[Vision2020] Thirsty for a Wal-Mart?

[Mark Solomon]

Of course Walmart shoppers are part of the 
community. However, the rezone hearing tonight is 
about whether a particular piece of land should 
be rezoned to Motor Business. While everyone who 
is interested knows that if rezoned Walmart would 
then apply for a Conditional Use Permit to build 
a SuperCenter on the site, the issue of Walmart 
or any other specific retailer is not part of 
tonight's allowable discussion. I'm sure if 
someone starts down that road, they will be ruled 
out of order and asked to stop.

Of course that doesn't and shouldn't stop the 
discussion outside the council chambers of 
whether or not a Walmart Supercenter should be 
part of our community.

My point is not whether Walmart and its customers 
should have water: it is where do we think the 
water is going to come from. The limit Moscow 
agreed to 14 years ago is a total pumping volume 
of 875 million gallons per year. All other major 
pumpers (Pullman, UI, WSU) agreed to similar 
limits. Moscow was the only one to exceed their 
agreed to cap, but due to conservation efforts by 
the citizens, businesses and the city itself, 
we're back within it for the past two years. 
Whether 875MGY is a sustainable pumping level is 
highly questionable as it was based on a now 
discarded hydrologic model adopted by PBAC (Lum, 
et al, 1987). IDWR Director Dreher specifically 
wrote in his order denying the groundwater 
petitions that IDWR would not use the Lum model 
for any purpose.

What is sustainable? We don't know. We do know 
that at the levels we are currently pumping both 
the upper and lower aquifers are declining. We 
could probably test for a sustainable recharge 
rate for the upper aquifer by backing off pumping 
until levels stabilize as we know recharge is 
occurring. Or we could do a statistical analysis 
of the well data from 1930-1990 for the Wanapum 
wells and derive a good estimate of a sustainable 
volume.

We also know that at least one of the Grande 
Ronde aquifers (there are actually at least eight 
separate basalt flows that comprise the Grande 
Ronde and Wanapum aquifers. Some of those flows 
are more or less hydrologically separated by clay 
interbeds) into which City wells 6&8 are drilled 
is stabilizing as the City reduced pumping from 
6&8 due to a municipal piping bottleneck.

The only true unknown is what is the sustainable 
level of pumping from the deepest of the deep 
wells, city #9. That well provides @ 50% of the 
city's water. It's why there was a water 
emergency when the pump in well 9 broke back in 
August 2003. Guess what, water levels stabilized 
somewhat when pumping ceased.

Taken all together, it is likely there is a 
sustainable level of pumping, but it is less than 
we are pumping today and less than the PBAC 
agreement cap of 875 MGY.

Mark

At 2:19 PM -0700 5/1/06, Jeff Harkins wrote:
>Mark,
>
>Thanks for response and your point is 
>well-taken.  But please concede that Walmart 
>shoppers are members of the community as well - 
>Walmart is an existing business and has been a 
>good member of our community.  What is the point 
>of disenfranchising them from their share of the 
>local water resource?
>
>As to the water resource, there is some argument 
>as to whether the groundwater system is finite - 
>and if it is, what the boundaries of "finite" 
>really are.  I do concede that the global supply 
>of water is finite - there is not much we can do 
>with water except change its form (gas, liguid, 
>solid).  But we both know that available surface 
>water far exceeds our current and long-term 
>water needs.
>
>Let's agree not to argue from fear-based 
>positions, but to work towards developing our 
>water resource to meet our needs.
>
>   At 07:31 AM 5/1/2006, you wrote:
>>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
>>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯