Very informative and thought-provoking article. Thank you!

I generally support Eric Hirst and the organizations he represents. However, I must take issue with some of his points. Those of you who read my public posts will find my arguments familiar.
1) The generally accepted number for per capita domestic use is 100 gallons per day, not 200 for a family of four. I don’t see Whatcom County as different and less water-wasteful than the rest of the US. There is a remarkable degree of homogeneity across the wide band of American activities.
2) The generally accepted number for groundwater consumption for agriculture in the US is 80%, although sometimes it is listed as “80%, with up to 90% in the western states.” Again, I don’t see Whatcom County as that much different from the rest of the US and the cooler temperatures in the western half of the state argue for 80% here, even though it might be 90% in Omak, Wenatchee, Walla Walla and the other areas with high irrigation use for orchards.
3) These two numbers that I just mentioned are how I calculate comparisons between my irrigation use and that of industrial agriculture. The method for industrial agriculture is simple. We cannot know, because of bad USDA statistics and downright lies, whether the US is a net importer or exporter of food. The safest assumption is that we are in the middle (reducing error on both ends), and we produce enough food in this country to feed all US residents. Therefore 100 gallons domestic use at 5% is 1/16th of agriculture at 80%. Thus my number for industrial agriculture is 1600 gallons per person per day. This is calculated for a whole year and thus evens out seasonal differences. Domestic use is also based on a whole year, with summer irrigation evened out and toilet use (the biggest waster) the same throughout the year.
4) My irrigation use is based on my own data and consists of 1800 gallons a day for 90 days (June, July, August). Since I grow enough food in a normal year to feed 2.5 people, based on kilocalorie yield, this calculates to:
1800 gal. x 90 days / 2.5 people per year / 365 days per year = 177.5 gallons per person per day
Rounding up to be conservative (a 12.5% error), let’s just call it 200 gallons per person per day.
5) As you can see there is a VAST difference between my small-scale farming model and industrial agriculture, by a factor of 8! This is one of the reasons I wrote two books on postmodern farming and solutions for collapse.
6) This is why I have been regularly lambasting Eric and Futurewise for lumping me and other small scale farmers in the same bag as industrial berry farmers, dairy farmers, chicken growers and the like. It is like comparing me to Sherman Polinder because I have an unregulated well WITHOUT holding Sherman reponsible for water waste, polluting streams and illegally taking water out of the Nooksack. It is like putting me in the same sack with Henry Bierlink.
7) I will not be satisfied until writers on water issues make a concerted effort to DIFFERENTIATE between small-scale, alternative farmers and industrial agriculture. When you talk about unregulated wells in the county as the same as taking water illegally out of the Nooksack, you do your own cause a great disservice.
8) Pitting the cityfolks against the countryfolks does no good. I work hard to develop alternatives and when I see the “cityfolk” displaying simplistic reasoning and lack of respect for the work I do in the soil every day, I will not support initiatives from these same disrespectful people.
9) There is QUITE a difference between “water quality and use controlled by federal, state, tribal and local jurisdictions,” and “Because the public owns the water, it would be reasonable to tax its use.” On the one hand, the federal/state/tribal/local jurisdictions “control” water because they can. They do this through institutionalized violence. When Eric wants to close down my well because it is unregulated, he doesn’t come out with a gun himself, he just uses the system to send out the sheriff.

Now, just because the state or county controls me does NOT mean that my water belongs to the public. It doesn’t. The state lays claim to water from my well because they have the guns and the will to use them. I am at their mercy, so I go along with it. That does NOT mean that I like it. It also means that I am not going to support a group or a person who conflates me with dairy and berry farmers who are despoiling the landscape and waterways while making lots of money. Meanwhile, I go on every day creating alternatives so your grandchildren can survive. A little respect is in order here.

Walter,
Please don’t confuse all of us “city folk.” Some of us understand the difference between agricultural (read: those growing the food we would want to eat and actually do eat) and industrial (read: that which is mass produced primarily for export) production. We can’t talk about responsible water use vis-a’-vis MIF without acknowledging the difference. Whatcom Watch has done our best to explain the issue. E.g., http://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=1823  We will continue to do so.

The passage of time has obviously not dampened the ardor with which this issue is debated.  There are some emerging solutions that bear investigating:  Paul Stamets, a Washington-based mycologist, may be revolutionizing the world of water quality.  In a wide-ranging talk on TED, he describes ongoing experiments using bundles of storm debris (inoculated with specific fungi) which are placed along streams, edges of lakes, etc., and which demonstrate a dramatic ability to clean up certain types of pollution, including eColi.  To watch his talk, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI5frPV58tY .  He begins describing the water quality experiment about Minute 9:45.

Here is how Paul describes what his fungi can do:  “Mycorestoration is the use of fungi to help repair or restore ecologically harmed and sensitive habitats. It encompasses the use of fungi for filtration of water (mycofiltration), the breakdown of toxic wastes (mycoremediation), empowering ecoforestry strategies (mycoforestry) and helping to influence and control pest insect populations (mycopesticides).

It’s time to invoke Einstein’s observation - “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - and look into the cutting-edge discoveries that could begin the healing of our irreplaceable water resources..  If you agree, contact local government - city and county - and insist they investigate this new “technology.”  We may not be able to undo the bad, shortsighted decisions of the past, but we just might have a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card with this new approach.

Terry - Yes we need to differentiate, all across the board. One quibble. Industrial agriculture is not just export-driven. It is defined by overuse of fossil fuels. Most so-called “family farms” are industrial ag.
Sherilyn - Yes, Paul Stamets’ work is important and a viable solution for cleanup at the Port to take care of GP’s mess. I believe an experiment was already done several years ago. Of course the only candidate for Port Commissioner who even considers these kinds of solutions is Lloyd Zimmerman.

I thank Walter Haugen for taking the time to write detailed and thoughtful comments on my local-water-issues article.

Some of Walter’s comments concern data. He and I likely agree that we lack data for two key sets of water users in Whatcom County: agriculture and exempt-well owners. The numbers I presented for agriculture cover the entire sector, both the small-scale farms that Walter favors and the larger, more industrial farms that dominate the industry. The numbers, all estimates, come from the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, and Whatcom Farm Friends. None of these sources disaggregates water use by agricultural subsector.

Some of Walter’s comments deal with policy, not necessarily related to what I covered in the article. Although I agree that we should refine our understanding, estimates, and data on different kinds of farms, I’m not sure how to do that. Perhaps Walter can enlighten us on that point.

Finally, some of Walter’s comments strike me as unfair and unproductive. I have no desire to “close down” Walter’s (or anybody else’s) well, nor have I ever suggested that exempt wells are “the same as taking water illegally.” Where, Walter did you dig up these incorrect statements?

Okay Eric, let’s Google “Futurewise exempt wells.” When I do this I get the following article as the first hit: http://futurewise.org/action/Kittitas Settlement [Disclaimer: Google searches are tailored to your interests, so if you repeat this, you may get a different article as the lead, but you should be able to get in in the top 20, I should think.] This was a “landmark water rights settlement,” signed on May 15, 2014 by Futurewise, Kittitas County, the Washington State Department of Ecology, RIDGE, and the Kittitas County Conservation Association. It “mitigates impacts of over a century of development without considering whether the water is available to support the homes, farms, and businesses in the Kittitas County part of the Yakima Basin.” The article went on to say, “Futurewise is pleased with this landmark agreement, which leverages sound planning and promotes a strong future for the community, farmers, its economy and the environment,” said Hilary Franz, Executive Director of Futurewise. “Many other areas of our state – like Whatcom and Snohomish – face similar water allocation issues that threaten the long-term health of their communities.  The approach developed here should serve as a model for communities looking for creative solutions to water resource management.”

Okay, here we have a settlement that is based on “mitigation” and is to be used as a model in Whatcom County. This settlement brought together various parties such as the State Department of Ecology, Futurewise, RIDGE, the Kittitas Conservation Coalition, and the Kittitas County Farm Bureau. In other words it brought together various parties from across the political spectrum. If you are suspicious of anything to do with government, wary of misuse of mitigation (both in word and deed) and are leery of “models” that reify a term or concept so that it channels time, money and energy in the wrong direction, all of your red flags should have gone up.

First off, “mitigation” is a flawed concept because it is based on the “least bad” alternative. It assumes we cannot have a “good” or “positive” solution. Examples are geoengineering to battle climate change, salvage archaeology, and FEMA actions in disasters. Not only is the word poorly understood by most people, it focuses energy on short-term solutions instead of 1) preventing the problem, 2) integrating long-term and middle-range solutions into a proper response, and 3) dismisses adaptation. It also suffers from reification, treating an abstract concept as a thing, which then assumes a life of its own. Soon it becomes a catchword, like “markets” or “the invisible hand,” and other such nonsense. We might also want to consider why conservative power lobbies, like the Farm Bureau, are willing to get into bed with Futurewise on this issue. [Note: There is a good reason I spent considerable time on reification in my first book. It is a pernicious concept.]

Further digging provides the answer. This settlement solidifies an earlier concept that came out of Kitsap County called “hydraulic continuity.” Here is a link to an Issue Paper from 1997: http://www.kpud.org/downloads/hydrcont.pdf and the first paragraph:
“This issue paper examines Hydraulic Continuity, “the interconnection between ground water (aquifers) and surface water sources.” An aquifer is in hydraulic continuity with wetlands, lakes, streams, rivers or other surface water bodies whenever it is discharging to these water bodies. Continuity also exists when an aquifer is being recharged by surface water. Hydraulically connected ground water and surface water cannot be considered as independent resources. A withdrawal from one will have some effect on the other” (Draft Hydraulic Continuity Policy Paper, The Water Resources Forum). Under RCW 90.44, hydraulic continuity is described as any underground water that is “part of or tributary to the source of any stream or lake.” Any activities that impact recharge to ground water (e.g., changes to infiltration, evapotranspiration, or runoff), may have an impact on hydraulically connected surface water.”

The idea here is that the state owns all the water and they graciously allow us peasants to have some once in awhile. Of course, to control this resource, we have to have multiple layers of bureaucracy, which nickels and dimes people to death. Just pounding down a sand point and attaching a pitcher pump so you can have free water is not allowed. [The first time I did this was in 1971, by the way, when us dirty hippie commie pinkos were homesteading in northern Minnesota.]

Of course, Futurewise constantly asserts that we need “planning” because we don’t have enough water to go around. However, what they DON’T do is go after the real culprits here - senior water rights. In other words, Futurewise is complicit in a settlement that goes after new exempt wells while allowing senior water rights to continue - even though the senior water rights are the problem! Instead of going after the REAL criminals that are polluting the air, water, and soil, they focus on bit players like those who want to put down a straw into an aquifer on their own land so they can have a nice home life and maybe raise some food.

Of course, Eric and Futurewise will point to the grandfather clause that allows present users to keep their exempt wells (like myself), but the concept of hydraulic continuity shows how easily they can change course in the future. For those of you with a legal bent, this is the slippery slope argument, but Hey! if the Supreme Court can use it, so can I. To my mind it is a real worry.

In the long term, Eric and Futurewise suffer from some implicit assumptions that don’t hold up.
1) We need planning and so must submit to it. This is a false assumption because we can all see how “planning” is constantly corrupted by those with money to influence the process.
2) The state-level society we live in will continue forever and so we must submit to centralized political processes where the state owns basic resources. This is a false assumption, as the way of the world is breakdown of states, rise of the deep state all over the world, breakdown of states into clan-based regional polities (Libya, Syria), and a slow-moving collapse.
3) Holding the line with what we’ve got is NOT a solution. I don’t see Futurewise actually pressing for alternatives. If they were, they would be targeting the real criminals in Whatcom County - the dairy farmers who take water illegally and pollute the Nooksack and the neighboring aquifers and soil.

There are all kinds of problems with dairy. I grew up on a farm in southern Minnesota and we had 25 milkers and 10-15 head of youngstock on 173 acres. Contrast that sustainable model with a modern dairy farm in Whatcom with 400 head of milkers on 40 acres. In order to get the water they have to exceed their legal rights. In order to get rid of their toxic manure, they have to spread it all over the county and it makes its way into the watersheds. Futurewise would be better suited to target the 10 worst dairy farmers and drive them out of business. Muddying the waters by focusing on exempt wells is just adding insult to injury.

Okay, for those of you who don’t want to wade through my response to Eric and the ongoing problem of contamination of streams, bays, and aquifers, let me make it REAL simple.

1) If you want to fix a problem, you have to first stop doing what created the problem.
2) Dairy farmers are polluting the Nooksack, the Bays and the aquifers with manure.
3) Dairy farmers are taking water illegally out of the Nooksack and the aquifers.
4) Senior water rights keep this bad old system in place.
5) Settlements and agreements that reinforce senior water rights are not solutions.

Solutions:
1) Stop all subsidies. This will drive most of the dairy farmers out of business.
2) Require all manure to stay on the farm where it was produced. This will drive the rest of the dairy farmers out of business.
3) Require polluting industries to pay for ALL costs of cleanup and treatment.
4) Stop ALL agricultural property tax exemptions. (Our tax bill will increase too but it is for the greater good.)
5) Stop ALL dairy exports to China and the rest of the world.

Ya get it? The main solution is to STOP the negative business practices.

One more thing. If an environmentalist tells you that you can have a cleaner world without a major depression that makes the Great Depression look like the Roaring Twenties, he/she is lying to you. YOU the consumer will have to take a major hit to your cushy, wasteful lifestyle if you want a clean world. No matter how many liberals and progressives tell you we can all have a comfortable lifestyle and still get off fossil fuels, they are LYING. This is known as astroturfing - appearing to be green and natural when just the opposite is the case.

I agree with Walter. I don’t understand all the details to the extent that he does, but everything that I have learned supports his conclusions.
Terry

All you water experts, at least water experts from my novice point of view, I know Terry you are concerned with the potential fraud of the Whatcom Conservation District and I was hoping I would see some comments after the article I posted a couple days ago from some of you other water experts.  The farmers want control of the WCD so they will continue to save guard their water interests.  These Districts are also State and National.  Are you not concerned about the possible fraud? Let me quote from my April 2015 article:
“The U.S. Postal Statement required for bulk mailings says the Whatcom Conservation District (WCD) mailed 3,798 ballots and 2,923 were returned by mail. What happened to the other 875 ballots or 23 percent?
Were they not returned to be counted?
Why did a large number of people take the time and energy to request a ballot and then fail to return them by mail?”
And recently from NW Citizen:“According to Mr. Eller, ballots were certified when voter intent was clear. Beyond that, it did not seem to matter that voter requests for ballots were not recorded, because according to him, it was not legally necessary. He dismissed the contention that some voters may not have received ballots, claiming it would only have been a tiny amount. Office workers complained they were tired of dealing with the election and did not have time for their usual work.”
Don’t you watermen see this as big of an issue as I do?  Will you be sending in your recommendations?  Do you have suggestions you would pass on to the state committee?