years but I have a feeling those borrowing days are numbered. FWIW, I just heard that China now owns more of the US national debt than Americans do.

An area that we can compete with the world on is renewable energy. Wind, for example, is free everywhere. The cost of capturing energy from the wind may be a lot cheaper in China than in the US but transportation costs of energy from China to the US would be prohibitive. Once China gets on board and starts producing cheaper wind turbines, the cheaper it will be for us to capture the energy in the wind. A lot of people complain about cheap products from China but if we can buy a product from China cheaper than we can buy the raw materials, it only makes sense to buy Chinese.

One of America’s biggest problems is the shrinking number of jobs Americans are willing to do. Many say kick out the illegal Hispanics so Americans have jobs but who will fill those jobs?

People complain about government spending but, as lordoflys pointed out, where would Kittitas County be without government spending. Government as an employer tends to give some stability to the economy primarily because of the services it provides. The trend toward privatizing everything has not turned out so well in many areas. The privatization of the military has been a very expensive failure. The privatization of the school loan program just added to the cost of education because of the addition of profit. If it weren’t for government spending and government bailouts the past year and a half, we would not have an economy to save.

Americans are going to have to learn a lot and be more active in learning the facts before they simply react as the tea party people have reacted. Just voting out the incumbents is not going to get the job done. We have been living off the fat of the land for too long. It used to be that recessions were periods of time where the fat was trimmed, prices stabilized and wages were held in check. Over the past 30 years there has been an acceleration of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Americans, by and large, have given away their power and money to the wealthy and powerful. I just heard that the head of Goldman Sacs is getting a 100 million dollar bonus. The rich and powerful have successfully divided and conquered.
Then There's This Solar Project byAureliux1 month ago (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/414684_solar1.html
Story on it, this AM in the Sea PI. There is nothing about this proposed project that makes sense to me.
Bait and switch land purchase? Tag a sign over it that says, "GREEN PROJECT" and hope everyone gets on board to push it through?
Imagine there are a lot of other people out there in KV land that don't particularly trust this little project, either.

A.
RE: Then There's This Solar Project bycountrygirl111 month ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
I support the idea of solar. That doesn't mean I've taken leave of my senses or wish to suspend the laws of physics. There are so many unanswered questions and some leaders in the field don't see how this project could pencil out. There was an article in the Daily Record (sorry don't know the date) several weeks ago by Mary Swift that was very good. In the mean time our legislators are dragging their feet to get legislation passed that will help promote solar and wind. Has to do with getting the energy sold to PSE and Bonneville. How that ties into water you ask? In order to conserve water, farmers need to switch from flood irrigating to pumps and sprinklers systems. This requires alot of electricity and allowing farmers to put up a wind turbine would be a great benefit. The BOCC shot down a recent amendment to the comp plan on community wind. I guess my point is, nothing opperates in a vacuum, all is connected and I see many of our elected officials using the 'divide and conquer' approach to government instead of coming together to find real solutions.
One Really Old Water Problem from Once Upon a Time... byAureliux1 month ago (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
OK, so this reaches WAY back and I'm sure I do not have my facts straight at all. Something kind of triggered it this morning so hang on tight and here we go...

1968? I think. Los Angeles CA. Some regular guy was concerned about water usage and wanted to conserve. He picked up a brick somewhere and put it in his toilet tank. Threw some figures around, guestimated how many china ponies there were in LA, came up with a fantastic figure of cu' of water saved per day...

And published it.

Whoever the utility that did water there, then, threatened to sue him. I can't remember all the details at the time, but it had to do with regulated usage and planned consumption and if everyone all conserved at the same time it would have backed something up somewhere that the engineers never planned on.

Crazy.

Doesn't apply to anything going on here, but there you go.

I like solar and wind power too. Just plain do not trust this Teanaway project one little bit.

A.
Water Issues byCleElum11 month ago (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
o.k. ... so I've been googling water issues for weeks, but every time I think I'm ready to mentally process more info. I barely get started again before I'm maxed out with data overload. My computer brain definitely needs more "ram". Googling is just like an ol' hound dog on the scent. Which leads to another scent, and another scent,and .... until you forgets where you started it all.

What starts out as local issues of a moratorium and/or exempt wells turns quickly to varying degrees of water shortages in 36 states in the US by 2013, water shortages world wide, privatization of water supplies both here and globally, as well as what has been coined as the next war .... "The Water War". Which in some parts of the world has already started.

Doesn't look to be a bottom to this well of information on water issues and the issue itself is not going away any time soon, not here in the upper county, not anywhere ...
Much Ado About Water bylordoflys1 month ago (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
1. Roslyn has declared victory in their Water War....says the NKC Tribune. That the City of Roslyn, which was using surface water decades before Reclamation arrived to the Yakima Valley, came this close to drying up (and might have, were it not for a $400,000 DOE grant) testifies to how serious the water situation here is.

2. Roslyn city councilman Cordy Cooke does not like the 150 day "grace period" given to upper county residents because "Roslyn had to buy water rights and only got it after 8 years". He wants everyone held to the same standards. Cordy. Read No. 1 above. Roslyn was GIVEN the $400,000 by DOE. No upper county citizen will. Of that I'm pretty certain.

3. Republican Sen. Holmquist, after getting very little support from the Washington Attorney General, has now decided to introduce a bill to hamstring Ecology by restricting their regulatory power. I am amazed at her simple-mindedness, though I will say that she clings to her dogmatic beliefs tenaciously.

Note to Janea Holmquist:
Hi Janea. I am one of your constituents. From what I can deduce the moratorium was slapped on us after our County Commissioners canceled meetings and otherwise negotiated in bad faith with DOE, who were, and still are very close to our Democratic Governor. They would not agree even to let DOE monitor exempt wells. So you appealed to the AG's office and didn't get anywhere. Now, by wasting taxpayer's money you introduce something that will only attract additional animosity from this agency. Fine. This will perpetuate the misery, dear. Meanwhile, you are doing nothing to help this county avoid another crippling drought. A drought that could very well begin this spring. A drought that could be avoided by building additional storage in the basin. It sure seems to me that it's development interests at work here, instead of irrigation and municipal water needs interests. The real estate sector, by the way, could do better by working with DOE, rather than have their bulldogs fighting them.

Sen. Holmquist's Bill will not likely go anywhere. But she is a fine example of your tax dollars at work. She's playing politics (really, can you call it anything else?), the snow pack is not getting any bigger, and we are waiting for some support from ANY elected leader at this point....but I guess water is something they'll address once it has already become a problem...early this summer is my guess.
RE: Much Ado About Water byJeremy1 month ago (7 votes) (report abuse)
I will agree with you that Roslyns issue is over. It shouldnt have ever been lumped into the exempt well discussion. I think their issue got a lot of use from anti-development groups who conviently mixed it into the exempt well discussion. Maybe they should have done a better job protecting and purchasing more water like every other town does. Instead they got bailed out by the state, most towns get groundwater rights as opposed to surface water rights and drill wells. The two rights are seperate and different.

The senators bill requiring actual science and facts to back up any further basin closures is being proactive and its a long term solution. One of the big problem with this mortorium is DOE use of it throughout negotiations and finally using it without any science to back it up. Its not a responsible approach, if the study concludes that the DOE was incorect are they going to pay for the monetary damage that they inflicted on the county? I dont think so, the best thing to do is make them provide real factual evidence before doing this to another county.
RE: Much Ado About Water bylordoflys1 month ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
Jeremy, I'm interested to know what kind of drilling activity will occur during this 150 day hiatus. Keep us informed on this if you would.

To your point, the tribal spokesman claims that current science proves that every gallon of groundwater pulled from the upper valley takes a gallon of surface water. Others, you included, say that there is no science yet available to back this up. The truth probably lies somewhere in-between.

It would be something if the study concludes that there is no correlation between groundwater extracts and surface water. And there is really no other county in this state that utilizes so much surface water (as a percentage) in a river basin. Not even the Columbia. I think that the Yakima Basin, in fact, is the most heavily irrigated basin in the US. Any arguments?

Local politicians who are antagonizing DOE are supported mainly by developers and real estate interests. I assert that this support is misguided, and that a better working relationship with DOE would better further their interests. But, right or wrong, I doubt if any of the current policy will be reversed. Irrigation interests, which ultimately out-trump development interests will win this battle, though the war is just getting started.

We are well into February and snow pack is 30% below average. Not good. It's not critical but some are starting to worry. It's one thing not to be able to dig a well for your summer getaway. It's an entirely different situation when your crops fail, orchards die off, and you have to truck in water for your animals. That's oversimplification, I admit, and I'm not accounting for the businesses that are suffering in the upper county as a result of the moratorium, but an irrigation shortfall will create a true disaster and cause suffering way beyond what is occurring in the UC.
RE: Much Ado About Water byMC1 month ago (4 votes) (report abuse)
Jeremy- Roslyn's water isn't mystically disconnected from everyone and everything else in the upper county. They've got a dog in this fight at least as much if not more than anyone else.

I also realize you have repeatedly asserted that ground water and surface water are completely disconnected, but any hydrologist I've met won't make that claim. Of course it's not like there's a big ol' culvert between the two either. The real issue is HOW and WHERE they're connected and how/when/under what circumstances/how fast or slow one hands off to another (accepted wisdom being that it goes both ways). A crisp legal definition of surface vs underground water as if they're completely separate is unfortunate, because the reality is that water itself doesn't recognize such delineations.

My guess is that studies will ultimately determine that some local aquifers are more closely tied with surface water than others, and at that point hopefully we'll have county leadership capable of grappling with 'gradient' situations rather than insisting that everything in life is 100% black and white/yes or no.
RE: Much Ado About Water bycountrygirl111 month ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
I doubt she reads this bog so get that note off to Janea, ASAP. I'm getting a little concerned over the snowpack, I need my irrigation water, all of it.
The DOE is looking for upper county residents who are interested in volenteeing to have the static levels of their wells monitored. Static levels only will be measured, NOT amount used. This can help establish a baseline and determine seasonal differences versus other impacts. I would guess anyone with a well near one of these recently platted out developments that have not been built out would like to establish their 'normal' well values - especially if there are any changes in the future. The person to contact at DOE is Kurt Walker, hydrogeologist e-mail,kwal461@ecy.wa.gov
or phone 509-575-2490. He' primarily interested in Upper County residents.
RE: Much Ado About Water byJeremy1 month ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
My biggest point throughout this discussion is that there is no evidence of the impairment that DOE and anti-development groups are whimpering about. The DOE should be held to the same standards that the any resident of the state claiming impairment would be,(WAC 173-150-070).

I'm not claiming to be a know it all about everything water. It just happens to be my job and something that I enjoy, many moratorium supporters could care less about water or this county. They are simply using this important topic as well as Roslyn's problem to further their groups political agenda.

The hydro cycle has to have water connected in order to operate. The issue specifically in Kittitas County is the so-called protection of Senior water right holders and potential of impairment, not concepts. Most of you use water use in your arguments as if it magically disappears, the flip side of the water use is recharge, you cant have one without the other.

This whole moratorium has been weakly based on lack of information and the potential for impairment. DOE has stacks of well logs on exempt wells as well as pumping information on some, studies on Roslyn and Cle Elum have also been done. Since there is no connection demonstrated with exempt wells impairing the Senior water right holders of the lower valley this moratorium should be lifted.
Groundwater/Surface-Water Interaction byCleElum11 month ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Traditionally, management of water resources has focused on surface water or ground water as if they were separate entities. As development of land and water resources increases, it is apparent that development of either of these resources affects the quantity and quality of the other. Nearly all surface-water features (streams, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, and estuaries) interact with ground water. These interactions take many forms. In many situations, surface-water bodies gain water and solutes from ground-water systems and in others the surface-water body is a source of ground-water recharge and causes changes in ground-water quality. As a result, withdrawal of water from streams can deplete ground water or conversely, pumpage of ground water can deplete water in streams, lakes, or wetlands. Pollution of surface water can cause degradation of ground-water quality and conversely pollution of ground water can degrade surface water. Thus, effective land and water management requires a clear understanding of the linkages between ground water and surface water as it applies to any given hydrologic setting.

- Robert M. Hirsch, Chief Hydrologist, USGS
From USGS Circular 1139: Ground Water And Surface Water: A Single Resource

http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/gwsw.html

Another good site:

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthgwaquifer.html
RE: Groundwater/Surface-Water Interaction byCleElum11 month ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
some old news reports I came across:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/08/eveningnews/main60

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/feb/05/aquifer-coming-

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008698665_w
this thread retired bylordoflys1 month ago (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
The moratorium is still on many people's minds but a shortfall of runoff water in the upper basin could cripple agriculture in Kittitas County.
RE: this thread retired bywhatatrip4 weeks ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
IF we don't get some moisture soon, this could be the year that senior water rights holders hold permit exempt wells accountable by restricting or cutting off use. They do have the power and given the BS coming out of the BOCC and our local legislators, this might be the year the seniors let them know who has legal rights and who doesn't. It is too bad that the greed of the local "bottom fishing" developers have caused this to happen. Any developers with senior water rigths will have an overwhelming advantage over those who don't.

I've read through some stuff on the "super ditch" approach and it is way too late for that to be of benefit now and it may not be very workable in the future. The simple approach proposed that requires a purchase of senior water rights is both fair and simple.
RE: this thread retired bylordoflys4 weeks ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
Please go to The Drought of 2010 to continue this discussion.
CommentsRSS Feed
Want to leave a comment? Log In to your account
Want to leave a comment? Log In to your account