[Vision2020] Water Meeting on Monday
bill london
london@moscow.com
Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:42:42 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020600080906070501010605
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I think that Jon Kimberling has it backwards.
He explains in the message below: "Any limitation on our ability to grow
will negatively impact our ability to hold the line on tax increases."
He says we need to grow to keep taxes down. That is exactly backwards.
It is the growing, with the necessary expansion of services, that brings
higher taxes. More housing subdivisions, more city staff, more
expansion of infrastructure, more new firestations, etc etc. That's in
addition to the increased traffic and other hassles.....
BL
Jon Kimberling wrote:
> I thank John for his comments and agree that tonight is the time for
> us to come together in support of solving this critical problem.
> However, I would like to respond to his comments about my earlier
> statements.
>
> There is a very delicate balance between growth and preservation of
> resources. Over that last year, on more than one occasion, we have
> heard representatives of the water coalition talk about different
> types of moratoriums. Most recently, two of the most prominent members
> of these groups appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission. The
> occasion was the request to annex and develop property south of Joseph
> Street, east of White Avenue and north of Ridgeview Drive. Excerpts
> from the minutes of the 11/12/03 meeting are as follows:
>
> Therefore, "French thinks it would be ill advised to grant annexation
> or additional subdivisions (not just this one in particular) until the
> City has defined plans for future water supply".
>
> Solomon stated "at this point it would be reckless to approve
> developments.......
>
> Their position on this request was clearly "no growth". The P & Z
> voted unanimously in support of the development.
>
> As to the request to Idaho Dept. of Water Resources, it does state
> "impose a moratorium on the processing and approval of all pending and
> new applications for permits to appropriate water.......... City staff
> advises that their interpretation of this request is that anyone who
> wanted to drill a new well would not be permitted to do so. Staff was
> aware of at least two such applications currently pending. If the
> groups who filed the petition have a different interpretation than
> City staff, it would seem important to clarify this question.
>
> In addition, right now approximately 60% of the water from our
> aquifers is being pumped out by our neighbors across the border.
> Pullman recently approved a new sub-division. We know from a recent
> report from the City of Moscow that average water use for Pullman/WSU
> is higher than Moscow/UI. I'm curious to know if any representatives
> of the water coalition were present at the meeting in Pullman? Did
> they make the same request to stop development in Pullman that they
> did on 11/12 in Moscow?
>
> In hindsight, it would have been more useful to the discussion if I
> would have posed this question: how would the coalition proposal limit
> development and constrain the growth of our tax base? One constant
> theme I've heard over the course of the last year is that our taxes
> are high enough. Any limitation on our ability to grow will negatively
> impact our ability to hold the line on tax increases.
>
> I have the same goal of stabilizing our groundwater but doing it in a
> way that has the least negative impact on our local economy. I believe
> the suggestion of any type of moratorium, at this point, is premature.
> I agree with Dale Ralston's comment at the 6/23/03 meeting wherein he
> stated "declaration of a critical ground water area hasn't been a
> solution in any area of the state".
>
> Jon Kimberling
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Dickinson <mailto:johnd@moscow.com>
> To: vision2020@moscow.com <mailto:vision2020@moscow.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:29 PM
> Subject: [Vision2020] Water Meeting on Monday
>
> Visionaries-
>
> I have a couple of comments on recent postings regarding Moscow's
> water.
>
> I do think that it is a good idea to get as many people as
> possible to the meeting on Monday. It is a public meeting before
> both the Moscow City Council and the Latah County Commissioners in
> the City Council chambers in City Hall on the evening of December
> 15. The meeting itself begins at 7:00 pm but the public hearing
> will begin at 7:30 pm. In the City's public meeting notice, the
> city indicates, "The subject of the meeting pertains to the
> potential designation of the region by the Idaho Department of
> Water Resources according to state statutes governing ground water
> issues. Designation of the area could impact future water use
> within the region and development within the City of Moscow and
> Latah County."
>
> In addition to the subject of the meeting, I think it's good to
> know the format of the meeting and what to expect if you attend.
> The first 30 minutes of the meeting will consist of some standard
> City Council business and a report by Randy Fife on the Agreement
> with Whitcom for E-911 Services.
>
> At 7:30 pm the Joint Public Meeting will begin. This will be a
> meeting where the public will be asked to give testimony. The
> mayor will run the meeting and in addition to the Latah County
> Commissions and the current Moscow City Council, I think the three
> newly elected city council members will also be there. I believe
> there will be a presentation by the city and one by the county.
> These presentations should provide some background and activities
> that the city and county think are important to the discussion.
> These presentations will probably last an hour or so. After these
> presentations, the public will be asked for their ideas and
> comments to either the City Council or the Board of County
> Commissioners. There may be some discussion by the City Council
> members which could result in some direction given to city staff.
>
> A representative from the Idaho Department of Water Resources has
> been invited, but there may be a scheduling conflict with Monday's
> meeting. So unfortunately, I don't believe there will be any
> representatives from the state to clarify questions that people
> may have about the issue, to point out potential misunderstandings
> about the process, or to correct any errors of fact.
>
> Many posts to V2020 have various levels of inaccuracies in them
> (including this post, I am sure).
>
> There have been posts that imply that the state has become
> interested in our aquifer only because of a recent petition to the
> Idaho Department of Water Resources. There has been a local ground
> water management plan in place since 1992 that specified pumping
> limits for Moscow, Pullman, UI, and WSU. The only entity that has
> not been able to meet these pumping limits is Moscow - the other
> three entities have managed to remain within the pumping limits.
>
> There have been posts that imply that if the state becomes
> involved that there will be a moratorium on any new hookups to the
> water system, even to a single family home. The request, as I
> understand it, is to impose a moratorium on permits to appropriate
> water from our aquifers. The question of new water hookups in
> Moscow would remain a local land use decision that the City would
> control. What would be reviewed are any new wells that the City
> might want to dig. New wells are far different than new home
> hookups. In November, I heard Bob Haynes (Idaho Dept. of Water
> Resources) explain that local land use would remain local. So I
> don't believe there is justification for statements such as "it
> would have a huge, negative impact on our community," or that the
> result will be to "shut down new development and essentially
> (freeze) our tax base." Remember that the goal is to stabilize
> groundwater levels and provide for a sustainable water supply for
> all area residents.
>
> There have been posts that imply that those who call for
> conservation are also calling for no growth. This region has a
> very modest rate of growth, on the order of 1 or 2 percent. If
> water conservation methods enabled us to conserve 1 or 2 percent,
> then there would be nice balance between growth and conservation.
>
> I hope at the meeting we'll be able to focus on the issue in front
> of us, regarding our use of water and our ability to provide
> quality water to area residents today and in the future. Let's
> discuss how to provide potable water for the people who live in
> our region, explore ways to conserve the amount of water that we
> use, and learn how to protect this valuable and treasured
> resource. I don't think we can continue to delay action by asking
> for more science or more studies. It is time to get our act
> together or we will force to let the state help us.
>
> I hope that interested residents will come to the meeting on
> Monday to learn more about this issue. We need everyone, including
> the coalition, developers, residents, the business community, and
> others, to find a community solution to this important and complex
> problem.
>
>
> John Dickinson
>
>
>
--------------020600080906070501010605
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
I think that Jon Kimberling has it backwards. <br>
He explains in the message below: "<span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font
face="Arial" size="2">Any limitation on our ability to grow will
negatively impact our ability to hold the line on tax increases."<br>
</font></span></span>He says we need to grow to keep taxes down. That
is exactly
backwards. It is the growing, with the necessary expansion of
services, that brings higher taxes. More housing subdivisions,
more city staff, more expansion of infrastructure, more new
firestations, etc etc. That's in addition to the increased traffic and
other
hassles.....<br>
BL<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Jon Kimberling wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid010e01c3c333$433f0da0$0da8a8c0@JON">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="Word.Document" name="ProgId">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name="GENERATOR">
<meta content="Microsoft Word 9" name="Originator">
<link href="cid:filelist.xml@01C3C29A.2E7864A0" rel="File-List">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:DoNotRelyOnCSS/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DocumentKind>DocumentEmail</w:DocumentKind>
<w:EnvelopeVis/>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:ForgetLastTabAlignment/>
<w:DoNotUseHTMLParagraphAutoSpacing/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin: .5in; mso-footer-margin: .5in; mso-paper-source: 0; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
P.MsoAutoSig {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoAutoSig {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoAutoSig {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
SPAN.EmailStyle15 {
COLOR: navy; mso-style-type: personal-reply; mso-ansi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Arial; mso-hansi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</style>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">I thank John for his comments and
agree that tonight is the time for us to come together in support of
solving this critical problem. However, I would like to respond to his
comments about my earlier statements.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">There is a very delicate balance
between growth and preservation of resources. Over that last year, on
more than one occasion, we have heard representatives of the water
coalition talk about different types of moratoriums. Most recently, two
of the most prominent members of these groups appeared before the
Planning & Zoning Commission. The occasion was the request to annex
and develop property<strong> </strong>south of Joseph Street, east of
White Avenue and north of Ridgeview Drive.<st1:Street><st1:address><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><strong> </strong></span></st1:address></st1:Street>Excerpts
from the minutes of the 11/12/03 meeting are as follows:</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font
face="Arial" size="2">Therefore, "French thinks it would be ill
advised to grant annexation or additional subdivisions (not just this
one in particular) until the City has defined plans for future water
supply".</font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font
face="Arial" size="2">Solomon stated "at this point it would be
reckless to approve developments....... </font></span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font
face="Arial" size="2">Their position on this request was clearly "no
growth". The P & Z voted unanimously in support of the development.</font></span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font
face="Arial" size="2">As to the request to Idaho Dept. of Water
Resources, it does state "impose a moratorium on the processing and
approval of all pending and new applications for permits to appropriate
water.......... City staff advises that their interpretation of this
request is that anyone who wanted to drill a new well would not be
permitted to do so. Staff was aware of at least two such applications
currently pending. If the groups who filed the petition have a
different interpretation than City staff, it would seem important to
clarify this question. </font></span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font
face="Arial" size="2">In addition, right now approximately 60% of the
water from our aquifers is being pumped out by our neighbors across the
border. Pullman recently approved a new sub-division. We know from a
recent report from the City of Moscow that average water use for
Pullman/WSU is higher than Moscow/UI. I'm curious to know if any
representatives of the water coalition were present at the meeting in
Pullman? Did they make the same request to stop development in Pullman
that they did on 11/12 in Moscow? </font></span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font
face="Arial" size="2">In hindsight, it would have been more useful to
the discussion if I would have posed this question: how would the
coalition proposal limit development and constrain the growth of our
tax base? One constant theme I've heard over the course of the last
year is that our taxes are high enough. Any limitation on our ability
to grow will negatively impact our ability to hold the line on tax
increases. </font></span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font
face="Arial" size="2">I have the same goal of stabilizing our
groundwater but doing it in a way that has the least negative impact on
our local economy. I believe the suggestion of any type of moratorium,
at this point, is premature. I agree with Dale Ralston's comment at the
6/23/03 meeting wherein he stated "declaration of a critical ground
water area hasn't been a solution in any area of the state".</font></span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><font
face="Arial" size="2">Jon Kimberling</font></span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote dir="ltr"
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;">-----
Original Message ----- </div>
<div
style="background: rgb(228, 228, 228) none repeat scroll 0%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>From:</b>
<a title="johnd@moscow.com" href="mailto:johnd@moscow.com">John
Dickinson</a> </div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>To:</b>
<a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>
</div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>Sent:</b>
Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:29 PM</div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none;"><b>Subject:</b>
[Vision2020] Water Meeting on Monday</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><font face="Arial" color="navy"
size="2" family="SANSSERIF"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: navy; font-family: Arial;">Visionaries-<br>
<br>
I have a couple of comments on recent postings regarding Moscow’s water.<br>
<br>
I do think that it is a good idea to get as many people as possible to
the meeting on Monday. It is a public meeting before both the Moscow
City Council and the Latah County Commissioners in the City Council
chambers in City Hall on the evening of December 15. The meeting itself
begins at 7:00 pm but the public hearing will begin at 7:30 pm. In the
City’s public meeting notice, the city indicates, “The subject of the
meeting pertains to the potential designation of the region by the
Idaho Department of Water Resources <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">according
to state statutes</span></b> governing ground water issues. Designation
of the area could impact future water use within the region and
development within the City of Moscow and Latah County.” <br>
<br>
In addition to the subject of the meeting, I think it’s good to know
the format of the meeting and what to expect if you attend. The first
30 minutes of the meeting will consist of some standard City Council
business and a report by Randy Fife on the Agreement with Whitcom for
E-911 Services.<br>
<br>
At 7:30 pm the Joint Public Meeting will begin. This will be a meeting
where the public will be asked to give testimony. The mayor will run
the meeting and in addition to the Latah County Commissions and the
current Moscow City Council, I think the three newly elected city
council members will also be there. I believe there will be a
presentation by the city and one by the county. These presentations
should provide some background and activities that the city and county
think are important to the discussion. These presentations will
probably last an hour or so. After these presentations, the public will
be asked for their ideas and comments to either the City Council or the
Board of County Commissioners. There may be some discussion by the City
Council members which could result in some direction given to city
staff.<br>
<br>
A representative from the Idaho Department of Water Resources has been
invited, but there may be a scheduling conflict with Monday’s meeting.
So unfortunately, I don’t believe there will be any representatives
from the state to clarify questions that people may have about the
issue, to point out potential misunderstandings about the process, or
to correct any errors of fact.<br>
<br>
Many posts to V2020 have various levels of inaccuracies in them
(including this post, I am sure).<br>
<br>
There have been posts that imply that the state has become interested
in our aquifer only because of a recent petition to the Idaho
Department of Water Resources. There has been a local ground water
management plan in place since 1992 that specified pumping limits for
Moscow, Pullman, UI, and WSU. The only entity that has not been able to
meet these pumping limits is Moscow – the other three entities have
managed to remain within the pumping limits. <br>
<br>
There have been posts that imply that if the state becomes involved
that there will be a moratorium on any new hookups to the water system,
even to a single family home. The request, as I understand it, is to
impose a moratorium on permits to appropriate water from our aquifers.
The question of new water hookups in Moscow would remain a local land
use decision that the City would control. What would be reviewed are
any new wells that the City might want to dig. New wells are far
different than new home hookups. In November, I heard Bob Haynes (Idaho
Dept. of Water Resources) explain that local land use would remain
local. So I don’t believe there is justification for statements such as
“it would have a huge, negative impact on our community,” or that the
result will be to “shut down new development and essentially (freeze)
our tax base.” Remember that the goal is to stabilize groundwater
levels and provide for a sustainable water supply for all area
residents.<br>
<br>
There have been posts that imply that those who call for conservation
are also calling for no growth. This region has a very modest rate of
growth, on the order of 1 or 2 percent. If water conservation methods
enabled us to conserve 1 or 2 percent, then there would be nice balance
between growth and conservation.<br>
<br>
I hope at the meeting we’ll be able to focus on the issue in front of
us, regarding our use of water and our ability to provide quality water
to area residents today and in the future. Let’s discuss how to provide
potable water for the people who live in our region, explore ways to
conserve the amount of water that we use, and learn how to protect this
valuable and treasured resource. I don’t think we can continue to delay
action by asking for more science or more studies. It is time to get
our act together or we will force to let the state help us.<br>
<br>
I hope that interested residents will come to the meeting on Monday to
learn more about this issue. We need everyone, including the coalition,
developers, residents, the business community, and others, to find a
community solution to this important and complex problem.<br>
<br>
<br>
John Dickinson</span></font><font color="navy" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: navy;"><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" color="black"
size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black;"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> </span></font><font
color="black" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------020600080906070501010605--