Lee Brown, Bruce Lium and Wendy Pabich are water scientists residing in the Wood River Valley. They received their doctorate degrees from University of Texas, University of Utah and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, respectively.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For the past two years we have advocated the necessity of assessing the Wood River Valley's water resources, fully aware that such an undertaking calls for an extensive scientific effort. The merit of this action would be a full understanding of not only current surface water and groundwater quality and quantity, but also how they change over time. As this concept gains momentum, the time has arrived to outline its promise, limitations and methods. For the record, while each of us holds a doctorate in some facet of water science, we promote this undertaking not as consultants or scientists, but rather as resident citizens of this valley—it is our home.
"Hasn't this watershed been studied before?" The answer is yes, more than two-dozen water studies are known to exist. What is troublesome, however, is that we remain unable to answer some basic water questions and do not possess an integrated and comprehensive understanding of the watershed. Prior studies by different researchers, representing different agencies, have used different methods, time periods and topics of focus. In short, we have bits and pieces of hydrologic knowledge but no uniform grasp.
To address the problem, in 2004 a group of local residents sent a team to the U.S. Geological Survey Idaho headquarters to explore various possibilities. Agreeing to help, USGS scientists reviewed all prior studies and consequently developed a "Work Plan" that decomposed the project into four interlocking and sequential phases. Phase I deals primarily with water quantity and trends over time, with Phase II turning to water quality of both ground and surface water resources (go to http://id.water.usgs.gov/projects/wood_river_valley for details on scope, costs, and timeframes).
Today, the immediate task is to fund and initiate Phase I. This component focuses on groundwater and surface water quantity with three goals: (1) collect trend data; (2) map groundwater flow paths for use in Phase II; and (3) develop a monitoring plan. Although the initial phase is estimated to cost $155,000, this sum can be spread over several fiscal years. To start, the USGS has generously offered to contribute $50,000 in fiscal year 2006 and another state agency indicated it will provide technical assistance. We are now in the process of raising the $50,000 required match to demonstrate that healthy streams and high-quality drinking water is vitally important to this watershed's residents and economy. Evaluation of water quality (Phase II) requires the completion of major portions of Phase I; those funds will be obtained at a later time. It should be understood that Phase II will not only assess the chemistry of water quality but will also inventory pesticides, pharmaceuticals and the biological communities of the Big Wood River and Silver Creek. Both components should be completed by 2008.
Frequent news stories highlight building moratoriums, affordable housing, hillsides and other growth issues. There is little doubt population will increase in the future; whether or not this growth becomes problematic remains unclear but surely water quality and quantity will affect the direction of this outcome. A primary justification for this project is that it will make available—for the first time—the prerequisite information to structure a comprehensive and scientific understanding of the watershed system. It will not, by itself, produce a "model" or "growth management" tool.
The creation and implementation of such devices will depend upon the interaction of citizens, decision-makers, planning professionals, government agencies, nonprofit organizations and developers. Straight talk—it is our responsibility as a watershed community to convert these findings into policy tools for prudent decisions; we are convinced valley residents are up to the challenge. Each of the watershed's unique communities faces different conditions and challenges; no single package of educational programs, conservation measures, monitoring systems, or planning tools will serve everyone equally. Fortunately, we can review what other locales have adopted in order to better translate science into policy.
It should be stressed, if there is no up-to-date and comprehensive understanding of watershed status then prudent planning for the future is foreclosed. Some of the most tragic episodes in the annals of water history have occurred in areas that did not grasp the limits of their water resources; by the time problems emerged it was either too late or too expensive to fix them. The issue is clear. Do the citizens of the Big Wood River and Silver Creek watershed think a comprehensive understanding of current water quality and quantity conditions and trends is vital to the welfare of our future? Do we wish to join other American communities who—in similar situations—have invested in their water future? Or are we willing to forego this opportunity and accept whatever fate may come our way?
