[Vision2020] DNews password protection

[Nils Peterson]

Nathan,

I like the redesign of the DNews site, and you seem to be more timely
getting the new paper posted, but, when are you going to save us the trouble
of violating your copyrights and taking your news out of the context of your
page (and its ads) by making local storied and Op Ed articles public in the
web?  See  http://nosuperwalmart.com/WP/ where I do it regularly and note
the number of times it happens in v2020.

And when you make the pages public, it would be really swell if there were
RSS feeds and if the pages supported trackback from blogs.

Hoping to buy you a cup of coffee soon.


On 5/13/06 7:22 AM, "Mark Solomon" <msolomon at moscow.com> wrote:

> 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/20060513/2b1050ad/attachment.htm