Water resources: It’s the rainfall, stupid
October 4th, 2009 by cdunaganTo know whether the Kitsap Peninsula will have enough water for now and the future, one needs to know how much rain will fall on the peninsula — and rainfall is impossible to predict.
That’s the message I received during my reporting for a story in today’s Kitsap Sun.
For the “water year” ending Sept. 30, Kitsap Public Utility District is reporting record-low or near-record-low rainfalls throughout Kitsap County. Aquifer levels are approaching 20- to 30-year lows.
We’ve been in this position before — probably many times throughout history, though we have never had the tools to measure it until recent years. After a bit of a scare in the early 1990s, local water officials implemented a monitoring program that allows us to be more aware of our water conditions. Water utilities and local governments have become more nimble in responding to potential problems. Conservation has reduced per-capita water consumption — though not as much as could be achieved in a crisis.
As I write this, a rainfall map we produced for the newspaper has not been posted online. I’ll try to get that attached to the online version of the story and will post it here as well.
My personal conclusion is that we should be a little nervous about our water supplies, but we should understand that we have the ability to respond. However one feels about development, it appears we have room for growth in most areas of the county — provided we manage our water carefully as circumstances develop.
In the end, it is all about the rainfall.
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
October 4th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Kind of underscores the importance of requiring water rights for rain water collection systems….
October 5th, 2009 at 9:01 am
I think water rights for collecting rain water is least of our worries…More importantly, we need to ensure state and federal is available to communities across Washington – rural most importantly – to upgrade all water systems. By the year 2017, many of these systems must be upgraded including new pipes (addressig leaks) and the installation of water meters (addressing use and conservation).
Water meters that you can read in your own back yard will be a big step towards conserving. I can’t wait for mine. Our community is looking to purchase some from another as they upgrade (we don’t even HAVE meters). I will be able to go out in my yard and read my water usage, compare it season by season, to my neighbors, and work to reduce my consumption.
Information is power.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
You cannot conserve what you don’t have. The point of the comment was that if the rain (recharge) is intercepted prior to it making to the aquifer then there will be no aquifer. In essence the rain water is already appropriated.
You are talking about water systems and upkeep. Again if there is no water a water system is useless.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:30 am
I was just suggesting we look at the bigger picture with regard to conserving water. Water meters are mandated. Rainbarrels are optional.
What is the actual impact of a rainbarrel on the input into the aquifer compared to running your sprinkler in the middle of a summer day (evaporation)? Or compared to washing your car on an impervious surface? I would like to see the numbers. I am sure someone has run them.
Both of those actions result in a loss to the aquifer, as well. Do we need “permits” for those actions as well?
Anyway, link to conservation efforts associated with water system upgrades as a FYI –
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/dw/Programs/wue.htm#the
(not a very helpful website, but there are legal challenges right now)
October 6th, 2009 at 9:21 am
You need to understand that precipitation is the sole input that creates ground-water recharge. That is the bigger picture in this issue.
Water meters are mandated for Municipal systems only. Rain barrels are not optional, they currently require a water right. A Municipal system has a water right and is limited to that amount. Installing a rain collection system can impair an existing water right. Most likely the very Municipal right that you are referring to in your conservation efforts.
The impact of a new water use (right) is evaluated on a case by case basis. It must be a beneficial use, the water must be available, both physically and legally, the use must not impair other water rights and it must be in the public’s interest. How an existing use is used is of little concern in the water basin accounting process. However, it is an issue for an existing supplier so they can stretch the use of the same amount of permitted water. In other words increased demand is offset by conservation.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Hmmm…when I said rain barrels were “optional” I meant that you had the choice to go out an buy one or not. You do not have that choice with the meter upgrades.
I understand what you are saying Brad, I just am not talking about it.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Awesome input groovyjoker
Brad,
I believe that this kind of underscores the importance of requiring rainwater collection systems to protect water rights. Current Washington State law is self admittedly ambiguous. While reading the linked information, from the Washington State’s Dept of Ecology, look for the words “maybe”, “could” and “potentially”. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/hq/rwh_rule.html
The Dept of Ecology DOES NOT require a water right for systems collecting “de minimus” (negligible) amounts of rainwater (e.g., residential rain barrels storing a few hundred gallons) with “de minimus” never having been legally defined. Throughout my research, to date, there is no singular Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA) documenting the hydrologic watershed hazards associated with rainwater harvesting. I would be grateful if anyone could supply additional information as I would find it most informative. I agree that increased demand is offset by conservation; however, rainwater harvesting COULD offer the greatest offset since rainwater contacts an impervious roof surface first, then contacts the ground. This massive amount of water then has to be percolated into the soil to recharge an aquifer. With this much water coming into contact with the ground at the same time, much like a roadway or parking lot, it ends up as storm water run-off collecting pollution which requires treatment, and/or disrupts and pollutes creeks, streams, and riverbeds which ultimately lead directly to the Puget Sound. This is especially indicative of large industrial and commercial properties, particularly along the perimeter of Kitsap County. A point of interest here may be that only certain areas of Kitsap County are considered Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs) which is of ultimate concern when it comes to aquifer recharge. http://www.kitsapgov.com/dcd/gis/maps/Standard_Maps/Environmental/Critical_Aquifer_Recharge_Areas_June2007.pdf
I do not agree with “how an existing water use is used is of little concern in the water basin accounting process”. If senior water right holders were investigated for potential waste while looking at avenues to conserve water might help the entire water basin as a whole. In your opinion, what is the role of water in regards to the “beneficial use in the public’s interest” of that available? I am a constituent that would like to know what other people, like you, may think my particular interests may entail. My interests may differ from yours. As for the “existing supplier so they can stretch the use of the same amount of permitted water” I do not think that they, as a corporation, have our best interests in mind. My water bill, for example, includes a $19.25 charge for a water meter and a $4.00 charge for a street light each month. I guess I can understand the water meter charge, but why am I paying $4.00 per month, on my water bill, for a street light?