Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews task order for alternate water-supply study; PBAC and state funds cited
Summary
City staff presented Task Order No. 9 — a 12-month study to evaluate an alternate water supply from the Clearwater River, including supply assessment, conceptual design, permitting and stakeholder engagement. HDR Engineering is the consultant; Idaho funding of $182,500 was cited.
Get email alerts on the Water Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff presented Task Order No. 9 to the Moscow City Council, a study contract scope to evaluate an alternate water supply from the Clearwater River for the Palouse Groundwater Basin. The presentation described the basin's long-term decline and framed the work as a discovery and planning phase that would test feasibility and identify regulatory, design and cost hurdles.
Tyler (city staff and PBAC representative) told the council the Palouse Basin Groundwater is the sole source of drinking water for several cities and both regional universities and that the basin has been subject to long-term groundwater decline. He described four study components: a water-supply assessment, conceptual design (intake, pumping, treatment, storage, conveyance), regulatory/permitting assessment (including environmental review and tribal consultation), and stakeholder engagement including the Nez Perce Tribe and regional partners.
Tyler said HDR Engineering was the selected consultant and that the project total was $335,841. He said the Idaho Division of Water Resources/Idaho Water Resource Board committed $182,500 toward design work and that the Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee (PBAC) authorized covering the remaining balance through fiscal arrangements with the University of Idaho; the presenter referenced a remaining figure of about $153,341 but the transcript rendering of the final split was fragmented.
The study is described as a 12-month engagement and will analyze whether treated river water should be used directly or for aquifer recharge, identify optimal diversion points, evaluate permitting timelines and costs, and prepare preliminary cost estimates. Tyler emphasized iterative stakeholder outreach and repeated that accuracy was preferred over speed in the study timeline.
Councilors asked questions about the discovery nature of the work, timing, public involvement during the study and collaboration with Lewiston and the Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District. Tyler said PBAC and city staff have met with Lewiston and irrigation-district representatives, had presented to the Idaho Water Resource Board, and that collaboration and site visits have occurred. He also said formal public-stakeholder touch points, a research colloquium and coordination with the Nez Perce Tribe are included in the scope.
A council member moved to approve Task Order No. 9 during the meeting. The transcript records the motion and a second; the recording does not include a clear roll-call vote or final outcome in the recorded excerpt. PBAC funding and the Idaho Water Resource Board grant were discussed as part of the presentation.

