MVCC, gentrification, development, and wells...

[Fun CH]

In our water conservation home we use around 36,000 gallons of domestic water per year with 95% of that returned to the ground via a septic drainfield. That's 50 gallons per person per day, sometimes its way less. We do have 2,500 gallons of water stored via a rain water collection system that waters a few fruit trees and a kitchen garden. Our patch work green grass "lawn" is 3 feet x 8 feet.

The water we draw from a well per year is around 8 days worth of water that the State allows to be drawn from permit exempt wells which is the standard in the valley at 5,000 gallons per day.. That amounts to 1,842,000 gallons of water per home per year. Of course many wells in the area can't possibly draw that much water and some people are conservation minded and only use what they absolutely need.

To picture that 1,842,000 gallons, an Olympic size pool uses 660,000 gallons. So that amount of water that the State allows to be drawn from a permanent exempt well could fill 2.7 Olympic size pools per year. And that doesn't count those people who are on the ditch surrounded by lavish Landscaping and 5 acre lawns as they take water directly from the rivers and creeks.

The issue of closed basins isn't about water. Its because a few people organized and decided to shut down development where ever possible. They apparently desire a certain look in their view shed as they drive around the Valley.

They want others to pay the bill for their pleasure, wants and desires (a lot of that going around these days). An example is MVCC talks about not wanting to change the character of the Lower Valley in this latest move to stop a proposed development there.

Did the homes that they moved into change the character of the valley? Yes of course, every home and building does. Just go up to the top of Lewis Butte and take a look at what the Valley has become. The character of the valley is changed from its natural state but we are surrounded by the Paradise that is nature.

So why advocate for laws that hurt people and drive them into a welfare system?

Why not advocate instead for more reasonable water laws where almost 2 million gallons of water usage per year per home is considered excessive in an arid climate area?

Advocating for water conservation homes seems more reasonable unless your goal is to stop all Construction and new people from living here.

[mister_coffee]

There is a reason it is called "investing". You're taking a risk and some of those risks are political and regulatory. No, it isn't fair. But most of us worked out in ninth grade that life often isn't fair.

When I began researching purchasing land here (in 1992!) I got some (actually quite a bit of) legal advice, including that I should avoid any property that didn't already have a developed well. I heard that multiple times, including from a nearly retired gentleman from Yakima who told me there would "inevitably" be a moratorium on residential wells at some point in the future. And before you describe me as some kind of rich guy, I certainly wasn't wealthy in 1992. That came much later.

So when I did finally purchase land (in 1997 and 1999) I was pretty insistent to only consider properties that already had developed wells. Even with that, there was still a lot of things that could have reasonably and unsurprisingly gone wrong, and I consider myself lucky that relatively little did go wrong.

[Fun CH]

Nice to say all that, but without MVCC we'd probably be stuck with a large destination ski resort in Mazama, a far higher level of urbanization in the upper valley, and even higher real estate prices than are present today.

MVCC did that by kicking up enough dust and throwing enough bombs that the Aspen Corp was never going to be able to raise the capital it was going to need to develop the location. And they'd need to raise quite a bit of capital given that high-speed express quad lifts went for around $40 million each at the time.

does successfully challenging a mega ski resort area use of public land justify they're involvement in the "taking" of private property already earmarked for private homes?

We know the copper mine would have never gone in even without MVCC.

I do agree with land and water conservation goals.

With the amount of land I purchased earmarked for three single family homes I could have done a planned development back when I purchased the land. We choose not too. That would have been 7 homes instead of three.

Perhaps I should have drilled wells on those two parcels back in the early 2000's and dumped the water on the ground to establish beneficial use.

Perhaps I was stupid for not going for the waste and greed. But really I didn't think the State DOE would cut off conserved domestic water use.

Like I said, contrast MVCC's contention and conflict tactics to the Methow Conservancy's cooperation approach.

But I guess you don't mind your tax dollars paying to defend lawsuits brought by MVCC just to keep the gate to the Methow locked?

Because the way it stands now, water in the Valley is not being conserved, especially on land owned the State.

[PAL]

Ah, but the Yakima too, have helped close the basins. Not supposed to say this, not politically correct probably, but I'm saying it.
They want enough water for their fish.
Yes, MVCC stopped the ski resort and the copper mine. But on other issues they are not entering into the fray. They are on the North West Forest Health Collaborative. Trying to walk both sides. Not easy for them. The word is forests.
Chris, we did not renew our membership.

[pasayten]

Thinking the USEPA and the development being next to a Class 1 air shed also had a significant impact.

[mister_coffee]

Nice to say all that, but without MVCC we'd probably be stuck with a large destination ski resort in Mazama, a far higher level of urbanization in the upper valley, and even higher real estate prices than are present today.

MVCC did that by kicking up enough dust and throwing enough bombs that the Aspen Corp was never going to be able to raise the capital it was going to need to develop the location. And they'd need to raise quite a bit of capital given that high-speed express quad lifts went for around $40 million each at the time.

[Fun CH]

Do you think it is all MVCC?
I like the idea of conservation homes. It could work, I think.

I think MVCC has always been involved in stopping development in this Valley, water is the rationale that they use. They do this by pursuing conflict rather than working cooperatively. If they want open space fine, but solicit the funds to buy that open space land and not place the burden on private property owners whose retirement investments or dreams of living here in the Methow Valley are now gone. That's just ruthless advocacy.

I should add the we used to support that group but not fully understanding what they were truly about. I agree with some of their public land issues, like stopping a copper mine or a mega ski resort, but not locking people out of a home here or forcing them to move out of the Valley for lack of retirement funds as the cost of living keeps rising here.

Contrast MVCC actions of conflict and contention to the Methow Conservancy who work with people, not against them.

[PAL]

DOE is involved in this development as well. And this development is not providing affordable housing.
In Wolf Cr. which became a closed basin and some people who are water hydrologists contested it for their parcel. One of the reasons they won in court, because the Yakima's who wanted it closed, didn't show up.
Were you able to appeal the decision on having your basin closed? Wonder if you could try again.
I agree, those large houses along the Columbia evidently have enough water.
But as time goes on, with the changing climate, the question is being asked will we really have enough water?
Water law has become so complex. But, yes, why allow water for cattle corn and look how much water alfalfa takes?
I know we don't use 5,000 gals/day. Not many do. Should be changed.
I know of others who had their right to drill a well taken away, after purchasing the property in good faith years ago. Now their land is worthless. Very unfair.
Do you think it is all MVCC?
I like the idea of conservation homes. It could work, I think.

[Fun CH]

Isn't it because of water issues in the lower valley that they want to stop it? Have you read this week's paper? Big article on it.
Copperstone might be able to downsize it. I doubt that it is for affordable housing. Just read it is mainly vacation homes, according to the developer.

From reading the MVCC magazine that was distributed recently to the membership, my understanding is they object to changing the character of the Lower Valley, septic systems next to the river, and not changing water rights from agricultural to domestic use.

But really this is about closing the gate to the Methow now that MVCC members and staff have their homes here. It seems they don't want more development, at a time when a housing shortage is critical. They think they're saving the rural character of the Methow but look around, that ship sailed a long time ago.

Why not work with the State, County and locals instead of constantly suing the county? And guess who pays that county bill while MVCC staff and lawyers reap big paydays? That's right we do, the tax payer.

It would make more sense to advocate for conservation homes where limited amounts of water are used for domestic use, say 50 gallons per person per day instead of the 5,000 gallon well draw for a permit exempt well that are common throughout the valley.

Its clear that Washington state water policy has not kept up with the times with that 5,000 gallon per per day draw. Why not change water policy to something more reasonable and share our public resources?

There's a lot of water in our aquifer. I understand from reading the placards along the community Trail up by Mazama, the aquifer is a 1,000 feet deep by one mile wide and that's before the Chewack river enters the Methow river drainage. Its all connected. Cutting off domestic use water for the closed basins was an easy target. However the State has no problem leasing their land to grow cattle corn while drawing vast amounts of water from the creeks that run through the closed basins. Not really closed I guess, just for some.

For full disclosure I have a vested interest in restoring our right to drill a well in a closed basin. I have most of our retirement savings tied up in a 21 and a 33 acre parcel. As someone who built houses in this Valley since 1985, those parcels were purchased for my job of building and providing homes for the good people who desire to live in the incredibly beautiful Mountain landscape beyond the developed areas, most of it public land.

In 2018, I (and others) lost access to domestic water for those parcels with a letter from the head of the Department of ecology explaining that he realized that this would be cause hardships, but basically too bad. Not his problem.

It's particularly hard when you see all the McMansions being built along the Columbia River south of Pateros. Plenty of water for them I guess as our aquifer flows Downstream. I don't begrudge anyone their homes however.

Everyone should have a right to domestic water and I believe that was the decision a judge made in a recent case here that allowed for some homes to be built in the main Valley. It's no wonder that MVCC wants to move their current law suit venue when things don't go their way.

The State effectively ended my career and made my property effectively worthless with the help from MVCC advocating to close the gate to the Methow.

Man I was looking forward to retiring and maybe take a vacation where I wasn't sleeping in a campground or on the ground. .

[PAL]

Isn't it because of water issues in the lower valley that they want to stop it? Have you read this week's paper? Big article on it.
Copperstone might be able to downsize it. I doubt that it is for affordable housing. Just read it is mainly vacation homes, according to the developer.

[Fun CH]

Pasayten posted "Not too good of news for fixed income seniors...
Add the potential Proposition 1 Aquatics District tax levy to this and that would make the news really bad!!!"

For low & fixed income property owners in Twisp, the District 6 Annexation will add about 63 cents to the Town's levy -- making it about $2 per thousand.

Getting expensive to live here.

that's all part of the rural gentrification process. Property values increase as the area becomes more desirable, property taxes go up, recent arrivals desire more services simular to the place they just left, rents go up, people organize to restrict or stop new home development, new taxing districts form like recreational districts, and taxes increase again. The people that built the place are forced to more out as the area becomes unaffordable.

This process can be seen happening in the Methow Valley with the most recent example being MVCC wanting to stop a new housing project proposal in the Lower Valley.

I don't blame anyone for wanting to move to this beautiful Valley or even the people with more income and wealth.

I blame the people who put forth their self serving agendas with projects, like a mega indoor spa complexs. They give themselves high paying jobs designing and managing the new facility, and managing a Recreational tax District all at property owner expense.

Perhaps it's an unintended consequence but they are in effect actively working to tax the poor out of their homes

But we can help stop the attack on the poor by voting no on the MPD proposition once again.

We can support new housing projects that provide housing and keep locals working.

For those who say they want to preserve the rural character of the area by stopping new housing projects, that ship has sailed.