tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5109719784602609028.post8434019226031512644..comments2023-04-11T02:20:52.151-07:00Comments on carl votes: Caution - Only For Those Who Can Think Beyond SoundbitesCarl Weimerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11749916040026874581noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5109719784602609028.post-21220206216767876352014-08-17T12:21:48.289-07:002014-08-17T12:21:48.289-07:00I am certainly not a water wonk (yet!), but I did ...I am certainly not a water wonk (yet!), but I did read through Mr. Carmichael's letter and dissected it as well as I could. It is very clever.<br /><br />When I see the word "must," as in the two paragraphs you quoted above, I immediately see red flags. Very often, this is used as a rhetorical device to channel the argument in a certain direction. It is not a given that we "must" proceed in a certain direction. There are other alternatives, but they may not get the exposure of an articulate and lengthy letter written by a powerful attorney.<br /><br />A major argument in Mr. Carmichael's letter seems to be that we need to establish proper instream flows BUT in order to calculate this, we need to include outstream flows in our calculations. I don't see this as a valid argument. Even though DOE may have used what Mr. Carmichael regards as a "mistaken belief" in groundwater supply (DOE may argue that they used a different criteria. I don't know.), it does not follow that "maximum net benefit analysis for all uses" need replace it. In other words, saying instream flows are based on a "mistaken belief" does not mean that the alternative should be the one Mr. Carmichael espouses. What it DOES do is change the way instream flows are calculated. This is a major change.<br /><br />In reality, Mr. Carmichael's letter is a blueprint in how to change instream flows based on salmon recovery efforts to instream flows based on the needs of farmers and industry. The mechanism to do this is the Planning Unit. If that is what the County Council wants to do, Mr. Carmichael's letter certainly shows you how to do it.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09458420994949500662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5109719784602609028.post-21577753276147365932014-08-04T10:32:02.719-07:002014-08-04T10:32:02.719-07:00In the second paragraph, second sentence, the phra...In the second paragraph, second sentence, the phrase Full-text PDF was left out. It should read: The link from Full-text PDF does not work. Sorry about that.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563935510934604322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5109719784602609028.post-54549539646515016322014-08-04T09:52:47.454-07:002014-08-04T09:52:47.454-07:00Here is a link to the USGS report, Hydrogeology, g...Here is a link to the USGS report, Hydrogeology, ground-water quality, and sources of nitrate in lowland glacial aquifers of Whatcom County, Washington, and British Columbia, Canada. This is the LENS Report that many folks familiar with WRIA 1 refer to. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri984195<br /><br />By clicking on the ion on the left of the page, you can download the full report as a PDF. The link from does not work.<br /><br />I recommend that folks who want to get background technical information regarding conditions in northern WRIA 1 read the entire report. It is not difficult reading.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563935510934604322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5109719784602609028.post-4879524334279118712014-08-03T18:07:25.731-07:002014-08-03T18:07:25.731-07:00It's pretty safe to say that high nitrates in ...It's pretty safe to say that high nitrates in ground water in regions with cattle industry (or many other intensive ag activities) constitute a causative relationship. I have personally experienced this at numerous locations in the US, most notably at a research farm run by the University of Nebraska experiencing a plume from a feedlot miles away. Eventually, this is going to be a land use issue, I hope, such that the real cost of intensively managing cattle on land will be addressed. Humphrey Blackburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01855014222079170849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5109719784602609028.post-33218419998599070982014-08-03T13:06:40.103-07:002014-08-03T13:06:40.103-07:00Nexus, causation and injury. Much, much harder to...Nexus, causation and injury. Much, much harder to assign responsibility for fertilizer and pesticide contamination that occurs over a wide area and a broad time period than, say, a point source contamination by a unique hazardous chemical such might occur with such things as a tank leak.Gaythia Weisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5109719784602609028.post-59304068583965812362014-08-03T07:17:39.066-07:002014-08-03T07:17:39.066-07:00Hi Terry,
I'll take a crack at those questions...Hi Terry,<br />I'll take a crack at those questions. I think the simplistic answer to your first question is that we really don't know who specifically is responsible for much of the pollution, and that is especially difficult to prove in groundwater. Hopefully, the enhanced Pollution Identification and Correction Program that appears will get funded will help in this effort - at least for surface waters. <br /><br />I am not sure anyone is eyeing the Nooksack as an alternative, except perhaps the Nooksack water rights that Bellingham and the PUD already hold.To some degree the Watershed Improvement Districts that the Ag community will be trying to set up via special elections this fall will be taxing districts on ag users to help pay for some aspects of the groundwater investigations and solutions along with their impacts on quality.Carl Weimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11749916040026874581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5109719784602609028.post-4264338267448260932014-08-03T06:52:35.745-07:002014-08-03T06:52:35.745-07:00Bob - There are many barriers to such an idea. Fir...Bob - There are many barriers to such an idea. First there are hundreds of different water providers who would all have to somehow get on board. Second, many of the largest users (Ag) and none of the private well owners pay fees to anyone so they would have to get roped in under some new scheme. Third, many users have no meters so that would have to get dealt with. And fourth, in many places we don't understand how the timing of groundwater withdrawals effect the in-stream flows, so it hard to know at this point when decreased pumping will help. I am not sure legally how this could all be accomplished, but I know of at least one individual who is trying to figure this out and I think we will be reading about it soon in the Weekly.Carl Weimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11749916040026874581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5109719784602609028.post-12302492483916640882014-08-02T18:47:34.864-07:002014-08-02T18:47:34.864-07:00I have a very naive question, because like Gaythia...I have a very naive question, because like Gaythia, I haven't been here even 4 years. But I don't understand why those who polluted the aquifer aren't fined and required to fund the water treatment necessary in the north part of the county. Similarly, shouldn't at least some of the funding to determine aquifer levels come from those who disproportionately need it and who are eyeing the Nooksack as an alternative? I know it's far more complex than this, but it seems to me that just as important as measurements, is looking at who uses and who abuses the resources we have, on and below the surface.TerryWechslernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5109719784602609028.post-69855778002720323172014-08-02T17:43:31.340-07:002014-08-02T17:43:31.340-07:00(First a disclaimer - I've only lived here les...(First a disclaimer - I've only lived here less than 3 years and arrived with the now obviously naive expectation that a place that "rains all the time" would have significantly less water supply issues than other areas where I've resided and participated in hydrological policy making).<br />From what I now know, I think that figuring out "baseline" data, say for the Lynden, Abbottsford and Sumas aquifer can't be determined without looking at the past. This needs to start out with an understanding of what an anthropogenic concept that the aquifer level now is. This is a bank for which we will now need to determine a baseline minimal aquifer level "deposit" as an artificial construct. And one that is subject to considerable "foreign currency" transactions. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/plan_protect_sustain/groundwater/aquifers/absumas.html In British Columbia, the aquifer was largely above ground, as Sumas Lake: http://vancouvertraces.weebly.com/sumas-lake.html. Drowning the area is obviously not a viable option now. It also appears that BC is decreasing Ag land protections and thus facilitating development. The need for more drainage and greater aquifer pumping is likely to follow. On this side of the border what we call streams are often more like drainage ditches. The Dutch heritage of many farmers is no accident. The ability to transform "worthless" swamps in to prime farmlands which is honored as pioneering spirit of the past. But these days these same activities can incur huge fines from the EPA for wetlands damage. And as agricultural practices change from less intensive pasture and cropland (which can flood in the winter) to more developed use, such as for berries, barnyards or even homes, less winter recharge is possible. I personally don't see how a streamflow baseline can be established without adjudication as to the minimum levels to which the bank must be kept capitalized.Gaythia Weisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5109719784602609028.post-74854540623606593322014-08-02T14:11:00.216-07:002014-08-02T14:11:00.216-07:00I don't see how anyone can argue with the idea...I don't see how anyone can argue with the idea that instream flow base line data is first priority. It would be like planning a budget with no idea how much money is in the bank. I think it's also possible to make very complicated issues understandable for lay people in decision making positions. Obviously so, since much of the world requires this. But, the decision makers have to be interested in solutions and not just their own narrow interests. Humphrey Blackburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01855014222079170849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5109719784602609028.post-68093120714884342092014-08-02T11:13:39.379-07:002014-08-02T11:13:39.379-07:00Thank you Carl. How long until we can have a vari...Thank you Carl. How long until we can have a variable use fee on all water that increased sharply during the three months with inadequate stream flow and water availability.Bob in the Pacific Northwest Wildernesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14163506099232514666noreply@blogger.com