August – October 2010
(09/27/2010) Please note: Feedback is no longer being accepted for this question. Thank you to all that participated. The responses we received are available below. You can also continue to provide comments or contact us at forum@ecy.wa.gov.
September 20 – September 26
THE ISSUE
The state’s Office of Financial Management estimates that the state’s population will grow by about 1.7 million people in the next 20 years. In order to determine how much water this growing population will need and where in the state the water will be needed, the Department of Ecology needs to gather and analyze data about water supply and demand trends. This is called “supply and demand projecting.”
>> Learn more about Long-Term Forecasts of Washington Population and Net Migration
>> Learn more about Water Use Trends in Washington 1985–2005
>> Learn more about Washington’s Water Supply
YOUR FEEDBACK
In your comments, please answer the following question:
> > Scroll down to read all responses.
Yes, the state should make investments in water supply and demand forecasting. However, it should be done at the local/watershed level. Access to water can be a significant factor limiting economic development and communities’ ability to actualize their visions for the future.
We hear DOE will charge “fees”to fund more staff time to ?. DOE has a theory that you measure success by the amount of Dollars spent on WRIA. No amount of Tax Payer dollars spent can overcome FAILURE. Now you want to charge Fees for water usage.
Come on November
Water supply and demand projecting is nothing new to the Department of Ecology. Perhaps this week’s question should have read: “Should the state fill in the gaps of existing supply and demand projections and roll up existing supply and demand reports into one comprehensive statewide supply and demand projection?”
Under RCW 90.54.040 (1) of the Water Resource Act of 1971, Ecology received this directive from the Legislature:
“The department, through the adoption of appropriate rules, is directed, as a matter of high priority to insure that the waters of the state are utilized for the best interests of the people, to develop and implement in accordance with the policies of this chapter a comprehensive state water resources program which will provide a process for making decisions on future water resource allocation and use. The department may develop the program in segments so that immediate attention may be given to waters of a given physioeconomic region of the state or to specific critical problems of water allocation and use.”
To date, the department has been developing a comprehensive state water resources program in segments. Many utilities, cities, counties and other interested entities have made investments in water supply and demand projecting. The department’s Office of the Columbia River has done this for the Columbia River. To see the water supply and demand report for the Columbia go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/crwmp.html
So while there is currently an assortment of many regionally specific supply and demand projections that exist, there is no statewide supply and demand projection.
Unless you want to bring water to those who need it, across watersheds, there should not be a “statewide supply & demand projection.” Those projections should remain regional. Some areas of the state have only one aquifer. Some have two or three. Some areas have NO defined aquifer. Some do not have enough recharge to their aquifer(s). Others are replenished with abundant rain and snow from the mountains in their watershed. Yet, Ecology takes a similar approach to most watersheds–assuming there is not enough water, requiring mitigation for water use, and allowing a “reserve” of water for future growth. Where there truly is water, this approach deprives or over-regulates, those who look forward to retiring on a farm–small or large–and, growing their own, safe, produce. So much for “Water for People, Farms, and Fish.”
No! My reasoning is related to another question. Why does the State think they are better at this than local/regional governments/municipalities? Is it because the State is better suited to making broad based decisions? In this case I’m assuming DOE is asking this question because they would be the ones responsible for projecting water supply and demand. So a partisan, appointed group is better suited than a regionally focused, elected group of officials? As Mr. Johnson eloquently stated earlier, ‘DOE is an environmental protection agency’. They already have too much power and there is ample evidence that they clearly don’t understand economics and how it integrates with protecting the environment. I keep hoping that DOE’s reality is my dream because I want it to end!
As a side note, I have read every comment to date for this and every other question. Every answer for this question seems to be a resounding ‘NO’. Does DOE plan to actually do anything with these answers or are we simply wasting our time by thinking that we may actually contribute to policy? I appreciate and agree with the desire for a democratic process but public discourse is meaningless without follow through.
Water resources need to be managed for all uses, but particularly for economic development. Without a strong economy, there can be no money to support population growth or environmental protection. We are living that reality right now; cutting programs to the bone, including social, environmental and planning programs.
The Department of Ecology should not be in charge of water. It is an environmental protection agency. Environmental protection, including water for fish and clean water is only one facet of water management. DOE should be involved as appropriate to the needs and goals of the agency, but not in charge of the program. There needs to be a fundemental change in how water is managed in Washington. It is has not worked in the past, is not working currently, and will not work in the future regardless of how much funding is given to Ecology. Having the fox guard the henhouse is not the right way to go about this, in my opinion. Ecology is to vested in promoting its own agenda to adequately consider other water issues.
Especially now, we should be managing water to improve the economy, create jobs and increase tax revenue. Only with a healthy economy can environmental protection agendas be undertaken effectively. With no jobs and diminishing revenue, we all loose, including the environmental community. The first thing needed is to take the water program out of Ecology and put it under an agency (if it must be under an agency) that promotes economic development.
Should Washington state make investments in ‘water supply and demand projecting’? Really? Is this a serious question?
How else would you manage something? I assumed that DOE was already doing this. Again, what exactly does DOE do that constitutes “management” if they are not already evaluating how much resources there are and how they can be sustainably used? Holy $#&&! I guess I assumed that DOE was managing things…
Imagine if “managers” weren’t doing supply and demand forecasting for your mutual fund or the social security fund? Are you kidding? Dereliction of duty! I thought I knew how this organization runs. Boy am I wrong.
Thank you DOE for another push poll type question illustrating what a disingenuous bunch occupies this agency. Ecology, long ago, gave away any crediblity they might have had. No-don’t let DOE make any projections on future water supplies. They aren’t credible. Instead, let’s contract some studies showing the saving in the bloated state spending by reducing the funding to out of control agencies that invent problems whose only solution is to produce bigger budgets and more agency control over the population.
ABSOLUTELY NO!!! Too much power in the governments hands already!!
The question of whether the State of Washington should do long-range water resource planning is entirely separate from the question of whether or not Ecology or F&W are the right agencies for the job. Therefore, I don’t see comments slamming Ecology as particularly relevant here.
I’m actually surprised that this is even a question. Water is an inherently public resource, and control belongs in public hands. Very few local governments contain complete, isolated watersheds or aquifers within their jurisdictional boundary. The only viable options for sustainable water supply, whatever your priorities happen to be, are either new watershed or aquifer-based institutions with planning and enforcement authority, or state oversight.
Balanced water planning is essential, and it must include sustainable rivers, sustainable fish and wildlife, sustainable groundwater, and a sustainable economy as core requirements for that planning. It must explicitly address the risks that we face and how we respond to those risks, and internalize both the insurance that we are willing to pay to reduce those risks, and the actual costs associated with our current water use vector, as part of the decision-making process.
An example of how to do it wrong is already quietly underway: In Washington, and all across the West, the realization that climate change will dramatically reduce average snowpack (our traditional seasonal water storage infrastructure) has brought every brain-dead, overpriced, destructive, ridiculous water storage reservoir proposal ever rejected over the last century out of the woodwork. A few of these projects might make sense now. Most are still stupid ideas. All of them are moving forward now, under the radar. Without a serious and rational water resource planning process, some of them are going to get built anyway.
No converstaion is meaningful outside of the proper context. Ecology is asking the question, so who would administer the program can be safely assumed and therefore past performance is highly relevant.
As a note, I think someone from Ecology stated that above ground water storage was being examined as a possible solution to the newly studied (but long known) ground water issued in the Yakima. Since you seem disinclined to support above ground water storage, again the source of this question seems fairly relevant.
To what end?
Is the “projecting” going to be used to assist water management in the current statutory framework?
Is it going to be used as a lever to attempt to modify the water code? If so, how?
Someone must have some kind of plan for the results of this study “if this then this, if that then that.”
If not…then definitely no.
So, what are the expected outcomes of such a study? Is the purpose to impose more government-focused regulations or to increase the amount of rainfall? Obviously, this is a power grab by state bureaucrats and a way for politicians to claim they’ve “protected” us. Give us a break!
Stop this foolishness by reducing government spending and dependence on a tired political agenda.
No. In light of the Departments of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife’s past performance, it would be foolish to entrust “water supply and demand projecting” to them. — During the Watershed Planning Process, those Departments repeatedly produced models or surveys of water resources or fish habitat that were not scientifically valid. Furthermore, in some cases the outcomes of those models and surveys appeared to reflect departmental policy.
“Water supply and demand projecting” should be left to local governments and water supply companies. — Although, they may be less well funded, they are unlikely to be less qualified. However, what is probably most important is that they are likely to be more motivated, as they are closest to the people who must live with the consequences of their decisions.
Many of us on the Olympic Peninsula do not believe that Ecology has been accurate in their estimates of water supply projections, to date. And, it has been deemed to be “too expensive” to capture & store the large amounts of water that drain down from our mountains. What about the payback for increased economic growth and fish production, derived from “more” water? Some areas can “store” water in their upper aquifer, in side channels, wetlands, etc. Also, the QUALITY of fish habitat is important. Shade, deep pools, woody debris, proper amount of gravel–these things are not provided by more water, or by restricting exempt wells. Isn’t Ecology’s Water Resources Program in charge of water quantity and quality, and not habitat?
Proof that DOE has wasted their funds. They want to spend more??
WIRA 17 is such a failure they changed their name. Oh im sorry re-branded.
The only residents that like DOEs decisions live on municipal water or on state grants.
Most people in Jefferson County think that DOE should start over and let the people(as the Leg. intent was and is) decide about water solutions not POLITICS!!! Keep the lawsuits coming!!!