I think you could subtitle your opinion piece (Aug. 31 editorial);

“Are They Mutually Exclusive?” I have

only been here 18 months, but I have seen many articles on how the

Snoqualmie Valley area is sitting on huge aquifers that will be critical to the growth

of the Eastside.

In spite of the importance of this resource, there seems to be little

activity to determine the sizes and locations of the aquifers, and, more

importantly (as you point out), the accumulated projected usage. We seem

to be content to say there is a lot of water down there, and we can use it for

this project and that project and there will always be more. Doesn’t

common sense cry out for a study and a plan?

The entire scenario seems akin to a teen-ager with his/her first bank

account and no training or experience in handling money. Given an

unknown sum by the parents, no stated balance in the account and no budget for

income or outgo, the teen-ager is left to his/her own devices to do with

the money what he/she will.

So what happens? Well, the immediate needs are satisfied without

a long-range plan being put into effect. The money goes for clothes,

dates, CDs, etc., until suddenly the bank says there is no more money in the

account. Then the teen-ager asks, “Where do I get more?”

This is what we are doing with water. We have said the Eastside

aquifers will be needed in the future to fuel growth. How many aquifers are

there? Where are they located? How big are they? How much can we use them

and still have them replenished by rainfall? What is our annual water budget?

Currently the Department of Ecology is not processing any well

permits, and yet King County is considering two projects that seem ludicrous

in light of their potential impact. First and foremost is the North Bend

gravel project proposed by Cadman. By Cadman’s own conservative

estimates, this will consume 48 million gallons of water annually. Where will they

get this water? They will drill a well into an aquifer! They will also grade

the lower project site down to a level dangerously close to the top of the

aquifer, even though no one knows just where the top of the aquifer

is. Cadman’s record in Monroe makes that a worrisome proposition at best.

The second project is Glacier Northwest’s proposal to start

blasting without any real knowledge of what the impact will be on the aquifer.

With consistent, long-term blasting in a localized area, in close proximity

to known aquifers, isn’t it logical to expect that this could cause some

settling that might damage the capacity of the aquifer? (Editor’s note:

Glacier Northwest disputes this claim.) What are we going to do, wait until a

catastrophe happens and then regret we didn’t think about it sooner?

As you say at the end of your editorial, tough questions and

even tougher solutions lie ahead. Why are you the only one asking about

this? Where are our community leaders in this? Are they demanding further

studies and better answers, or are they quiet, waiting to hear what

King County, Cadman, Glacier Northwest and the big political contributors

have to say? Are they leaders, or are they pawns?

Tough questions and tough solutions demand intelligent, forceful

leaders with common sense, leaders who will do what is right, rather than

what is politically expedient.

Ken Hall

North Bend