[Vision2020] The GWPZ Hearing
Phil Nisbet
pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com
Thu Aug 11 12:01:50 PDT 2005
I really feel that I have to say this as clearly as I can.
Last night at the hearing I was accused of being arrogant for stating that
the groundwater protection zone ordinance does not do anything with regards
to irrigation water requests to IDWR or the potential that IDWR will approve
irrigation permits in the GWPZ.
First, I do not own any land nor am I involved in any project or property
that would want or desire a water right in the GWPZ.
Second, neither the ordinance nor any County passed law has the ability to
change the fact that water and its control is the Idaho Constitutional realm
of the Idaho Department of Water Resources and that no law passed by the
county can have an impact on that duty and right of IDWR.
So, if somebody in the future applies for a water right, it will be
considered and will not and can not take into account any restrictions that
the county might chose to impose.
Further, the Planning Commission itself stated pretty clearly that because
of Idaho's Right to Farm legislation, the GWPZ Ordinance was not being put
together to regulate any farming practice and that included agricultural
irrigation practices.
It was stated that I was arrogant because I thought I could 'just go out and
apply for any old water right I wanted with the county not having a say'.
Thats wrong on the above two points. First, I do not own any land in the
area in question so I can not apply for the water because I have no possible
use for it or right to it under Idaho law. But if I did own property, yes,
I have a right to apply to IDWR and do not need to ask the county's
permission to do so.
Those are facts. Stating the facts is not arrogance, its simply giving
people an understanding of what they are actually doing.
The ordinance allows large water uses like golf courses. The ordinance does
not restrict large developments or commercial developments.
According to the EPA, housing and commercial development are the largest
disruptors of groundwater flow patterns. Tens of acres of ground every year
in the GWPZ are turned into those sorts of developments. Hundred of acres
in the zone of city impact are similarly impacted.
Who got restrictions or out right bans were gravel mines, livestock
operations and similar activities. Those activities impact fewer acres a
year and not one of them is a long term flow restriction to groundwater.
You do not see any long term requirement that housing ever be reclaimed.
Once that house or strip mall is there, its going to be there forever.
Yes, as one very nice lady suggested to me, people have to be housed. But
houses are made out of rurally produced materials, timber, rock, cement,
brick, sand and gravel. And people have to have water to drink, but if
their consistent building practices restrict and restrict groundwater flows,
they will slowly but surely destroy their ability to get drinking water.
And bans and restrictions to less than 1% of the problem on the lands of
less than 1% of the population are not going to have much of a real impact.
Yet too many at the hearing seemed to think that somehow the ordinance
'solved the problem' or that it would stop the entire sprawl and gobbling up
of farm lands. I would guess that it is arrogant to say that if they read
that ordinance, it does not stop the sprawl or restrict large new water
users or keep the farm lands in place.
The Sub-Committee that drafted this ordinance did the best they could to
draft an ordinance that did some good, but the real strong interests, the
big economic guns are left free and clear. Thats politics, but the problem
is not solved. Frankly the group needs to continue its work and do a lot
more to come up with solutions that will address the problem more
completely, before somebody arrogantly builds a 40,000,000 gallon a year
golf course or develops the next several hundred acres of water consuming
housing project.
So when the Water Summit comes in October, I hope that the people who were
there last night and were sure that the problem was solved take the time to
attend. There is still one heck of a lot more that needs to be done if the
real root of the problem is ever to be solved. Its going to take a lot more
than the ordinance of last night to set this community on the path to a
viable water future and as many people in the community as possible need to
be working on it. The Commissioners are struggling to do that and need all
the help they can get to get the job done.
Phil Nisbet
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list