Water Supply for the Yakima River Basin....

By lordoflys
(3 votes) (report abuse)
Lord of fishing gear foul-ups.
I'd like to start a discussion on water supply along the Yakima Basin and related subjects of interest. First, the Wash. Dept. of Ecology has just released the final environment impact statement (EIS) that takes a look at improving water supplies for man and fish. This is really a holy grail of sorts that includes evaluations on a broad scope of subjects, including Black Rock, of course. Read it! http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/cr_yak_storage.html. Ecology undertook this report after irrigators and the Yakama Nation (who rarely collaborate) complained about the Federal storage study completed earlier. On June 30th, at the Yakima Area Arboretum (where nobody can find them, I guess) a group of people, who represent federal and local agencies, irrigation entities, the Yakama Nation, and environmentalists (congressional reps have been invited but Doc Hastings has a bridge club date already set on his busy calendar)will meet to discuss water resource solutions. Many far-reaching changes could actually develop at this meeting that will have lifestyle implications on everyone living from Keechelus to the Tri-Cities. It may impact the availability of water on your lawn and it may determine whether or not Spring King Salmon fishing is in your future upriver from Roza Dam. Before we talk specifics, those of you interested in learning whether or not a new lake will be built in the Teanaway should read this. Then, maybe someone will want to comment on solutions suggested by the EIS. Go ONLINE!!
Conservation Probably First byClem June 26, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I took a look at some of the stuff. I kind of wonder about current farm practices and the irrigation canals most of which are probably not lined. It was kind of interesting a couple of years ago how the two local irrigation districts tried to cut Roslyns water off. That whole thing was about money, it alway is. Suncadia, Cle Elum and Roslyn have adequate sources of water. I think one of the things you will see in the upper county is water rights being bought up and transfered down to Yakima. What that will mean for the Upper County is that some farming will be phased out and you will have dry grazing land.

I ran into an older woman a couple of years ago who had some pretty decent water rights and a ranch here in the area. She put her property up for sale with the water rights. She sold it to a couple of guys who said they were going to raise sheep on the property. Instead they turned around and sold the water rights for more than they paid for the property. The water is more valuable down in Yakima than it is here so I think over time maybe we will have less farming in the County.
Free Market Water bylordoflys June 27, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse)
Clem...they say that the Yakima River Watershed is the most studied geographical entity in the NW. I can believe it as everyone wants a hand in managing the water, environmentalists, ranchers, Native Americans, city managers, recreationists (incl. fishermen), and all kinds of govt. agencies including Reclamation and Ecology. The list goes on. You make a very good point concerning water rights transfers and water banking. They call it "market-based reallocation of water resources". Whats to become of our agricultural legacy and way of life when legal shysters find a way to control water rights and sell them downriver, or to Mobil Oil? That is precisely what is happening along the Colorado River. Mobil needs water rights to someday produce oil from shale there. Crops and livestock be damned. Is this what is to become of our valley? Or is there a limit to free market enterprise? Should water rights be a form of free currency and investment or should it be regulated? Ecology and Reclamation claim that the objectives of all these studies are to "provide additional water for agriculture and future municipal needs and to provide habitat for fish". Can these objectives be met when water is traded like stock? Could the Chinese one day control the water in the river like we've let them control our national debt? Hopefully, common sense will prevail. We've seen what happens to unregulated greed. It ends up hurting all of us.
A guide to organizations involved with the River bylordoflys June 27, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I mentioned earlier about organizations who want a say in how the river is managed. Below is a partial list of organizations that have gone on record with comments to Ecology, along with my irreverent analysis.

1. Confederated Tribes of the Yakama Nation and Roza Irrigation District (joint). Long-winded diatribe about "Time Immemorial Treaty Rights", etc. Basically they want a gravity-fed reservoir on the Naches arm. Grade-B+

2. Wash. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Reiterates their responsibility to the fish and other wildlife in the watershed. Points out scores of "technical" omissions or errors from the EIS and hundreds of technical studies that have contributed to the river being studied nearly to extinction. Grade-B minus

3. Western Watersheds Program. I love these guys. Hates dams, farting cows, grazing permits, livestock foraging on irrigated lands, etc. I make fun of them but they are ahead of their time. Downside is that they are from Idaho. Entertainment value here. Grade-A minus

4. American Rivers. Anti-Black Rock rhetoric. Basically for free-flowing rivers that promote fish passage. Propose pumping the water from the ground instead of surface reservoirs. Next.
Grade C plus

5. Center for Environmental Law and Policy. More anti-Black Rock. Proposes conservation as a better solution than additional storage. Long winded, lots of Phds, MDs, LLBs, freely scattered throughout and even concluded with a full page of references. Grade C minus

6. Yakima Valley Storage Alliance. These are the PRO-Black Rock people. I'm one of them, or at least pro-storage. Information from people who actually "LIVE" in the area, and whose lives will be most impacted. Grade A plus (yes, Im a little weighted in favor with my neighbors)

7. Bureau of Indian Affairs (NW). See No. 1 above. No grade.

8. Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency. Air? Something about Chronic PM10 impact, ad nauseum. Cant understand it. But the letter is only a paragraph or two so brevity earns it a...Grade C

9. Yakima County Board of Commissioners followed by Benton County Board of Commissioners. Well, Im bored of commissioners, too. Worried about the availability of water. Really? Grade C minus

10. Kittitas Reclamation District. Mr. Satnick's worried about cost from impacts. Letter is brief and to the point. No whining. A good letter from a well run irrigation district. Grade A minus

11. Yakima Basin Storage Alliance. Why is there a Yakima Valley Storage Alliance as well as these guys? Also pro-Black Rock. Cites climate studies on future snowpack. Actually a good letter from Uncle Sid. Grade B

12. Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board. Supportive of Ecology's work. Want steelhead recovery in the Yak. Me, too. Short and sweet. Grade B

13. Wise Use Movement. They are "extremely disappointed" with Gov. Gregoire and accuses Ecology of wasting "millions of dollars". And, in summary, state that they are opposed to all storage projects presented by Ecology. No use is wise use, I guess. Grade D minus

14. Sierra Club Cascade Chapter. Opposed to everything, including, I surmise, a decent living for area ranchers and farmers. A few good comments regarding conservation of water. Otherwise, negative diatribe from more Seattle-based fish tossers. Grade C minus

15. National Wildlife Federation. Remember reading those cute magazines with raccoons and bear cubs that were lying around school? Some good points written in a positive, non-lecturing tone from the senior water program manager. Basis in conservation. Grade B plus

16. Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat. Yes, yet another conservation group from the west side. No grade given.

These organizations are just a part of a broad based collection of people wanting the Yakima River Watershed remade in their own image. The list goes on, and there are concerned individuals who have also voiced their opposition or support or ideas to Ecology's EIS. Ecology is taking an integrated approach and I applaud their work to date and their decision to tackle this 800lb gorilla. Let's hope that we are well on the way to action rather than yet another expensive, redundant study. More specifics of the EIS itself later.
Ellensburg's Aquifer byClem June 29, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I see the City of Ellensburg is drilling a new well out by Highway 10 so at least they wont be running out of water. I had to read back a couple of months in the Record and saw that there were over 800 applications for wells on hold. If they were all approved in theory a staggering amount of water could be pumped in the valley.

Issaquah has a pretty good aquifer on the otherside of the mountains but they only pump for mostly residential use and even with the heavy rainfall they eventually reached capacity and had to go to Seattle to get additonal water.

The wells in theory would relieve some pressure to sell water rights. I can still see the higher value produce of the lower valley putting pressure on the alfalfa producers in Kittitas to sell water rights. I guess in theory maybe a local farmer sells his water rights from the Yakima and then hooks up a large pump to a deep well. The economics of that wouldnt work though as Alfalfa is something of a low value high water consumption crop. Interesting but no one has talked about the water usage of Alfalfa crops in the valley. I guess you could get in a lot of hot water for that one. I wonder if the paper has ever looked at the issue.
RE: Ellensburg's Aquifer byMC June 30, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
Actually the runaway largest crop in the valley is timothy hay. I don't know where alfalfa rates in there and I don't know how much water one requires vs the other.
RE: Ellensburg's Aquifer byJeremy June 30, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse)
Check the permit information in the paper or from the state. The exempt wells being drilled in this county have dropped of significantly.
I do not believe that there are 800 exempt wells permits in hold. These are applications, exempt wells by definition are exempt.
Strange Bedfellows Farmers and Environmentalists byClem June 30, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Who would think farmers would team up with environmentalist to try to block a feedlot from using groundwater. Thanks to the way the state law was written in 1945 cattle have pretty much unlimited access to groundwater. The State previously approved a water transfer for the feedlot but they plan on tapping ground water also. This isnt as good as Roslyn being held up for a relatively small amount of water because in this case heavy use of ground water might force everyone to dig deeper.

The Article is from yesterdays Tri City Herald.


Wash. farmers sue to stop feedlot
By SHANNON DININNY
YAKIMA, Wash. -- A group of farmers joined two environmental groups in filing a lawsuit Tuesday to block a proposed feedlot from using a well that is exempt from requiring state permits to water up to 30,000 cattle.

Easterday Ranches Inc., a longtime cattle company and one of the largest feedlot operators in the Northwest, wants to build the region's first new feedlot in years on dry land near the small town of Eltopia, about 25 miles northeast of Pasco.

As proposed, the feedlot would be home to up to 30,000 additional cattle. The company already operates a 30,000-head feedlot in the area near Pasco in central Washington.

Easterday bought a water right for dust control and cooling cattle at the new feedlot, and the state Department of Ecology approved that water right transfer on June 11.

However, Easterday would use a well that is exempt from a state water permit to draw drinking water for the cattle.

Under a state law passed in 1945, some wells may be drilled without a permit, as long as water usage is limited to 5,000 gallons per day. They include wells for livestock watering, small industrial uses, domestic use or noncommercial watering of a small lawn or garden.

Conservation groups have long complained the law opens the state's limited water resources to unlimited use. But a 2005 opinion by state Attorney General Rob McKenna barred the state from limiting the amount of water that ranchers draw daily for their livestock.

Neighboring farmers contend the additional water drawn from underground by Easterday could dry up their own wells. The area is made up of rural homesteads, where farmers plant dryland wheat and draw drinking water for their homes from deep, underground wells.

"After over 100 years of conservative farming on some of the driest land in Washington, our lives and livelihoods are in jeopardy from this huge industrial feedlot," said Scott Collin, a fourth-generation dryland wheat farmer and member of the group Five Corners Family Farmers.

Five Corners Family Farmers and the environmental groups Center for Environmental Law and Policy and Sierra Club filed the lawsuit Tuesday in Thurston County Superior Court in Olympia. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that livestock operators may not draw an unlimited amount of water from exempt wells, or that an exempt well is not available to Easterday Ranches.

The lawsuit names the state of Washington, the state Ecology Department, and Easterday Ranches as defendants.

The Ecology Department estimates the average feedlot cow consumes about 18-20 gallons of water per day. At 30,000 cows, that's more than 500,000 gallons of water, or enough to nearly fill an Olympic-size swimming pool each day.

The Ecology Department asked the state Legislature to weigh in and resolve the exempt-well question last session, but lawmakers failed to address it amid the state's budget crisis. Instead, they ordered a group of lawmakers, livestock industry representatives, environmental groups and tribes to discuss the issue this year.

Dan Partridge, spokesman for the Ecology Department, said the agency couldn't immediately comment on the lawsuit. Cody Easterday of Easterday Ranches declined to comment.
Greed bycountrygirl11 July 01, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
The permit excempt well law as written in 1945 seemed pretty clear and easy to follow. Fast forward 60 years and sleazy developers figured out if you daisy chain a bunch of LLCs to hide the fact it's one big developement you can get away without having to purchase a water right. It took a while, but the court ruling in Campbel-Gwinn says developers can't do the LLC thing to avoid purchasing a water right. They do it anyway because there is no inforcement and it usually is up to the local residents to track down the facts and expose the scam. The same thing applies to cattle; greed, the biggest bang for your buck, just interpret the law for your benefit. These greedy jerks KNOW what the INTENT of the law was back in 1945 but lack good moral and ethical judgement.
The number of start card applications for permit excempt wells in Kittitas County is around 800, the start card is good for several years. The number of wells being drilled has fallen off due to the housing market bust and economic down turn but since the start card is good for several years so the potential for a large number of new wells exsits. The applicant is excempt from the permiting, IT DOES NOT GARANTEE A RIGHT TO WATER.
RE: Greed byJeremy July 01, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse)
You may want to check your facts on the number of permit applications that are on file for our county,just because a permit is on file does not mean that they are going to drill. These applications do not have an expiration date, so there may be applications on file from way back when.

In fact about 20 wells have been drilled and filed so far this year. This information is on the states web site.
Rock Creek purchase for the public bylordoflys July 05, 2009 (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Nearly 4 sq miles of forest land was purchased from our friends at Plum Creek the other day. This land now belongs to Wash. Fish and Wildlife and is PUBLIC. It is about 20 miles due west of Eburg and 20 miles due south of Cle Elum. Kudos to all who made it happen. This property will now be accessible to all rather than Plum Creek telemarketing "recreation lots" to bored westsiders. And, yes, this land is part of the Yakima watershed, adjacent to the Naches.
RE: Rock Creek purchase for the public byMC July 05, 2009 (0 votes) (report abuse)
Great news, thanks lordoflys.

More info + map here:
http://www.yakimaherald.com/stories/2009/07/03/eleventh-hour
Exempt Wells under fire - Irresponsible decision-making? bylordoflys July 16, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
ELLENSBURG, Wash. — The state has banned all new wells — including exempt wells for new homes — in upper Kittitas County this morning, saying uncontrolled growth of new demands on groundwater are hurting senior water rights and streamflows.

This above decision by Ecology results after two years of negotiation with our Country Commissioners. In the Daily Record news article Commissioners Crankovich, McClain, and Jewell all pour heaps of blame on Ecology. Their reasoning, that "small farmers should be able to sell off part of their land (for development) doesn't hold water (sorry) for me. In fact, this reasoning, in light of a huge pending development in the upper county seems trite and irresponsible. Maintaining senior water rights for large scale agriculture and ranching is a legally protected priority in Central Washington. The fact that our County Commissioners could not reach some halfway point with Ecology to preclude them from this emergency order is a black eye for Kittitas County residents. One more thing, do any of our commissioners have any interest in upper county development? What will our erstwhile commissioners decide Tuesday when they consider an intensive use plan for the Teanaway? 60,000 acres? Get your head out of the clouds, people. There is no way Ecology, the Yakama Nation, or Yakima County is going to let you turn this watershed into Sapphire Acres. Balanced growth? Doubling the size of Cle Elum in one fell swoop? How about some responsible governing?
exempt wells byJeremy July 16, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Did anyone in here attend the negotiations meetings with the county and the state?

I did attend all of them except one, at almost every meeting the state threatened a moratorium. Our commissioners should be thanked for not giving into the arm twisting by the D.O.E. This moratorium is done by the state not by the county, what the state was asking of the county in the M.O.A. was going against a state rule.

This will affect the home owner or would be home builder, not so much developers. They can go elsewhere to invest, the person building their retirement home or dream house does not have that luxury.
RE: exempt wells bylordoflys July 16, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse)
I did not attend a single one, Jeremy. But this went on for two years? Without any compromise? Whatever the case, thanks for your input...and keep us posted.
RE: exempt wells bysmall town resident July 19, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse)
I attended many of the public meetings and several, if not all, non-public meetings prior to late November of 2008. The county commissioners and the prosecutors office did this to themselves by not honoring the commitment made in the MOA. It doesn't matter if there is a new commissioner, new prosecutor, or new president, the commitment was made and the county backed out, leaving well drillers and community developers holding the bag. Don't blame Ecology, blame your elected officials. Jay Manning said from the very beginning, as long as an agreement was reached and honored, or forward motion was evident Ecology would work with the county to implement it. Ecology kept their commitment, the county din't. I once heard a county official ask, "what if we just tell Ecology to go pound sand?" with reference to implementing the new emergency rule and MOA. Well, this moratorium may very well be the answer to our honorable elected official.

Tremendous time and effort went into these negotiations from both sides of the table and I truly believe both entities were going in the right direction before the county reversed their commitments made on April 8, 2008. Mark McLain spoke eloquently at the meeting on April 8 in Cle Elum when the MOA was signed. Perhaps the county should pull up the recordings from that meeting and review the intentions and commitments discussed just before they put their pens to paper.
I pray for those most impacted by this restriction on drilling exempt residential wells. I also pray the county finds some drive and commitment before the 120 days pass to allow for managed use of the exempt wells, as was formerly agreed upon in the MOA.
more bits and pieces on the moratorium bylordoflys July 17, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Kittitas County Commissioner Paul Jewell disputed Manning's contention that the county had blown deadlines. Instead, the county believed Ecology was trying to impose illegal restrictions on the exempt wells, and has asked for a legal interpretation by the state attorney general.

This, from the Seattle Times.....well, who is telling the truth here?
Did the County indeed blow deadlines?

Ron Cridlebaugh, executive director of the Economic Development Group of Kittitas County, said the moratorium would hurt.

..and all this after the state Department of Ecology last year wrote a memo accusing Kittitas County of a "consistent disregard" for good water management".

"People are waking up to the fact that we are at the end of the water frontier." Rachael Osborn, an attorney for the Center for Environmental Law and Policy. Can't say I disagree with that statement.

This is just the first salvo in a long, extensive legal and emotional battle for water rights, a war that has really been waging since, well, lets say shortly after Kamiakin built his garden in the Ahtanum. You can't blame George DUB for this one. Personally, I blame Walter Granger.
Moreatorium byJeremy July 17, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I hope everyone in here realizes that this is more about agendas than water. These anti-development groups came into Kittitas County and used this situation because they saw a way to frustrate growth by using scare tactics in regards to exempt well use. Neither they or the state has been able to produce one single example of this so-called impairment.

If you or I claimed impairment we would have to prove it by examples not hearsay.

The state has been diffucult through out this whole negotiation process, some of the special regulations that they were trying to get into the M.O.A. were more restrictive than current rules.

I thought that legislation and elected officals made changes to laws not state employees?
No Compromising from the Commissioners byClem July 17, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
How hard would it have been for the Commissioners to accept metering of new wells and restrictions on where they were being drilled? The Commissioner who I think are all Republican are appealing their case to the Republican Attorney General. They are more than willing to take a 120 day hit on drilling and are looking to get a ruling that can be applied across the state on exempt wells. I dont think there was any good faith bargaining going on from the commissioners.

As far as anti-growth forces from outside the county I think it is more local people who are alarmed at the way Cle Elum Ridge and other areas are being carved up into 3-20 acre lots each with a well on it. We have enough lots with wells on them to last for 50 years at the current rate of sales and building.
RE: No Compromising from the Commissioners byJeremy July 17, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse)
Actually the county made alot of compromises, if you took the time to attend the meeting you would have seen this. What would have been so unrealistic about no restrictions until a study can show these so-called impacts. The DOE wanted to have a presedent on the exempt well issue so that they could get it pushed around the state.

This moretorium hurts the upper county for a long time, even when the 120 days are over who would want to invest in a moretorium prone area. This isnt good for our entire community and mostly the person who has been saving up to build or has a loan out.

Once again our locally elected officials have stood up for Kittitas County citizens rights.
Good Job Commissioners! bypirateyoho July 17, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I think the commissioners hard target, zero compromise approach is the best solution this issue could have been afforded. The Washington State department of Ecology has once again vastly over stepped its authority and is trying to circumvent, or re-write the law under the guise of environmentalism. The WSDOE has been trying to do this legitimately for the last two decades and has failed, so this is nothing more than a subversion of the rule of law. The commissioners made the correct decision, because this belongs in the courts until the legislature has the courage to make some much needed and politically unpopular decisions. If Ecology HAD been operating in good faith every county and state official, developer, real estate agent and private property owner would not have been surprised by the supposed “emergency rule” that itself cites the need for further and immediate groundwater studies. Once again WSDOE actions are so ridiculous and arbitrary it’s no wonder people do everything they can to avoid environmental review in the State of Washington.
Moses Lake Republicans weighing in on our problems....... bylordoflys July 18, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
The Daily Record, interestingly enough, cited two State Senators from Moses Lake in their Moratorium article. State Senators Janea Holmquist and Judy Wamick, both argued, rather feebly, against Ecology's decision. Holmquist's words were laughable. She claims Ecology is bankrupting the Upper County building industry and that the State is responsible for mismanaging our water resources and "denying those who want to live in the Upper County access to drinking water". What????
How about the ones that currently live there now, Judy? Maybe if you would ask a resident or two if they have ever been faced with declining water supplies you might learn that it, in fact, has happened and that these residents would prefer to know what the future holds for them in light of some awfully big development plans by our County Commissioners.

And, all this anti-government talk from Moses Lake. They were quick to hold their hands out for government funds for their own water problems, though....


January 08, 2008
Subscribe to: RSS, Email

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a $31 million comprehensive cleanup plan for Moses Lake in Washington state.

(This money will be used to clean up the poisons in their own water supply)
Question for Bill Hinkle bylordoflys July 18, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
“We have people and organizations from outside Washington trying to stop development in Kittitas County, which is just wrong,” Hinkle said.

Who? Please name one single person and/or organization from outside
Washington State who has a singular obsession to stop development in Kittitas County. Just one.

Thank you.

Lord O' Flys
Taxpayer
Our Representative byJeremy July 18, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Actually if you have been involved in the groundwater industry and delt with people that are effected by this you would see that nobody supports this rediculous action from D.O.E. As in most cases you need to have proof, scientific facts, not arm twisting and scare tactics like the state is doing.

The Senator and Representative from Moses Lake represent our district as well as Mr. Hinckle. They have been standing up for the citizens and small business of our county at the public meetings. All of them have been doing an outstanding job representing us on this issue.
byJeremy July 18, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
This whole thing was started by out of area anti-development groups.
Once again if you went to any of the meetings throughout the last few years you would be able to see how this exempt well issue formed.

You might want to go back to when this started and read up on the beginings of this whole situation, its alot of reading but then you might understand how this came to be.
Precedent Setting Ruling byClem July 18, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
We would agree on the precedent setting ruling Jeremy that would possibly be applied statewide. I am not sure though about the out of area groups since a lot of local people have not been all that excited about the way Sapphire Skies and others have divided up Cle Elum Ridge. At least now they are looking to go in a different direction with higher density home sites. Local people did get help from outside area groups but what would you expect with the demographics of the upper county.

Roslyn is interesting in that they have had to go get their own water a few years ago after the two Senior water districts threatened to shut them down for less than 100 acre feet of water. I dont recall anyone coming to the aid of Roslyn. Now everyone is excited about the moratorium?

So far it looks like the Kittitas County Water Purveyors are standing on the sideline on this one. It must be a big conflict though because everyone wants the ability to drill a well where they please and yet if Ecology is right a decreased flow in the river will impact everyone downstream. It would seem to me Senior Water Rights holders downstream would be backing up the DOE.

I wonder what would happen in a very dry year when the resevoirs are tapped out in late summer and 5,000 well users are watering their yards to the max and the Yakima flows to a trickle. Their goes the Salmon run. Down towards Yakima the River would probably be a toxic waste dump without enough water. At least the Commissioners could have agreed to metering and restricted use in the summer.

Want to know why all the yards are dried out in Cle Elum and we have plenty of water here? We have meters and our neighbors outside town water to their hearts content off wells and irrigation water. I guess I dont have a lot of sympathy so far for the crack down on wells.
Cle Elum/Upper County residents bylordoflys July 18, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
It would be interesting to hear from more residents from the upper county on their water experiences, given the recent history of water availability. Nobody wants the heavy hand of government shutting down anything. Yet, it was the Bureau of Reclamation that stopped private irrigation concerns at the turn of the century from killing each other. Those water subscribers upstream were getting all the water, nothing left over for those downstream. Sound familiar? There are contaminated wells to the south of us in Yakima. The groundwater near Moses Lake is contaminated with Trichloroethylenes, and the irrigation wells connected to other eastern Washington aquifiers are going dry. These are MAN-MADE problems. Whose going to bail out the people affected by these problems? The government. Nobody wants the government to stop development or otherwise keep you from doing what you want with your land. Right? But the kind of growth that is being proposed and supported by the administrators of Kittitas County and others are so far out of line with reality that it makes one wonder
what is exactly at stake for these commissioners. Two years of negotiation with Ecology results in a moratorium? We could have sent 6th graders to negotiate with them and saved ourselves their salaries.

I do apologize, Jeremy, for being so hostile with these commissioners. Believe me, I do understand what's at stake. But this County needs
to progress. Backing ourselves in a corner at this stage of the water war is NOT serving the communities in this County. In light of a perennial "disregard for safeguarding the water supply"
by this County, if Ecology hadn't done something we would ultimately find ourselves up to our armpits with legal challenges from every irrigation district, municipal administrator, agricultural coop, and Native American group south of Thrall. It is, in fact, history repeating itself.
RE: Cle Elum/Upper County residents bytnway July 18, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse)
I too am hugely interested in respectful conversation on what’s going down w/water, development, etc. particularly in the Teanaway area.

Does anyone have an explanation as to why the DOE folks haven't come down hard on the largest land owner (AFLC) in the Teanaway for gaming the irrigating lose it or lose it rules?

By way of background as I understand it (maybe wrongly): Boise Cascade prior to selling to AFLC hadn't irrigated for agricultural uses for many years. What Boise and then AFLC did though was filled tanker trucks with water for dust control on the logging roads. (Pretty low use compared to what they are now pumping from the river and dumping on the ground. Drive up the valley and you can’t miss the newer irrigation pipes. And there's more pipes beyond the sight from the road.)

Now AFLC after having paid too much for the land (?), logging too aggressively (?), spotted owl issues and other greenie stuff as well as the changing timber economic realties realized that maybe there will be money in the irrigation rights they once had. (Key word- “once” had -- as I'm thinking use it or lose it should have kicked in but apparently hasn’t.)

Conjecture again… but I heard that AFLC lawyers found a rather interesting loophole in the 5 year rule and that they haven’t been challenged by DOE on it. Namely that because the Aquavella (sp?) case wasn't settled when they stopped irrigating, that the 5 yr use it or lose it clock should be suspended... Thus they get a free pass for not having used their water right for so many years and now can start irrigating again.

Obviously this will have a lot of ramifications for development in this area if the well moratorium holds and this “oversight” isn’t corrected as they will have plenty of water for a rather large development golf course maybe, whatever.

Does anyone know what is really going on other than the obvious waste of huge amounts of water and impact on the river?

Also note: http://www.kvnews.com/articles/2009/07/17/news/doc4a5e094ccf
Exempt wells of Kittitas County byJeremy July 19, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
The DOE is one who is in control of well drilling in the state and water use. If everyone has a problem with how things have been handled up to now why not complain about them? The DOE is solely responsible for this, they issue the permit applications and review all the paperwork involved in well drilling, and people look to them to help? They have approved all of these wells.

With the information that is available right now, well logs, Roslyn Coal Mine groundwater study, and USGS study on Kittitas County nothing has pointed to an impairment issue with exempt wells and senior water right holders. Why wont the DOE show the citizens of Kittitas County some proof, maybe a filed complaint from a senior water right holder who has proof of impairment, instead we get scare tactics and a moratorium from the DOE.

Stopping well drilling will only cripple our economy more than it already is, hasent big goverenment done enough already?
Perspective byMC July 19, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Putting the politics or right/wrong of the exempt well and other decisions aside, I'm wondering if this + the recent slap-down on 3/5 acre lot zoning + the overruling of the courts on the local wind farm aren't all the result of the county leadership gaining a reputation with the state as being impossible to work with.

The zoning is a perfect example. From where I'm sitting, it looked like this: the state issued warnings, and the response from the county was to tell them... whatever... and then proceeded to do what they originally wanted to anyway. This nose-thumbing went on for a few years until the state finally really lowered the boom on them, and I have to wonder if this DOE thing couldn't have been more easily solved if they hadn't seen it going the same direction.

The rules the state sets on land or water use may or may not be "fair" but they're still the rules, and if our county leadership flagrantly ignores them over and over there WILL eventually be a price to be paid. The aggravating part is that tilting at political windmills isn't cheap- the taxpayers have and will continue to pay for the lawyers wrangling over stuff that could have been settled years ago, and probably making powerful enemies while they're at it.
RE: Perspective byJeremy July 19, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse)
One important thing to remember is that exempt wells are controlled by the DOE not Kittitas County. All paperwork for permiting exempt wells goes through DOE, they issue the paperwork. Most exempt wells are used by individual homeowners not developers. Class B water systems are used by developers and the paperwork for them is looked at by everyone.

Also DOE is supposed to protect washington states water, not to go around elected officals and redefine state law because it doesnt suit them. They are not a land use authority.
took control bycountrygirl11 July 19, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
That's what the DOE has done. Three years ago - before the citizens' group even petitioned the DOE for a moratorium - the DOE was after the commisssioners to stop the way they were dealing with land use issues (serial cluster plats by various LLCs but really owned by the same people and using 1 well with 14 hook-ups)and the commissioners would not even concider good land use planning in rural ares. If you just need to blame someone, greedy developers brought this on. Greedy developers brought on the lawsuits with the EWGMHB. But the commisiioners could have prevented all of it had they followed the rules of the GMA. They opted into the GMA and for 3 years have done everything possible to undermine the decision.
RE: took control byJeremy July 19, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse)
Still the DOE let this situation happen and now they want to blame the county. You might want to look at the Campbell Gwuin decision that addresses the use of the exemption for development use, once again well drilling is permitted by the State, not the county.

The DOE cant pick and choose which laws they want to enforce, they wanted the county to redefine the exempt well rule. They also wanted the latest draft of the MOA to not have the public input which is neccessary.

I think anything of this importance should have the utmost visiablity. Dont you all agree?
RE: took control byMC July 19, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
Yeah, there should be utmost visibility. As CG11 and I have opined, what's visible so far is that this snarl with the DOE may be part of a much larger pattern of antagonistic behavior between the state and our county coms.
RE: took control byJeremy July 19, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
If the county wanted the newest version of the M.O.A. put out to public meeting and input how is that antagonistic behavior on our county????

Its to bad that everyone did not get to attend the negotiation meetings. It was very plain that the DOE wanted the county to do their job for them, ie; metering and meter reading. State employees should not be trying to re-define state rules, I think thats what elected official are for.
RE: took control byMC July 19, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
Jeremy- I think you're focusing on this single incident between the DOE and the county, whereas CG11 and I are looking at a larger scope of behavior between various state agencies and the county. I'm guessing that news travels fast in Olympia about who's cooperative and who's not throughout the rest of the state. *Should* it work that way? Maybe not, but I'm sure everyone here if they're honest would agree that politics don't necessarily work 100% 'fair', and as politicians the commissioners of all people should know better.

This is just not going to be easy to solve, but it will be much harder if the county's past MO has earned anemic credibility with Olympia in general. It might be a case of winning a few battles and then getting vindictively pulverized in a larger war. Unfortunately we residents and tax payers end up footing the bill for all of it, when if the county coms had swallowed a couple bitter pills earlier we all could have moved on to other fish to fry.
reports of impairment bysmall town resident July 19, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
In public meetings discussing this issue, Tom Tebb said Ecology has recieved reports of impairment. Complaints of impairments are likely logged in to some type of database.
RE: reports of impairment byJeremy July 20, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
Checked last week with DOE on reports of impairment for the Kittitas COunty exempt well and still no cases.

In 3 meetings the DOE did answer the question of reports of impairment and their answer was no. They are justifing their dangerous actions based on potential.
took control byJeremy July 20, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Yes, I am basing this on the exempt well issue. The issue now that we are facing is one of a state agency moving forward with their own agenda. State agencys do not create laws, elected officals do. Its pretty simple if you look at the facts. No case of proven impairment due to Kittitas County exempt well use, previous studies pointing to amounts of water in the Upper and Lower County.

The only thing the State has to hang their whole argument on is a petition and potential. No facts.
Well Drillers got left holding the bag byClem July 20, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
The state should let the well drillers finish off the wells they have booked for the next 120 days. It wont be that many and they will eventually get drilled anyways.

Is the County playing hardball with the State? I guess the next few days we will know. The County will either go to superior court for an injunction or they will come to an agreement with the State and agree to metering, restricted drilling areas and possible limitations on water during shortages. As I said before we have meters in Cle Elum and Roslyn and no one uses that much water. We use way less than the average county resident on a well or unmetered.

By the way there is still plenty of water rights that might be available. Maybe someone should go up to Suncadia which has suffered from the downturn and see what they will sell. Sapphire Skies would seem to be a logical buyer. How about the two Irrigation Districts Westside and Ellensburg Water plus American Forest Resources. Buy water rights and then drill wells. Its going to add to the cost of development but then its a one time cost.
RE: Well Drillers got left holding the bag bysmall town resident July 22, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
The county has lost credibility. They signed an agreement and directed staff to implement the decisions. The prosecutors office was involved throughout the entire negotiation and in every meeting. Ecology worked with the AGs office throughout the entire process. County staff put in hours and hours with the belief that the agreement would be honored.
Drillers, citizens and anybody interested had their say and the county signed the agreement.
The downturn in growth is unfortunate, but will likely return eventually. Should we use decreased numbers of wells as a reason to renig on an agreement to deal with this issue, only to have to invest more time, energy and resources when the economy picks up and everyone wants to develop in Kittititas County again?
There would not have been a moratorium, drillers could be drilling, landowners could sell their land if Kittitas county had honored their commitment in April. Rather than dragging their feet the county could have implemented the plan to meter new exempt wells. Isn't a well with a meter on it better than no well at all?
Kittitas County Commissioners pointing fingers bylordoflys July 22, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse)
Unfortunately, people are, in fact getting hurt. This has more to do with our elected commissioners playing politics and conducting "business as usual" with DOE. Meanwhile, drilling operators, home builders, and home owners are shut down, unnecessarily. Below is from today's Herald...


Commissioners now will pursue other options, Commissioner Paul Jewell said.

Among those options are continuing to talk to the ecology department about a new groundwater management plan or seeking a court injunction to halt the ban.

“We were hopeful the governor would show some leadership and realize it’s not in the best interests of the citizens of Kittitas County,” a disappointed Jewell said.

Ahhhh. Let's see. Still passing the buck. This time it's the governor
making bad leadership decisions. Everyone is to blame but the commissioners, it seems. It's time for our elected leaders to realize that they cannot treat the natural resource extraction industry, water included, as if this was the year 1940. The days of manifest destiny in regard to water rights expansion (or any other thing, really) has long since past. The emergency moratorium has more to do with the commissioners in this County taking a hostile negotiating stance with the DOE rather than cooperating as partners.

We have lost the initial skirmish in the water war. Time to cut our losses, negotiate a settlement that will satisfy the DOE AND our neighbors (water users) downriver, and otherwise, GET WITH THE PROGRAM. If, in fact, the present study determines that County groundwater extraction will have little, or no affect on SR. water rights, then progressive, responsible development can resume in earnest.
Groundwater in Kittitas County byJeremy July 22, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
DOE already has the authority to meter any well they want to, in the MOA they just push off the expenses and responsibility to the county.


How can the county negotiate with the DOE when they are constantly changing the draft of the MOA from meeting to meeting. At one meeting they actually changed the MOA minutes before the meeting started, this is all the states doing. I firmly believe that any new draft should be placed out for public comment, the DOE did not account for this.

The MOA was mostly about refining a state law and making special rules for an area that they had no justification in doing. Well drilling in this area is average for the state, look at the graphs on the states web site. The only spike in wells being drilled was due to the first attempted moretorium, if you reference the dates of the first meetings and the spike in drilling they match up.

Just because a law is from 1940's does not mean it needs to be trampeled on. I bet if you look, most laws are old, does that mean they need to be re-defined?

The facts remain that there is no proven impairment of water rights due to exempt well use in Kittitas County and previous studies have addressed water quantity in the Roslyn area. Now is not the time for a state agency to play lawmaker.
RE: Groundwater in Kittitas County bylordoflys July 22, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
Jeremy:
Do you know exactly what short plat developments and/or single family homes this moratorium is currently affecting within the moratorium area? Thanks.
RE: Groundwater in Kittitas County bysmall town resident July 27, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
The expense of metering, staffing, equipment is covered by State funds, not county.
RE: Groundwater in Kittitas County byJeremy July 27, 2009 (0 votes) (report abuse)
The expense of the metering is placed upon the well owner. They have to buy the meter base and pay for the associated costs, buying, maintaining, and installation. This is plainly written in the MOA.

DOE can do this already, its the states job, why push the costs and burdens associated with metering onto homeowners and a small county.
MOA between DOE and County.... bylordoflys July 22, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cro/images/pdfs/moa_kitt_e

Here is the April memorandum of agreement..a document meant to put the two sides in partnership to deal with the question of upper county wells and the possible effects on irrigation. The map of the area in question is here as well. It was signed by both parties.
Aqua Permanente...what's all the fuss? bylordoflys July 22, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
To view Aqua Permanente's final petition to DOE follow this URL... http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cro/images/pdfs/Kittitaspe
Impacting the Community byJeremy July 23, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Yes, I have a number of customers that are now not able to do anything due to this moretorium. This moretorium covers all new water uses, meaning that a well drilled 20 years ago and they decided to put a pump in it today they wouldnt be able to use the water.
Thinking that this closure of all new water uses doesnt effect anyone else is a bit short sited. The state is saying that any potential water in connection with the river might impair water rights. With all the maybes and potentials in this line of thinking this moretorium could be used in any county that touches the Yakima River.
More State control is not the answer, they already control all well drilling in the state. Why would anyone want more controls if people think that the system we have hasent worked?
The state still has not found any water rights for Roslyn, that should have been a priority and delt with before going after homeowers exempt wells.
RE: Impacting the Community bywhatatrip July 23, 2009 (4 votes) (report abuse)
You can give the County Commissioners 100% of the credit for bringing the state down on them. They did not negotiate in good faith, their attituded was one of contempt towards the state. One should not bite the hand that feeds them and that is what they have been doing. Somebody should have gotten tough with them a long time ago. The have no respect for state law, the law that gives them the power they have. Power flows from the federal government to the states and from the states to the county not vice versa.

The County Commissioners could end the moratorium at any time, all they have to do agree to policies that will protect senior water rights and abide by state law. If the County purchased senior water right to cover all exempt wells, there would be NO problems with water but they want "free water" and there is no free water, it has all been spoken for a long time ago.

Given the way the "local government" behaves, it is a good thing we have the state there to protect everyone, even if that means they have to protect the County Commissioners from themselves and that is obviously the case.

The County has the reponsibility to follow state law and they have been very negligent in doing so. They deserve what the are getting and they are responsible for any harm done because of it.
The law bycountrygirl11 July 23, 2009 (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I find it interesting when the county commissioners perceive an agency or a person is not following the law there is no end to the whining from these 3. Yet they themselves are the biggest abusers of not following the law. I've read the petition Aqua Permanente' served on the DOE. The petition is about following the law as it refers to attempts to circumvent the permit excempt well law and the protection of senior water rights and instream flows for fish. The petition never once says anything about a water shortage crisis or impairment. It is every citizens legal right to petition and once served DOE has to follow the law in addressing the issue, these are legally binding rules not guides. The DOE is doing it's job, the commissioners have never met a deadline and after three extensions the DOE said enought is enough.
RE: The law bysmall town resident August 16, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
Amen! Short and to the point. People can whine about this all we want, the bottom line is the commissioners already agreed to interim management measures and the drillers and developers have participated in public meetings all along. This is not new or different than what was brought up when the initial agreement was made; the commissioners just backed out on the agreement, giving these folks a hope that this would all "go away".
Impacting the Community byJeremy July 23, 2009 (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Our county commissioners are elected by our county, DOE are employees of the state. They should not try to pretend to be lawmakers. Our commissioners have more respect for the county's citizens regarding this issue unlike the state.

The state did not have to go around the legislature and try to re-define a state law. Exempt wells are clearly defined by law, and there is no demonstrated impairment in this situation. Stream flow impacts have not been shown either. If there is an impact on streams then show it? They measure stream flows constantly, if the state was really doing its job wouldn't they present the facts?

Finally, if you were in attendance at the negotiation meetings you would see the attitude that the DOE had with the county. If the state really wanted to reach an agreement they would not have been changing the MOA before meetings and asking for rules that were to be more strict than current state laws. Once again I think that our elected commissioners have done a fine job standing up for our county's rights.
Governor Backs Up DOE byClem July 24, 2009 (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Well the governor was elected by the people of the State and she has officially backs the moratorium. I would agree that so far their is no evidence that water downstream is impacted. But if you believe that will eventually happen why wait to at least curb some of the water use. 5000 gallons per day is a lot of water plus unlimited use for cattle. We can look over at Lake Sammamish and the Issaquah Aquifer and see that heavy pumping of water coincided with the extincition of Kokanee Salmon. Kokanee Salmon which at one time was so numerous in the lake there was essentially no fishing limit. The Yakama Tribe has to be concerned that continued ground water pumping during a very dry year could cause problems with the fish runs.

Suncadia went and got water for their development. However our favorite Upper County developer Sapphire Skies has at least nine separate developments with hundreds of lots with each lot needing a well on it. The solution for Sapphire Skies in the long run might be to go buy water rights and have community water for each development.

We had an election last fall and the "pro-development" Republicans were barely elected Commissioners but on this water issue they have acted like they got a mandate from the citizens to challenge the state and try to dictate to the state water policy. You would have thought that Alan Crankovich who was barely elected would have been an advocate of compromise instead he is down in Olympia trying to petition the governor to overturn the DOE moratorium. Next we probably see an appeal to a state court rather than negotiations.
RE: Governor Backs Up DOE byJeremy July 29, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
I think the numbers that you have are a bit far fetched. Sure the average use for a well is 300 gallons per day for a family. A septic system returns up to 80 percent into the shallow aquifer, septic pipes are buried so evaporation is not much of a factor.

The Upper County has a lot of part time residents so that just lowered the water use, most people living in the Upper County have native landscape, not hugh lawns. Every well that is drilled is not necessarily put into use immediatly some dont go into use for years.

So when you look at real numbers and not made up ones its easy for people to see how little water exempt wells actually use.
bywhatatrip July 24, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I see the following at the DOE website:

Providing water for livestock (no gallon per day limit).

Watering a non-commercial lawn or garden one-half acre in size or less (no gallon per day limit, however limited to reasonable use).

Providing water for a single home or groups of homes (limited to 5,000 gallons per day).

Providing water for industrial purposes, including irrigation (limited to 5,000 gallons per day but no acre limit).

Particular note should be taken of the lawn watering provision – no limit. What this will do is severely limit the number of exempt wells in the upper county. Water applied for irrigation evaporates, almost all of it or all of it. I know this for a fact as I use water for irrigation and only the top few inches get watered and that eventually evaporates, so all water used for lawn watering in the upper county DOES NOT return to the aquifer. Domestic use is usually not a concern since most homes only use about 300 gallons per day and during the winter, that water is returned to the aquifer. During the summer septic systems have far more evaporation and very little gets returned to the aquifer, but as I said 300 gallons per day is not a concern as far as water use goes.

I have calculated that it takes about 400,000 gallons of water to keep a ½ acre of lawn watered in the summer. That is the equivalent of 80 exempt wells pumping at the maximum output of 5,000 gallons for one day. Or it is the equivalent of one exempt well pumping 5,000 gallons per day for 80 days. This has to be accounted for by DOE and it has to be accounted for by the County. If too many wells are drilled and too much water used, it is a certainty that all exempt well drilling will be stopped in the future. All it will take is for any of the senior water rights holders to file suit and then it is all over. It doesn’t matter what the exempt rule allows, it is the job of DOE to protect senior water rights holds first and in doing so they can protect the rest of us but not if exempt wells are drilled with abandon as they have been in the past or if water is being used for watering outside of the 5,000 gallon limit per day.
the hearings bycountrygirl11 July 24, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I guess I'm going to have to get transcripts of the hearings Jeremy keeps referencing. The comment about Sapphire Skyes I think is what prompted the petition to ecology.
For Sale or Trade....Kittitas County Water, The Water Banking Program bylordoflys July 24, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Today, the DOE announced that they are working on plans to create a "water bank" to allow developers and others an easier way to obtain water rights. More to follow. The below is from DOE's website.

Ecology to clarify Kittitas groundwater rule, plans to rejoin Kittitas commissioners in exempt well talks

Department of Ecology News Release July 24, 2009 - The Washington Department of Ecology and Kittitas County will resume talks related to groundwater supplies as early as next week. In the meantime, the agency announces it will allow property owners to use water wells exempt from permits in upper Kittitas County, provided they obtained a building permit or filed a building permit application with the county before July 16, 2009. In addition, the agency is working so developers may choose to gain a water right through a water banking program.
Read it Here First!! DOE's Jay Manning Explains Why He Did It..... bylordoflys July 24, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Moratorium protects resource

By Jay J. Manning



I am writing to offer your readers clarity on why Upper Kittitas County has been temporarily closed to new well
drilling. It was a difficult action to take, but one we felt compelled to make in light of the broader concerns facing
the greater Yakima Basin.



The Department of Ecology is committed to sound water management in the Yakima Basin where competition is
fierce over a finite resource. Since 2000, water has been rationed to surface water users at least three times, and
those with water rights later than a 1905 priority date have been curtailed. For example, the city of Roslyn is under
a permanent court order to shut off their water when this rationing occurs.



The proliferation of so-called “exempt wells” for housing developments built at the headwaters of the Yakima River
— more than 3,000 drilled in Kittitas County since 1998 — has caused significant concern that an already water-
short basin is being stretched to the breaking point.



Two years ago, citizens filed a petition with Ecology, asking us to close the groundwater to further pumping.
Instead we chose to work with Kittitas County in an attempt to find middle ground — to allow for some new
development under the exempt well provision, provided conditions were put in place to protect the rights of senior
surface and groundwater users, streamflows and junior water users, including future homeowners relying on exempt
wells.



The exempt well provision was intended to allow homesteaders to have access to water without requiring a permit,
but does not exempt those withdrawals from regulation to protect senior water rights under the legally required
principle of “first in time is first in right.”



We entered into negotiations with the county, offering an approach that would limit where exempt wells may be
drilled and how much water could be pumped. Our proposal included metering and mitigation requirements to
avoid impacting senior water rights. In addition, a study authorized by the Legislature will help us to better
understand the connection between groundwater and surface water.



At times we felt an agreement with the county was close at hand, but ultimately we were unable to agree to basic
requirements, let alone the details. Faced with missed deadlines and mixed signals, we simply had no choice but to
put in place a temporary closure of groundwater in the upper county to protect current and future water users.



We still believe our proposal is reasonable in a basin where drought and water shortages are, unfortunately,
becoming more common. We remain willing to finalize an agreement based on a partnership with Kittitas County,
if there is a willingness to work in good faith on a solution.



We have received positive signals from the county regarding its interest in renewing negotiations. Until a final
agreement is in place, we will work with property owners and developers to determine whether the emergency
closure applies to them and, if so, to identify affordable and timely mitigation options. Ultimately, we must find
water solutions that successfully protect and support the economic and environmental vitality of our farms, fisheries
and communities, not just today but for generations to come.

(I hope the Daily Record prints this. It does shed some light on the reasons why DOE felt compelled to take the action it did)
Moratorium byCleElum1 July 25, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Thank you Jay J. Manning and lordoflys.
The Facts byJeremy July 25, 2009 (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Once again most of you are ignoring the hard facts. Exempt wells put at least 80 percent of the water they use back into the groundwater system, and they promote faster recharge, this is proven with science. Kittitas County has never has out of control well drilling if you look at DOEs numbers you can see the only spike in drilling was caused by the petition. These are facts that are provable with evidence to support them, other than potential where are the DOEs facts?

Their still is no proof of impairment, if a citizen has to go through the proof of impairment process why not the state? Basing a radical decision by DOE on potential means that this idea of moratorium can be done anywhere. For those of us who work everyday in the groundwater field it is easy to recognize the politics being played, if there was a problem we would see it first.

Well logs show that 2-5 gpm wells today were making 2-5 gpm 20 years ago. The low producing well is defined by the geology of the area not the drilling of exempt wells.

If big government was the answer why hasn't DOE done its job up to now? Roslyn still has no old water rights, halting well drilling will not change this. Their solution of moratorium does not solve anything but their own political agendas.
RE: The Facts bylordoflys July 25, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse)
That is true. Wells do put water right back into the ground, recharging the aquifer. It is also true that that there is NO current proof of impairment. This, however, is not the reason the moratorium was enacted. The reason is that the commissioners failed to meet deadlines and, according to DOE, did not act in good faith. Since 1998, nearly 3000 wells have been dug in Kittitas County. This has made some people nervous. The City of Roslyn, the Yakama Nation, as well as the group
Aqua Permanente asked the DOE to stop further well drilling until such time a groundwater study could be done. On the sidelines we have every irrigation entity as well as fishing group, recreational user group, etc. etc. etc. keenly watching this scenerio unfold. There is a long list of people and organizations who all have a stake in how much water is available for THEM, most of whom live down river. Now what?
The Washington Legislature will be funding a groundwater study that will begin soon. This study will look at the connection between groundwater and surface water. During the study some things will not remain the same. Exempt wells will require meters for one. There will also be disclosure rules on property sales. The water banking system, of which we discussed earlier, will be enacted. For more info on this subject go here.... http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0811047.html

In a perfect world, the study will find that exempt wells have very little, if any, effect on surface water in the upper county and responsible development can commence. Something tells me, though, that no matter what the study concludes, nothing will ever be the same. We have reached a point in history when some of the things that we've always taken for granted are now of huge concern. A paradigm shift of sorts. Today, that concern is the subject of exempt wells. U of W climatologists tell us that, in the near future, more precipitation will fall in the mountains as rain, not snow. We do NOT have adequate storage currently. Irrigation requires gradual snow melt. For municipal needs. For personal needs. No, the subject of water availability and what we can do to enhance it will be headlines far after this drilling issue is resolved.
Watering the weeds in Teanaway byClem July 26, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I went up the Teanaway a few miles and there is an awful lot of "watering" of weeds going on 24-7. I guess the aquifer would be getting recharged from that type of watering. You really have to wonder how much of this "use it or lose it" watering is going on in the county. Next time we have a water shortage us city folks will be told to conserve our meager usage while the farmers and landowners are dumping water out on the ground under the "use it or lose it" philosophy. There is still plenty of water available in the Upper County and maybe its time someone figures out who has it and how much is just being dumped on the ground. We are definitely getting closer to the day when a water right will have to be obtained before a well can be drilled.
RE: Watering the weeds in Teanaway bylordoflys July 26, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
Clem..What exactly are they doing up there? I've heard other reports about wasting water in the Teanaway recently. Is this flood irrigation by landowners?
RE: Watering the weeds in Teanaway byClem July 27, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
I drove up there on Friday only to the West Fork just past the store. But in that area they have above ground plastic pipes with sprinklers that are going all the time. They are watering basically the ground. They are not watering crops. I did see one cow in the area so I guess you could say it was for grazing. They were using a pump for the water so it could have been coming from a well or buried pipe. The above ground pipes I think are fairly new out there, maybe in the past five years or so they were laid out.
Thumbs Up byKLH July 26, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Just want to let you guys know its been nice to follow this discussion. I appreciate the view points, I don't know too much about the topic but do find it interesting and that it impacts all of us here. Thumbs Up.
Kittitas County Water byJeremy July 26, 2009 (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
If you look at the DOE web site the real number of exempt wells drilled in Kittitas COunty is less than 2500. Look at the charts for the rest of the state and any laymen can see that we are in the middle. Our county is average for drilling wells. A lot of the counties on the West Side average many more wells than we do and they do not have as much water.

The only people that actually had a complaint is the 3 petitioners. If you get a copy of the letter from the Roza and Tribe you can plainly see that they have concerns, no impairment. If their was impairment we would have heard about it. The original complaint was that to many wells were being drilled which is not true, and that no information is known about the upper county which is also not true.

The state charts show that we are average for wells being drilled and studies have been done on the upper county as well as thousands of well logs. The state has always had this information. Think about if you had to drill and someone that doesnt have a stake in our county told you no, without proof, I think that everyone would feel different.
Real Stakeholders byJeremy July 26, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
This has been a great issue to discuss and there seems to be many interested parties but who really gets the impact of this. Im sure the people that started all of this had the best of intentions but they already have their wells. The majority of people who have been commenting probably have their water.

The real stakeholders that get the negative impacts of this situation is the homeowner who just wanted to move to our county to get away from the city. Or the retiree that has saved up forever to build here and enjoy the lifestyle that has brought so many people to this county. Then everyone that depends on building and people that sell products will feel the fallout from this moretorium.

The state has no stake in this. This is mearly an experiment to see how much control that they can have over a small county. The slow economy has done enough, we don't need the state adding to it.
RE: Real Stakeholders bylordoflys July 27, 2009 (3 votes) (report abuse)
A good point. Consideration always has to be given to those most affected. Those professionals whose livelihood depends on continued development projects, and those who wish to build homes. Luckily, the moratorium has been watered down (sorry) and talks between DOE and the County have resumed, or will shortly. I think the point here, Jeremy, is that those with water want to keep it. Exempt wells may not affect surface water but there are those out there who want to make sure this is the case. And the commissioners in this County miscalculated badly.

The groundwater study results will be anxiously awaited by many. Not least by Sr. water rights holders in the lower valley and by the Yakama Nation. The State and even the Feds do have a lot at stake, though, in my opinion. Ecology enforces the Clean Water Act, which is law. They are also responsible for the resource. And the Feds, especially Reclamation and even our friends at BPA, are taking an interest for reasons that should be obvious.

The State of Washington has used a big stick to remind Kittitas County what IS at stake. And it is nothing less than the bedrock of our economy, to say nothing of what clean, abundant water means to quality of life.

Roslyn has had it's share of water problems in recent history. In 1979 the State Dept. of Social and Health Services called the city's water service "an unfiltered, surface supply coming from an uncontrolled watershed". After the 2001 drought the Roza Irrigation District and the Yakama Nation sued the city to stop its water supply from Domerie creek (near the Cle Elum/Yakima confluence)claiming that its 1908 right wasn't senior enough. It's water was being shut off. Luckily Suncadia was a good neighbor and helped them out with their water for a temporary fix. What happened next?

Ecology (yes, those bad old government guys) GAVE the City of Roslyn
$400,000 to purchase a 200 acre foot senior right from Currier Creek
(in Eburg). Even then, certain downstream water users sued to stop this from happening.

Water is the most precious resource, by far, in Central Washington. There are two dozen organizations within 30 miles of Eburg who will go to great lengths to sue for a single acre foot of water, damn the consequences, to protect their allotment. An allotment that may get smaller with each passing year, depending on their subscription dating to the last century.

Do the citizens of the upper county see Ecology as an out-of-control government agency? Why would they? I'd say Ecology has been more of a saving grace than anything else up to this point.
RE: Real Stakeholders byJeremy July 28, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse)
Keeping that all in mind has anyone here had the chance to look at the Roslyn Water Study. It goes into great detail on the water storage in the Roslyn coal mines. Also the USGS has just recently done a study the results might surprise everyone.

The idea that everyone is waiting for a study or that nothing is known about the Upper County is a far stretch from the truth. There is documention on thousands of wells, pump tests, studies, and yes even meters. What the state has conviently forgotton to mention is that every Class B water system,(group water well), is metered.

Hopefully the state will accept the results of a study and not want a redo.
State Ecology has put their money where there mouth is and the county has spent much of it bysmall town resident July 27, 2009 (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I wonder whether or not the county has considered how much of the budget from the MOA has already been spent prior to their backing out. It would be interesting to see what State funds were spent throughout these negotiations and lack thereof. My guess is that the county didn't stop drawing from the budget provided by Ecology while the prosecutors and commissioners changed their direction...
Ecology allocated money for the study and the implementation of the interim management plan. I wonder what the elected officials would do if they had to pay back the money they have already spent now that they have "changed their minds".
update bycountrygirl11 July 30, 2009 (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
If you go to the county website there is an update on the MOA. The county and DOE plan to meet next week and there is a public meeting scheduled for August 13th.
this thread retired bylordoflys August 15, 2009 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Go to Water War I...
CommentsRSS Feed
Want to leave a comment? Log In to your account
Want to leave a comment? Log In to your account