[Vision2020] Moscow & Water

[Mike Curley]

In reply to Jon Kimberling and Bill Strand, I will take a stab at answering a few of the 
questions on behalf of myself, not any organziation.

> 1.      How many members are there in your organization? 
I am a member of the Moscow Civic Association.  I think there are about 200 members.

> 2.      Were they polled prior to submission of the petition? 
As to MCA, not to my knowledge.  
> 3.      Was there a meeting of your general membership to debate this
> before the decision to file the petition was made or was it a decision
> of your board of directors? 
MCA--no meeting.  I believe it was a decision of the Board.  That is the structure of MCA 
as it is of many other organizations.  We have elected representatives who make 
decisions of this type.  Other times there are meetings and there is a direct vote of 
members.  I am a member of AARP.  I don't remember them asking me if I agreed with 
their position on the Medicare bill either, but they took a strong, and ultimately 
influential, stand on it.  Individual members are not precluded from voicing their 
personal opposition to the organization's position.
> 4.      Was consideration given to the economic impact on our community
> if we shut down new development and essentially froze our tax base? 
I don't know.  They are pretty intelligent, well-educated people who care deeply about 
Moscow, as I believe you do.  I suspect, but can't speak for them, that the word 
TEMPORARY meant a lot in their considerations.
> 5.      Who can provide a membership list?
Don't know the answer, or have an educated guess, to that one.
> 
Jon, you and I have had some constructive discussions about a number of development 
issues.  We have tried to understand one another I think.  By now, I think (and hope) 
that you understand that I am not "anti-development" and that like many others I care 
about the future of Moscow economically, socially, spiritually, recreationally, and 
qualitatively.  How we balance those, and other, factors is the source of our discussions 
very often.  I do not want to preclude growth, close the gates to the city/county, or run 
around in a panic screeching that our water is leaking away.  I am concerned about 
what we do know--that the water level has declined every year recently--and what we 
don't know--(a) why it's declined;  (b) how much there is; (c) whether there are 
alternative sources; (d) a host of other related questions.  

While I wouldn't object to a reasonable compromise, I think that one viable solution is 
to TEMPORARILY stop adding to the water deficit by creating additional (as opposed to 
replacement) residential and commercial units until we can get a fix on the nature of 
the problem--or at least satisfy ourselves that while we are carrying out a program to 
analyze and ultimately solve the problem we are not seriously adding to it.  Every new 
structure will be here to stay.  If we were to find out there is a serious water problem, 
"oops" isn't much of an answer to the additional stress on the resource that we have 
created while studying it.  Maybe there are ways to allow for continued construction 
while we study, but to make sure that it doesn't exceed a certain rate, or that the 
additional water allocation doesn't exceed a certain level.

Many citizens, including me, felt left out of the Naylor Farms decision and thought the 
city did a less than sterling job of communicating with us, allowing participation and 
thoughtful debate, and taking a strong position to protect our resources.  There was, I 
think, a necessary polarization of the "growth at any cost" and "anti-growth" sentiments.  
I believe that the city has seen that there are a lot of people who are concerned and 
interested in the water problem and who are not willing to accept the "we must have 
growth" mantra without an equivalent understanding that our water resources will 
sustain more.  I look forward to a continuing dialog, understanding, and resolution 
acceptable to the large majority on both (all six?) sides of the issue.

Meantime, I asked this question of someone yesterday.  "Why is growth--in 
Moscow/Latah County--essential to our continued economic viability?"  Would it be 
possible for the community to survive if we had no net increase in population over the 
next ten years--assuming that the UI remains healthy and that we have approximately 
the same net economic activity?  [Again, please accept that I am not advocating this 
position, I'd just like to establish the baseline on why growth is absolutely essential 
before we move on to the more complex question of whether the type of growth 
matters]

Thank you as always for your willingness to discuss the issues, to listen to diverse points 
of view, and to share your thoughts.  I think we can only solve the problems for the long-
term good of the community if we listen to one another respectfully and do our best to 
understand competing concerns.  

Regards,

Mike Curley