Four the Future - Water Quantity

A look at water quantity issues, both through increasing flows in the rivers and decreasing flows for wasteful human purposes (figuratively and literally).

• Sullivan Lake flows to allow development
  Source: Spokesman-Review; October 22, 2010
  Summary: The Pend Oreille County Public Utility District has agreed to release 14,000 acre-feet of water each summer from Sullivan Lake in exchange for $14 million from the Washington Department of Ecology. Two-thirds of the additional flow will be used to grant enough water rights for 23,500 new homes in Pend Oreille, Ferry, Lincoln, Douglas and Stevens counties. The remaining flow will be to enhance in-river flows for fish, other wildlife, and recreational uses.
  Opinion: 14,000 acre-feet is equal to one acre of land flooded 14,000 feet deep in water. It's the same as putting Riverfront Park 140 feet underwater. This additional water will flow down through the Columbia River, but it is of no use to salmon until it reaches Grand Coulee, a dam which lacks a fish ladder, an issue that the public seemed unconcerned about at the time, and the Canadians didn't care about as there was no commercial salmon industry on the Columbia.
  
• Northwest tribes want input on Columbia River Treaty
  Source: Spokesman-Review; November 16, 2010
  Summary: The United States and Canada have a treaty manages the flow of the Columbia River. It can be altered with at least 10 years notice, and the first chance it can be changed is in 2024. Native American tribes want to have a voice in the negotiations in order to restore river flows capable of restoring salmon runs. The treaty is currently under review.
  Opinion: This is a major opportunity to restore the relationship between Native Americans and the river. The issue of water rights is key. Native Americans have the most senior water rights of any group, and if they can successfully argue that they used the water for salmon farming then they could argue that they have a right to the volume of water necessary to restore salmon above Grand Coulee for their own use. This should be a respected argument, since, if they had pumped it out for cattle, they would have a recognized claim! They merely farmed them in place. Any requirements beyond that, like for a non-native fishery, the United States and Canada would have to further increase flows. But, as mentioned earlier, Canada has no financial interest in fishing, so that may be a complicating factor.
  
• Ultra-low-flow flush toilets are on market
  Source: Denver Post; November 13, 2010
  Summary: Installing high-efficiency toilets can save you money by reducing the amount of water you use. In the 1990’s, the federal government mandated 1.6 gallon per flush toilets. Previously, they could use up to 3.5 gallons per flush. The Environmental Protection Agency is promoting a 1.28 per gallon voluntary standard. A recent price for that ultra-low-flow level was recently noted at $147. Using a low-flow toilet can save $90 per year for an average family. A company has developed even lower flow vacuum-assisted toilets at only 0.8 gallons per flush.
  Opinion: Cities and counties can influence the amount of water used by mandating higher efficiency toilets in new construction, and, like this event last year in California’s West Basin Municipal Water District, swap out old toilets for low-flow ones. Taking less water out of the environment is good, but there are also downstream advantages. When there's less water in the sewer line, existing sewage treatment plants can handle more flushes, extending their current capacity. Because the waste is more concentrated, the treatment plant operates at higher efficiencies, reducing the amount of pollutants that enter the river.
  
• Lushest lawns will require more green
  Source: Spokesman-Review; January 3, 2011
  Summary: The City of Spokane is increasing the cost of high water usage to encourage conservation through pricing. For most people who use little water, their bills will go down. For those who use much more, their bills will go up a great deal. Councilmember Snyder contends that this is an advantage to those who conserve and are of low-income, but Councilmember McLaughlin argues that the city shouldn't be penalizing people for their "lifestyle choices."
  Opinion: The people of this region use an immense amount of water for their lawns compared to people in other regions. And, yes, it is because of a lifestyle choice, but that lifestyle is harming the environment and everyone else in it. So, if they really want to keep that lifestyle choice, then they should be quite willing to pay more for it. For many people, though, I suspect that they’re not going to give up their lattes for their habit of wasting water. Eventually they will find more efficient ways to manage their water usage or pay the penalty that should come with sticking their heads in their grass.