[Vision2020] Re: Earth Policy News - The Coming Decline of Oil

[Mark Solomon]

Coming soon to the Palouse: peak water.

Mark S.
*******
Naylor Farms wins appeal

Latah County's action declared unconstitutional

By Ryan Bentley Daily News staff writer
Published: 05-13-2006

A Nez Perce District Court judge has declared Latah County's 
emergency law barring Naylor Farms from completing a mine violated 
Idaho's constitution and Naylor Farms' rights.

In his ruling on an appeal by Naylor Farms regarding the county's 
actions, Judge Carl B. Kerrick on Thursday struck down the law that 
blocked the company from exploring the development of a clay-based 
pesticide. Kerrick ruled the Board of Commissioners stepped outside 
its legal boundaries in order to create the law.

The appeal was filed in Latah County District Court, but the board of 
commissioners asked District Court Judge John Stegner to recuse 
himself, citing a potential conflict of interest.

Thursday's ruling is the latest chapter in a struggle between Naylor 
Farms and the county that began early in 2002 when several Latah 
County residents raised questions about the volume of water necessary 
to operate the proposed clay mine and irrigated agriculture project.

The residents said they were worried the water needed to complete the 
mine would add significant stress to the system. They cited long-term 
studies showing a consistent decline over the years in the aquifer 
systems serving the Palouse.

Commissioners responded March 2, 2005, with an emergency law designed 
to keep Naylor Farms from applying for the conditional use permit. 
Regardless, Naylor Farms applied for the conditional use permit June 
27.

Kerrick said the decision to delegate water rights is the exclusive 
responsibility of the state, thus Naylor Farms was denied due 
process. He said that, based on the evidence, the Latah County law 
was designed to control water access.

The judge ruled that "the common rights of all shall be equally 
protected and that no one shall be denied his proper use and benefit 
of this (water) common necessity." He said he based his decision on 
established precedent.

Commissioner Paul Kimmell said Friday the board had not decided on an 
official position.

"We want to consider all options," he said. "We are obviously 
disappointed. This is a time to regroup."

Kimmell said commissioners will meet in executive session Monday and 
expect to issue a response to the judge's ruling Monday afternoon.

Kerrick denied Naylor Farms' request for financial compensation. Tod 
Geidl, Naylor's attorney, said that possibly is a non-issue.

"My client feels vindicated over the ordinance," Geidl said. "The 
next step is to see if the attorney fees will be awarded."

The court's decision does not guarantee Naylor Farms will get the 
water rights it seeks, but the company can apply for a conditional 
use permit.

Ryan Bentley can be reached at (208) 882-5561, ext. 237, or by e-mail 
at rbentley at dnews.com.


At 6:51 AM -0700 5/13/06, Nils Peterson wrote:
>On 5/12/06 12:44 PM, "tom trail> wrote:
>
>>  As it becomes clear that even a
>>>  moderate cut in production may double world oil prices, the long-term
>>>  value of their oil will become much clearer.
>
>
>Elsewhere in the article it speculates the date for reaching the peak oil
>production (and starting the decline) is late 2005, early 2006 or maybe even
>as late at 2007.
>
>Wouldn't it be nice to have the distinction of having the last WalMart Super
>Center built before they recognized that peak oil changed their business
>model. When it became a dark stork, it would be a tourist attraction
>bringing us great revenue (oh I forgot, tourism will change too).
>
>Can we talk about something happier, like "peak water" on the Palouse,
>something that has not happened yet.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060513/a8a100fa/attachment.htm