[Vision2020] Banned uses in the Groundwater Protection Zone Part 1

[Phil Nisbet]

Dan

Nobody is going to invest the kind of money that it takes to prove this kind 
of thing if there is an outright ban in place.  The five year review idea is 
simply to review in five years if the ban should stay in place.  The knid of 
project that we are talking about is not a big company type deal, its 
something that a small local group would do.

So why would anybody explore, buy land, drill the required holes and monitor 
them, test the materials to see that they are what the market requires and 
have that investment tied up for five years on the off chance that they can 
convince some group in the future that its OK to have the ban lifted?

And in the mean time, we will continue to burn a half million gallons of 
diesel a year to haul sand and gravel from right beside the Snake River and 
pay $2,000,000 a year as a commmunity in extra sand and gravel costs.

Surely taking an extra month on this and writing good legislation makes more 
sense.  If good hurdles are set that insure that groundwater is not 
distrurbed, they might cost persons who would want to put in an operation a 
fairish amount, but they can be figured as part of the risk/benefit of 
setting up an operation.  The regulations would of a matter of course 
protect areas where groundwater might be harmed.  Further, surface water 
collection could supply the needed water for a sand and gravel operation or 
for that matter, gray water for sewage treatment could be used, so a ban on 
use of groundwater for minerals operations in the overlay zone could be part 
of the ordinance.

Phil Nisbet

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement