[Vision2020] The GWPZ Hearing

[Phil Nisbet]

One of the things we always seemed to do without even in the middle of the 
resource wars was the nasty insult kinds of things.  Frankly it was always a 
pleasent time to hang out with you and all the rest of the folks at Red Fish 
Lake during Wild Idaho.  I still love that one group photo of Lynn Stone 
standing in hunter bags deer position over my prostrate body.  Disagreeing 
without disrespect seems to be a dying art.

I think we can both agree that there needs to be much more done Mark.  I 
just hope that people do not think that this is the end product and not just 
a starting step to solve the water problem.  We need to look at a lot of 
ways to conserve water, to store water, to stablize the aquifers in all 
three of our aquifers, the Sediment of Bovill, Wanapum and Grande Ronde and 
we also need to see that increase farm incomes to keep farm lands viable and 
an important part of the areas economy.

I think that most people are dedicated to that, they just need to be given 
the tools to help see that it happens.  You have done a lot over time to see 
that that is the case.  Kudos.

Phil Nisbet

>From: Mark Solomon <msolomon at moscow.com>
>To: "Phil Nisbet" <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The GWPZ Hearing
>Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 12:27:21 -0700
>
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/