[Vision2020] Thirsty for a Wal-Mart?

Mon May 1 07:31:00 PDT 2006

Jeff,

I believe that supporting the vitality of 
existing businesses is just good community sense. 
If you'll go back to the council record, you will 
find me speaking about expanded water use for new 
significantly large developments. If you've 
followed the water threads of the past few weeks, 
you'll see me proposing many different ways that 
we could grow Moscow while conserving water. You 
could drop the reference to Walmart for my post, 
substitute any type of new large scale 
development and it would still carry the same 
message: as a community, we have a finite water 
resource and as a community we have the right to 
say how it will be used. Same as the 
comprehensive plan and zoning code have done for 
the past 30 years.

Mark S.

At 11:12 PM -0700 4/30/06, Jeff Harkins wrote:
>Curious post by Mr. Soloman and endorsed by Mr. Hansen.
>
>If WalMart acquires water for their location, 
>who consumes it?  Would it be the customers? 
>Would it be the employees? Would it be the 
>watering of plants in the garden section?   If 
>there is no expansion for the Walmart 
>Supercenter, would those customers and employees 
>go somewhere else - and if so, would they take 
>their water consumption needs with them?  Of 
>course, the only relevant computation would be 
>the change in usage from their present location 
>to their proposed location.
>
>Mark's argument seems like a flawed, 
>supercilious, self-serving and illogical 
>argument to me.
>
>Where was his outrage for water usage when 
>Tri-State expanded?  Where was his focus on 
>water when Moscow Building Supply expanded and 
>added their nursery operation?  Why didn't he 
>investigate the increased water consumption for 
>the CoOp when it expanded?
>
>Seems as if Mark is just attempting to impose 
>his personal choice preferences on the rest of 
>us - and desperate to find an argument to 
>support his point of view.
>
>Walmart customers and employees have as much 
>right to expect water-based services at Walmart 
>as they would obtain at any other retail 
>facility. In fact, the water "needs" are 
>dictated by local building codes - retail 
>establishments must meet those codes - restroom 
>facilities, hand washing, etc. It is 
>inexplicable to castigate one firm for meeting 
>building code requirements for its customers.
>
>If Mr. Solomon and Mr. Hansen are really 
>concerned about water usage in retail 
>facilities, why don't they research the present 
>standards and consider some alternatives to the 
>number of toilets and sinks required, the flow 
>rates etc.  Maybe no hand washing should be 
>provided - perhaps only the alcohol based 
>cleansers used for "dry washing".  Perhaps all 
>retail facilities should be required to process 
>their black water waste, rather than "flush it". 
>These strategies (and I am sure there are many 
>alternatives that might be considered) could 
>bring significant water savings - and they would 
>be absorbed by all consumers, not just those 
>shopping at Walmart.
>
>At the end of the day, it's all about consumers 
>and shopping.  And so easy for you to cast your 
>vote - don't shop there.
>
>Cut to the chase you guys - just say you don't 
>want Walmart here - you would rather deny 
>someone else's choice.
>
>Avoid the hyperbole, please.
>
>At 07:53 AM 4/30/2006, you wrote:
>>  >From today's (April 30, 2006) Lewiston 
>>Tribune with a special thanks to Mark
>>Soloman -
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Thirsty for a Wal-Mart?
>>
>>Fact: The city of Moscow is signatory to the Palouse Basin Aquifer agreement
>>which requires it to limit increases in aquifer pumping to 1 percent
>>annually and for Moscow to not exceed a pumping cap of 875 million
>>gallons/year (MGY).
>>
>>Fact: From 1994 to 2003, Moscow exceeded its 1 percent annual growth limit
>>and from 1998-2003 its 875 mgy cap.
>>
>>Fact: In 2004, the city implemented mandatory landscape irrigation measures
>>that reduced the amount of water pumped by the city from 919 MGY in 2003 to
>>819 MGY in 2005. (Bravo!) In addition, 2005 was the first year since the
>>city signed the PBAA agreement that it was in compliance with the agreement.
>>
>>
>>Fact: Moscow city wells (with the exception of wells 6 and 8, which have had
>>their pumping significantly decreased due to municipal piping issues)
>>continue to have declining water levels despite the conservation efforts of
>>people and businesses across the city.
>>
>>Fact: the super Wal-Mart developer forecasts full build out at 1.5 million
>>square feet of commercial space. The applicant predicts water usage at over
>>62 MGY or a 7.6 percent increase above current levels violating the 1
>>percent PBAC limit. Full build out will cause the city to exceed its
>>absolute PBAC cap of 875 MGY.
>>
>>Question: Is this how we want to use the water we have conserved? Do we want
>>to give all our water to Wal-Mart?
>>
>>Answer: City council public hearing on proposed rezone to accommodate a
>>super Wal-Mart May 1, at 7 p.m. Ask the council yourself.
>>
>>Mark Solomon
>>Moscow
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Well said, Mr. Solomon.
>>
>>Seeya round town, Moscow.
>>
>>Tom Hansen
>>Moscow, Idaho
>>
>>"The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
>>and the REALIST adjusts his sails."
>>- Unknown
>>
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯