Spokane7
68°
May 8, 2011 in Business
Caldwell: Water disputes need local solutions
Two rivers run through the Rathdrum Prairie and Spokane Valley: one spilling from Lake Coeur d’Alene, one seeping from Pend Oreille, Hayden, Newman and other lakes. Each refreshes the other until all the waters combine downstream from Spokane.
All that is left, that is.
The river/aquifer has been a tremendous resource for the Inland Northwest, one not fully appreciated until relatively recently. Since we have begun to fully understand its value and vulnerability, we have taken numerous steps to protect it, installing sewers, building waste treatment plants and setting back developments that might endanger an environmental and economic asset other communities can only envy.
But a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court and a Washington State University study, both announced last week, remind us there is much to be done.
Monday, the Supreme Court justices ruled 7-1 against Montana, which claimed Wyoming was violating a 1951 compact that divided the flows of the Powder and Tongue rivers. Heavily used for irrigation in both states, the “rivers” are not much more than streams by the time they reach the Yellowstone River from their headwaters in Wyoming’s Big Horn Mountains.
The Powder, after all, was the river pioneers deemed too thick to drink, too thin to plow.
It’s getting thicker.
Montana’s loss should disturb those concerned about the dewatering of the Spokane River as use of the aquifer intensifies. Why?
The gist of the case is this: The Yellowstone River Compact set rules for diverting water from the Tongue and Powder. Wyoming farmers and ranchers are not violating those rules even though the sprinkler systems that have replaced flood irrigation consume more water because less runs off their properties.
But that runoff represented a significant share of the water that was supposed to be available to downstream Montana users. No matter, said the court majority.
It does matter, said dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia, who cited the compact’s use of the word “depleted” as an intended protection against harm to other water users.
This, by the way, is the kind of ruling you get when three justices hail from New York, two from New Jersey, and one from west of … Georgia. The outcome would have at least been less one-sided if retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was raised on an Arizona ranch, had still been on the bench and talking sense to her peers.
For those of us on the Washington side of the border with Idaho, this case should be a red flag. Although Idaho officials have wisely denied massive water withdrawals from the aquifer sought by utility plant operators, they do continue to issue new water rights that are sapping Spokane River flows.
Fish and river floaters are not the only losers.
Lower flows, for example, vastly complicate the ability of communities all along the river to process wastewater thoroughly enough to meet clean-water standards. They must succeed, or they cannot grow.
Attorney Rachel Paschal Osborn, a staunch defender of the river, says there are three ways the waters of the aquifer/river can be divided: by compact, lawsuit or congressional action. Idaho has nothing to lose with the status quo, she says, adding “We’re still waiting for the state of Washington to express some concern.”
The Department of Ecology did come out with one possible answer last week with a WSU-drafted report. It proposes what is, in effect, bypass surgery.
To recharge the aquifer, and so the river, the report suggests pumping at the headwaters of the aquifer at Lake Pend Oreille, piping the water over the aquifer, and re-injecting the water into the ground. The low-end cost would be $90 million for construction, plus annual operating costs of as much as $14 million.
“Should conservation efforts fall short of future demand, this project appears to provide a technically viable option for enhancing summer flow conditions in the Spokane River,” the executive summary concludes.
Of course, Idaho would have to grant the water rights that would make the pumping possible.
Even Department of Ecology senior hydrologist John Covert says the fact this Rube Goldberg-like solution is feasible does not mean it should be attempted.
But as we watch today’s swollen river recede to its pathetic late-summer trickle, we should be asking our state and local officials to show more concern. The negotiations that led to the 2009 relicensing of Avista Utilities’ Spokane River dams on both sides of the border suggest that, at least in miniature, water issues can be resolved.
Do we really want justices raised not just east of the Mississippi River, but east of the Appalachian Mountains, doing the work for us?
Caldwell: West Point trained local bankers to survive 
oneanddone on May 08 at 5:21 a.m.
I’m guessing that the solution that Caldwell really is talking about is for Idaho to just give up their water rights, for the “greater good” of Spokane. And we should do that why? I know - you want to trade. You send us your air pollution and we give you all our water. Tell me again, what did Washington and Oregon say when California wanted to divert Columbia water? There’s an old saying which Idaho should follow with water that flows into Washington, “right after us, you guys come first.”
DickAdams on May 08 at 9:53 a.m.
Bert Caldwell says in his story, “until recently”. What a crock. How come Mr. Caldwell didn`t point his finger at one of the largest polluters, the Cowleses Dynasty, with their Empire paper mill? For decades the mill has been one of the worst dumping pollutants into the Spokane river. The SR was looking the other way rather than an expose`showing the results of the paper company`s dumping crap into the river.
greenlibertarian on May 08 at 6:12 p.m.
Seems to me, assuming there is enough surplus resource there in Lake Pend Oreille, it may be a viable solution to assuring there’s enough water to allow for future development over the aquifer, AND help out on the water quality/low flow situation in the summer.
It is quite an interesting hydrological situation as to how these watersheds intersect, in that the Lake Pend Oreille drainage heads up to Canada and then into the Columbia just across the border, and Spokane/Rathdrum river/aquifer flows W-SW and ends up in the Columbia.
It would also be an enormously complicated task to get all the necessary players on board to do something. WA DOE, Idaho DEQ(?), Bonner County, Kootenai County, Spokane County, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Corp of Engineers, Avista, Seattle City Light, Pend Oreille County PUD, the various large point sources (treatment plants and IEP), Spokane Tribe, heck maybe even Teck Cominco and BC Hydro since they have hydro-electric dams on the Pend Oreille too.
Good luck with that.
I’d say the FIRST thing that must be done is MAJOR conservation efforts, before looking at pulling water out of Lake Pend Oreille.