[Vision2020] The GWPZ Hearing

[Mark Solomon]

At least as far as golf courses go, the ordinance 
says it will either be a water conserving course 
or not at all. The only parts of the course 
allowed to be irrigated with groundwater are the 
driving tees and putting greens.

Large scale residential development requiring a 
full plat has never really occurred in the 
overlay zone with the exception of Canterwood 
Estates that snuck through a loophole created by 
a Supreme Court ruling on city area of impacts 
before it was slammed shut by the City and 
County. Not that such development couldn't occur, 
but it is highly unlikely (as shown by the 
historical record and the economic advantage of 
tying into city services). How the City 
approaches water use in new development in the 
area of impact is a topic worthy of serious 
discussion. I hope the City will adopt all 
relevant parts of the county ordinance.

Phil, there's just no way you're ever going to 
rid yourself of the Naylor tar baby. Welcome to 
the world of "public figures" and personal insult 
throwing and innuendo. I certainly deplore the 
practice but have learned to let it slide off me 
to the dungheap on the ground. I could probably 
fertilize a good chunk of the Palouse with my 
personally acquired pile.

Mark Solomon

At 12:01 PM -0700 8/11/05, Phil Nisbet wrote:
>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'.
>
>That’s 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.  That’s 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