[Vision2020] response to Kimberling

Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:43:33 -0800

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C3C2EF.E77850A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A response to Councilman Jon Kimberling:

I did not see your original post to Vision2020. Group board members =
indicate that they have not received direct inquiries from you and many =
are not Vision2020 subscribers. It is unfair to hold people accountable =
for something they didn't know about and had you emailed me directly I =
would have responded promptly. However, Bill French responded to you on =
behalf of the Palouse Water Conservation Network (PWCN) on Vision2020.

Your request also was for information that is private, protected under =
the constitution. As an appointed official you must know non-profit =
groups have no more permission to release their membership lists than =
you have to release your client list.

Many Area Businesses Do Support Real Conservation

Additionally, several coalition group members are busy running their own =
businesses. Yes, there are members of the BUSINESS COMMUNITY that =
support this petition. Some are Chamber members; some not. In the past, =
I have followed Chamber recommendations to join, get involved on =
committees, and share my ideas and opinions with other members. Even so =
the Chamber's mental divide between "growth and economic development" =
and "sustainable use of our resources" was not to be overcome. But, =
without good stewardship of resources, growth becomes a moot point. The =
prevailing societal attitude, unfortunately, indicates that the current =
generation may engage in intergenerational theft of resources or =
finances without penalty.=20

You have mischaracterized the petition. It does not ask IDWR to stop =
growth-it asks the agency to stop the mining of the aquifer, as the law =
requires. Future growth could be partially supplied by conserved water. =
As Karl Dreher stated to you on 11/24/03, "Is there hope for a situation =
that has gone on so long? Yes." It can be done-but there has to be =
governmental and civic commitment and, so far, we "have not applied full =
resources to get it done," according to Mr. Dreher.=20

Thirty-six Years Have Gone By

I appreciate your desire to have "done everything in our power to solve" =
our water supply problem-however, it is too little too late. The City =
has had years to implement real conservation and efficiency measures =
that would be essentially painless to local residents and businesses, =
has had years to sketch out what the long term plan is likely to be and =
plan how to fund it. While they have done several things that qualify as =
conservation measures, most of those things were the easy, initial steps =
that nobody anywhere could object to. Taking the next steps will be more =
difficult which is why it has been put off.=20

This issue first came up for serious public discussion in 1967. That is =
36 years ago. We have learned a lot in 36 years, but have not made =
appreciable forward progress on a solution. It concerns me greatly that =
time keeps ticking, ticking, ticking and still we wait for someone else =
to come along and solve the problem. There is no someone else, only us, =
and without pressure another 36 years could go by with only minimal =
progress to show for it. I don't want a future someone referring to me =
when they ask, "why didn't somebody DO something?"=20

I have heard you mention in almost every council meeting regarding water =
that we need to do more research before taking any action. Over 130 =
studies are not enough?=20

Research and Information Have Been Presented

PBAC has done a lot of good research. That is their strong suite. They =
have never had regulatory authority. The intent was for PBAC to make =
recommendations that the entities would then implement through their =
various regulatory means. Whether that implementation occurred through =
ordinances, rates or other methods was up to the individual entities. =
But the entities have not followed through.=20

In 2000, Juliet McKenna, then Executive Secretary/Technical Advisor of =
PBAC worked in conjunction with Moscow's Commission on Health and the =
Environment (H&E) to form a plan for City implementation. The commission =
itself did six months of intensive reading and research to build on what =
had already been done. We fine-tuned the information into a 13-page =
document (including bibliography and water bill examples from other =
communities). H&E representatives met with Gary Riedner (November 2000) =
who told us the document was "too long for the Council to read" and =
asked us to devise a one-page summary. We did. The summary as well as =
the supporting document were delivered on November 21, 2000 to Mayor =
Comstock, Supervisor Riedner, and Council members Busch, Hamlett, Hill, =
Mack, Pall and Thomason as well as PBAC representatives. Perhaps you =
should query your colleagues as to why so very little of that plan has =
been implemented over the past three years. But then, I suspect you know =
why already.

In February 2001, the City sent me to the American Water Works =
Association Water Conservation Division Annual Conference along with two =
City employees. I thought this meant they were serious. I was diligent, =
wrote a detailed report, and presented to the Council's Public =
Works/Finance Committee February 26, 2001. The only outcome on the =
City's part was to schedule a "water workshop" for June 2001. I =
contacted U of I economists Dr. John Wenders and Dr. Ashley Lyman about =
the economics of changing pricing structures. Dr. Wenders prepared and =
presented a report and provided written copies. His proposal was the =
first step in the right direction, had all of the economics questions =
answered regarding effects on the utility itself, and would have worked =
with the billing software the City had at that time. Again, the City =
made no real changes.=20

Various discussions initiated by H&E, with the City, the Water =
Department, and the Finance Department, led to updating billing software =
to provide a more informative water bill. The expense was easily =
justified by the fact that the bill reaches every customer every month =
and therefore is the most effective tool for educating customers on =
whatever matters the City deems timely. It would also generate a larger =
database for water use data over time. The new system went into effect =
in July 2002. Water bills immediately became less informative-meter =
reading dates were not printed--necessary information if one is going to =
calculate their daily consumption. I called Tom Scallorn, Water =
Department Superintendent, who called Springbrook and asked them to =
revise their software to include this data. These dates were added, but =
the new bills are not more informative than the old bills. The other =
justification for new software was to prepare to migrate to a =
tiered-rate billing system. At a City meeting last week, I learned that =
the City did not purchase that "module" with the rest of the program.=20

Pullman went to a full-page bill in 1999 and they do print conservation =
information on it.

Local Avenues Have Been Explored=20

Over the past five to six years, we have done our level best to work =
with and through the local system. We have read books, studies, =
conservation plans and documents from all over the country (and other =
countries, too). We have researched and compared and reviewed and =
presented our findings to City Council and Staff and PBAC. Bill French =
has attended more PBAC meetings than Moscow's own Council liaison to =
PBAC, and I started my second stint on H&E in May 2000. We have planned, =
organized, and hosted three separate groundwater forums (2000, 2001, and =
2002) and we involved Moscow and PBAC and any of the other PBAC entities =
that wanted to participate/attend. We have worked with the Master =
Gardener's program, designed and presented Xeriscaping programs. Bill =
convinced the Water Department and the UI arboretum to collaborate on a =
xeriscape demonstration garden (with many thanks to Paul Warnick). We've =
written and talked to area nurseries and sprinkler system installers. =
We've been involved in the WRIA program. We've attended other water =
conservation workshops on our own time and expense.

In short we have been working all of the regular channels for years and =
in June, 2003 all the City Council could come up with for water =
conservation was a voluntary 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. outdoor watering =
restriction????

Over time it has become apparent that the City supports water =
conservation as long as it doesn't actually have to ask anyone to use =
less water.

You are advocating:

1.. Further water conservation steps including more limited watering =
options.

2.. Installation of a tiered rate system in both Moscow & Pullman.

3.. WSU's planned use of gray water for irrigation.

4.. Encourage our friends in Pullman to take further steps toward =
conservation.

These are all steps that many and various citizens have been asking for =
and working toward for years, if not decades. I must have been speaking =
in a foreign language all of the times I have spoken to or written to my =
City regarding various methods that could be implemented to enhance =
water efficiency to the overall benefit of the community.=20

I find it very curious that some of the loudest voices against the =
growth that Naylor Farms, LLC, purports it might bring to the Moscow =
area are now some of the loudest voices arguing for growth in the face =
of some type of groundwater management designation today.

The City and PBAC Had Already Invited Dreher=20

What's more, Karl Dreher had already begun reviewing activities in the =
basin prior to filing the petition. Draft minutes from the 10/16/03 PBAC =
meeting state that Larry Kirkland of PBAC went to Boise 10/20/03 to meet =
with Mr. Dreher in an effort that "could offer protection against a =
possible court forced designation of Critical GWMA". Mayor Comstock =
followed-up with a letter to Mr. Dreher (10/29/03) reviewing the 10/20 =
meeting/conference call. In the letter he states, "The purpose of the =
meeting was to introduce Moscow's situation and to review current =
groundwater management and the potential of designating our basin a =
groundwater management area pursuant to Idaho Code 42-233b." The =
petition was not filed until 11/20/03-after the coalition had learned =
the City was already negotiating with Mr. Dreher.

PBAC has consistently cited lack of funding as a rationale in not =
updating its web site since March 2001 and not replacing Juliet McKenna =
as Executive Secretary/Technical Advisor when she left the area in =
April, 2001 until it hired Larry Kirkland in October 2002. I'm wondering =
how PBAC found the money to send Mr. Kirkland to Boise on October 20, =
2003.

While the above events were occurring, coalition members were repeatedly =
contacting Gary Riedner about setting a date for the previously =
agreed-to quarterly review of pumping data and receiving no response. =
Had he called us and scheduled the meeting that the City agreed to in =
June, the petition would not have been filed. The appearance is that the =
City does not want to hear from its citizens and prefers to do an =
end-run around working toward a local solution by trying to curry favor =
with the IDWR.

To have become well-informed and to have worked hard utilizing the =
correct and proper channels in an attempt to assist in community-based =
solutions to our situation only to see how very little progress has been =
made is frustrating at best, agonizing at worst. Those who might like to =
single me out as anti-growth (I'm not), might do better to ask the =
current council why it has not acted to ensure long-term sustainable =
growth while being mindful of Moscow's Comprehensive Plan as well as =
State law.

No Knee-jerk Reaction Here

Clearly, my support of the petition asking Karl Dreher to uphold State =
law (and the Moscow Comprehensive Plan), when the City of Moscow and =
PBAC have not, is no knee-jerk reaction.=20

Dianne French

Palouse Water Conservation Network

Dfrench@moscow.com

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C3C2EF.E77850A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>
A response to Councilman Jon Kimberling:
I did not see your original post to Vision2020. Group board members =
indicate=20
that they have not received direct inquiries from you and many are not=20
Vision2020 subscribers. It is unfair to hold people accountable for =
something=20
they didn=92t know about and had you emailed me directly I would have =
responded=20
promptly. However, Bill French responded to you on behalf of the Palouse =
Water=20
Conservation Network (PWCN) on Vision2020.
Your request also was for information that is private, protected =
under the=20
constitution. As an appointed official you must know non-profit groups =
have no=20
more permission to release their membership lists than you have to =
release your=20
client list.
Many Area Businesses Do Support Real Conservation
Additionally, several coalition group members are busy running their =
own=20
businesses. Yes, there are members of the BUSINESS COMMUNITY that =
support this=20
petition. Some are Chamber members; some not. In the past, I have =
followed=20
Chamber recommendations to join, get involved on committees, and share =
my ideas=20
and opinions with other members. Even so the Chamber=92s mental divide =
between=20
"growth and economic development" and "sustainable use of our resources" =
was not=20
to be overcome. But, without good stewardship of resources, growth =
becomes a=20
moot point. The prevailing societal attitude, unfortunately, indicates =
that the=20
current generation may engage in intergenerational theft of resources or =

finances without penalty. 
You have mischaracterized the petition. It does not ask IDWR to stop=20
growth=97it asks the agency to stop the mining of the aquifer, as the =
law=20
requires. Future growth could be partially supplied by conserved water. =
As Karl=20
Dreher stated to you on 11/24/03, "Is there hope for a situation that =
has gone=20
on so long? Yes." It can be done=97but there has to be governmental and =
civic=20
commitment and, so far, we "have not applied full resources to get it =
done,"=20
according to Mr. Dreher. 
Thirty-six Years Have Gone By
I appreciate your desire to have "done everything in our power to =
solve" our=20
water supply problem=97however, it is too little too late. The City has =
had years=20
to implement real conservation and efficiency measures that would be =
essentially=20
painless to local residents and businesses, has had years to sketch out =
what the=20
long term plan is likely to be and plan how to fund it. While they have =
done=20
several things that qualify as conservation measures, most of those =
things were=20
the easy, initial steps that nobody anywhere could object to. Taking the =
next=20
steps will be more difficult which is why it has been put off. 
This issue first came up for serious public discussion in 1967. That =
is 36=20
years ago. We have learned a lot in 36 years, but have not made =
appreciable=20
forward progress on a solution. It concerns me greatly that time keeps =
ticking,=20
ticking, ticking and still we wait for someone else to come along and =
solve the=20
problem. There is no someone else, only us, and without pressure another =
36=20
years could go by with only minimal progress to show for it. I don't =
want a=20
future someone referring to me when they ask, "why didn't somebody DO=20
something?" 
I have heard you mention in almost every council meeting regarding =
water that=20
we need to do more research before taking any action. Over 130 studies =
are not=20
enough? 
Research and Information Have Been Presented
PBAC has done a lot of good research. That is their strong suite. =
They have=20
never had regulatory authority. The intent was for PBAC to make =
recommendations=20
that the entities would then implement through their various regulatory =
means.=20
Whether that implementation occurred through ordinances, rates or other =
methods=20
was up to the individual entities. But the entities have not followed =
through.=20

In 2000, Juliet McKenna, then Executive Secretary/Technical Advisor =
of PBAC=20
worked in conjunction with Moscow=92s Commission on Health and the =
Environment=20
(H&amp;E) to form a plan for City implementation. The commission itself =
did six=20
months of intensive reading and research to build on what had already =
been done.=20
We fine-tuned the information into a 13-page document (including =
bibliography=20
and water bill examples from other communities). H&amp;E representatives =
met=20
with Gary Riedner (November 2000) who told us the document was "too long =
for the=20
Council to read" and asked us to devise a one-page summary. We did. The =
summary=20
as well as the supporting document were delivered on November 21, 2000 =
to Mayor=20
Comstock, Supervisor Riedner, and Council members Busch, Hamlett, Hill, =
Mack,=20
Pall and Thomason as well as PBAC representatives. Perhaps you should =
query your=20
colleagues as to why so very little of that plan has been implemented =
over the=20
past three years. But then, I suspect you know why already.
In February 2001, the City sent me to the American Water Works =
Association=20
Water Conservation Division Annual Conference along with two City =
employees. I=20
thought this meant they were serious. I was diligent, wrote a detailed =
report,=20
and presented to the Council=92s Public Works/Finance Committee February =
26, 2001.=20
The only outcome on the City's part was to schedule a "water workshop" =
for June=20
2001. I contacted U of I economists Dr. John Wenders and Dr. Ashley =
Lyman about=20
the economics of changing pricing structures. Dr. Wenders prepared and =
presented=20
a report and provided written copies. His proposal was the first step in =
the=20
right direction, had all of the economics questions answered regarding =
effects=20
on the utility itself, and would have worked with the billing software =
the City=20
had at that time. Again, the City made no real changes. 
Various discussions initiated by H&amp;E, with the City, the Water=20
Department, and the Finance Department, led to updating billing software =
to=20
provide a more informative water bill. The expense was easily justified =
by the=20
fact that the bill reaches every customer every month and therefore is =
the most=20
effective tool for educating customers on whatever matters the City =
deems=20
timely. It would also generate a larger database for water use data over =
time.=20
The new system went into effect in July 2002. Water bills immediately =
became=20
less informative=97meter reading dates were not printed--necessary =
information if=20
one is going to calculate their daily consumption. I called Tom =
Scallorn, Water=20
Department Superintendent, who called Springbrook and asked them to =
revise their=20
software to include this data. These dates were added, but the new bills =
are not=20
more informative than the old bills. The other justification for new =
software=20
was to prepare to migrate to a tiered-rate billing system. At a City =
meeting=20
last week, I learned that the City did not purchase that "module" with =
the rest=20
of the program. 
Pullman went to a full-page bill in 1999 and they do print =
conservation=20
information on it.
Local Avenues Have Been Explored 
Over the past five to six years, we have done our level best to work =
with and=20
through the local system. We have read books, studies, conservation =
plans and=20
documents from all over the country (and other countries, too). We have=20
researched and compared and reviewed and presented our findings to City =
Council=20
and Staff and PBAC. Bill French has attended more PBAC meetings than =
Moscow's=20
own Council liaison to PBAC, and I started my second stint on H&amp;E in =
May=20
2000. We have planned, organized, and hosted three separate groundwater =
forums=20
(2000, 2001, and 2002) and we involved Moscow and PBAC and any of the =
other PBAC=20
entities that wanted to participate/attend. We have worked with the =
Master=20
Gardener's program, designed and presented Xeriscaping programs. Bill =
convinced=20
the Water Department and the UI arboretum to collaborate on a xeriscape=20
demonstration garden (with many thanks to Paul Warnick). We've written =
and=20
talked to area nurseries and sprinkler system installers. We've been =
involved in=20
the WRIA program. We=92ve attended other water conservation workshops on =
our own=20
time and expense.
In short we have been working all of the regular channels for years =
and in=20
June, 2003 all the City Council could come up with for water =
conservation was a=20
voluntary 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. outdoor watering restriction????
Over time it has become apparent that the City supports water =
conservation as=20
long as it doesn=92t actually have to ask anyone to use less =
water.
You are advocating:
<DIR>
<DIR>
<DIR>
<DIR>
1.. Further water conservation steps including more limited watering=20
options.
2.. Installation of a tiered rate system in both Moscow &amp; =
Pullman.
3.. WSU's planned use of gray water for irrigation.
4.. Encourage our friends in Pullman to take further steps toward=20
conservation.</DIR></DIR></DIR></DIR>
These are all steps that many and various citizens have been asking =
for and=20
working toward for years, if not decades. I must have been speaking in a =
foreign=20
language all of the times I have spoken to or written to my City =
regarding=20
various methods that could be implemented to enhance water efficiency to =
the=20
overall benefit of the community. 
I find it very curious that some of the loudest voices against =
the=20
growth that Naylor Farms, LLC, purports it might bring to the Moscow =
area are=20
now some of the loudest voices arguing for growth in the face of =
some=20
type of groundwater management designation today.
The City and PBAC Had Already Invited Dreher 
What=92s more, Karl Dreher had already begun reviewing activities in =
the basin=20
prior to filing the petition. Draft minutes from the 10/16/03 PBAC =
meeting state=20
that Larry Kirkland of PBAC went to Boise 10/20/03 to meet with Mr. =
Dreher in an=20
effort that "could offer protection against a possible court forced =
designation=20
of Critical GWMA". Mayor Comstock followed-up with a letter to Mr. =
Dreher=20
(10/29/03) reviewing the 10/20 meeting/conference call. In the letter he =
states,=20
"The purpose of the meeting was to introduce Moscow=92s situation and to =
review=20
current groundwater management and the potential of designating our =
basin a=20
groundwater management area pursuant to Idaho Code 42-233b." The =
petition was=20
not filed until 11/20/03=97after the coalition had learned the City was =
already=20
negotiating with Mr. Dreher.
PBAC has consistently cited lack of funding as a rationale in not =
updating=20
its web site since March 2001 and not replacing Juliet McKenna as =
Executive=20
Secretary/Technical Advisor when she left the area in April, 2001 until =
it hired=20
Larry Kirkland in October 2002. I=92m wondering how PBAC found the money =
to send=20
Mr. Kirkland to Boise on October 20, 2003.
While the above events were occurring, coalition members were =
repeatedly=20
contacting Gary Riedner about setting a date for the previously =
agreed-to=20
quarterly review of pumping data and receiving no response. Had he =
called us and=20
scheduled the meeting that the City agreed to in June, the petition =
would not=20
have been filed. The appearance is that the City does not want to =
hear from=20
its citizens and prefers to do an end-run around working toward a local =
solution=20
by trying to curry favor with the IDWR.

To have become well-informed and to have worked hard utilizing the =
correct=20
and proper channels in an attempt to assist in community-based solutions =
to our=20
situation only to see how very little progress has been made is =
frustrating at=20
best, agonizing at worst. Those who might like to single me out as =
anti-growth=20
(I=92m not), might do better to ask the current council why it has not =
acted to=20
ensure long-term sustainable growth while being mindful of Moscow=92s=20
Comprehensive Plan as well as State law.
No Knee-jerk Reaction Here
Clearly, my support of the petition asking Karl Dreher to uphold =
State law=20
(and the Moscow Comprehensive Plan), when the City of Moscow and PBAC =
have not,=20
is no knee-jerk reaction. 
Dianne French
Palouse Water Conservation Network
Dfrench@moscow.com
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C3C2EF.E77850A0--