tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13796804.post6739354589776452493..comments2023-09-06T05:58:02.522-07:00Comments on Palousitics: "On the Palouse, water is everybody's business"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13796804.post-67684498727404506392007-09-28T22:07:00.000-07:002007-09-28T22:07:00.000-07:00I'll post again some comments made in a Daily News...I'll post again some comments made in a <EM>Daily News</EM> op-ed last year by Larry Kirkland, former technical advisor to the Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee.<BR/><BR/>1. The region does not have a water crisis.<BR/>2. There is time for sound planning to deal with aquifer decline in a rational, economical manner.<BR/>3. We are not a water limited area. Sufficient water falls on the area as rain and snow to handle all foreseeable development<BR/>4. Conservation �creates� water for additional domestic use without increasing the total supply of available water.<BR/>5. Growth and development will eventually require supplemental water supplies.<BR/>6. Funds and manpower are in far too short supply to dissipate in needless controversy.<BR/><BR/>Of course, publicly espousing this viewpoint was tantamount to high treason to our local lunatic fringers. A month ago, Chuck "Mr. Civil Discourse" Pezeshki defamed Mr. Kirkland in <A HREF="http://palousitics.blogspot.com/2007/08/where-in-world-is-chuckie-sandiego.html" REL="nofollow">his column</A> in the <EM>Daily News</EM>. Did Chuckie refute any of PBAC's findings or present research of his own? No. He discredited Kirkland's work on PBAC because of his stance on creationism (Kirkland is a member of Bridge Bible Fellowship Church in Moscow.) In comments on his column on Dnews.com, Pezeshki went into a further frothing outrage, attacking evangelical Christians who believe in the Rapture.<BR/><BR/>Political? You betcha.Tom Forbeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02080804561058476349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13796804.post-9148180707980982132007-09-28T21:35:00.000-07:002007-09-28T21:35:00.000-07:00Bruce: It's my understanding that Whitman County i...Bruce: It's my understanding that Whitman County is nearly swimming in water. So much so that it is a problem in smaller towns. Moscow has it's own agenda and conservency may serve them, but not at the expense of water rich Whitman County. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, my point is that it would be easier and more practicle to bring in water from within Whitman County than to build pipelines from the Snake River. The Indians, the salmon people and logistics would make that nearly impossible. <BR/><BR/>We don't have a water problem, we have a political problem.April E. Cogginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08940677956053695836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13796804.post-85366559310788058212007-09-28T14:15:00.000-07:002007-09-28T14:15:00.000-07:00Tom, while you are at the Palouse Basin Water Summ...Tom, while you are at the Palouse Basin Water Summit it’ld be great to learn how much of water is lost to ‘leakage’ in the various cities of the Palouse, especially Pullman vs. Moscow.<BR/><BR/>What is the total amount of water used in each city and then how much of that water is used by the major irrigation users like the city (parks), the school district (play fields), WSU lawns, Golf course. What I’m really wonder about is if there really is a problem (and I think there is) why do we irrigate with such expensive and valuable water why not have the major irrigators pump water from the Snake River to reduce extraction from the aquifer? And would this really make a difference?Bruce Heimbignerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12615394678431336846noreply@blogger.com