[Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for Reservoir?

Wed Oct 11 15:01:21 PDT 2006

Whether these numbers you present are true or not, they do not support the allegations you made in the paragraph I cited.  That paragraph was a gross exaggeration and when I was a kid, would have been called a bald-faced lie.

W.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Donovan Arnold 
To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020 
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for Reservoir?

Wayne,

Affordability of a place in Boise is less than that of Moscow. If you don't know that, you are living in another world. Just do a little research will ya: Here I will get you started:

Consider:

http://www.nextag.com/home-mortgage/2/ID/Boise.html
and
http://www.nextag.com/home-mortgage/2/ID/Moscow.html
and even:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2006/snapshots/PL1608830.html

Boise:

$58,489 Average Family Income

$125,767.0 Average Home Price

1977 is the average year build for a home

5.4 rooms is the average size of a home

Compare to Moscow:

$46,331 Medium Family Income (not College students)

$128,500.0 Average Home Price

1973 Average Age of a Home

4.9 Rooms is Average Size of Home.

http://www.nextag.com/home-mortgage/2/ID/Boise.html

The numbers don't lie Wayne. If you are paying more for a home, earning less, the house is smaller, and older, it is less affordable. I hope you understand that.

Talk to anyone that has lived both in Moscow and Boise, that works for living, if they think it is cheaper to live in Moscow than Boise. Now, if I got $1 million in the bank or am living on fixed income, Moscow is cheaper, but if you are working for an income, it is more affordable to live in Boise than Moscow. 

Look at what you get for $800 in Boise, and what you get for $800 in Moscow for rent. Then take 15% off your income in Moscow and see which is the better deal. Good grief, I would think you were oblivious to the housing rates in Moscow and housing boom in Boise. 

Best,

_DJA

Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
  Donovan writes:

  "In Boise mortgages are only like $700 for a three or four bedroom house.  Jobs in Moscow pay less than 30K a year, our county population is shrinking and native Moscow residents are being replaced by Californians and others not from here because of the cost of living and lack of job opportunities."

  If you want to be taken seriously please tell us the sources of the above information and expand the details:  What percentage of 3 - 4 BR homes in Boise can be had on a regular mortgage for $700.00/month?  What is the average cost of a 3 - 4 BR house in the Boise Metro area?  What is the average mortgage amount?  What is the average monthly payment?  What is the average income in Moscow when students are not counted in the data?  How many Moscow natives were displaced by Californians beyond those that would have left anyway?  How are these numbers different for similar sized cities in the west which are islands in rural agricultural or forest resource areas?

  Since the issue of water quality and quantity is important to many on this list, please give the sources for your information or resign yourself to be regarded once and for all times as the area's largest but not cleverest fabulist.

  Donovan writes:

  "I don't think that conservation is the solution to our problem. I think water levels are not decreasing because of our consumption rate, but rather because of a shift in global weather patterns. Even if Moscow residents left town all today, the water would still run out.  Just look at all the other aquifers around the world that are also declining."

  Let's see.  The aquifers are declining since they are not being replenished as quickly worldwide and not because water is being pumped from them.   Hmmm.   So pumping water from aquifers has little or no effect on their levels?  Please give some scientific sources for this amazing statement including sources for data that purport to show that precipitation is declining globally.  Is it your contention that if we were to stop pumping groundwater, the levels would still be falling at the same rate?   Perhaps a solution to your great knowledge would be a simple Googling on "global aquifers" and a few minutes reading.

  Since the aquifers are falling for whatever cause or causes, it seems to me that is all the more reason to conserve.

  After you Google on "global aquifers," try Googling to discover the problems with using surface water for urban use and what the project urban use is over the next few years.

  Without commenting on your Naylor Farms remarks in depth, it should be asked that if Naylor Farms cannot even retain an effective attorney who can correctly fill out a CUP application form or a competent, believable geologist, is it reasonable to expect that they could even begin to competently design, finance, and construct a large privately financed public works project?

  There is no doubt that the cost to taxpayers for water and many other natural resources will increase sharply over the next few years.  This reasons for this rise includes the rise in population, dwindling resources, and a sharp rise in the long term ecological debt we have now and continue to accumulate at an accelerating pace.

  This community has lots of citizens that do not understand the local or global water resource issue, do not want to understand it, have all kinds of absurd, ill-defined plans to solve it, and do not want to pay for its solution in any way -- financially or change in habits.

  Old, and coming from a childhood in communities where most of the citizens then faced major problems and worked together, more or less, to try to solve them, I find the cultural shift to wide scale me-ism a sign that worst times are to come.

  I am glad that my life expectancy is short so that I won't have to see the near term ecological catastrophes and the sufferings wrought by them, and won't have to listen to the lame excuses of those that by their abysmal ignorance, uninformed opinionating, and selfish me-centered inaction helped bring them about.

  Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
  deco at moscow.com

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Donovan Arnold 
  To: Joe Campbell 
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for Reservoir?

  Joe,

  I can tell you this. Although I think it is always a good idea to have a plan B and even a plan C and possibly a plan D, I am not willing as a taxpayer to pay for a reservoir. I think it is just another big expensive government project that people cannot afford. I mean good grief, it costs $1000 to rent a 3 bedroom apartment in Moscow, people cannot afford it anymore. In Boise mortgages are only like $700 for a three or four bedroom house.  Jobs in Moscow pay less than 30K a year, our county population is shrinking and native Moscow residents are being replaced by Californians and others not from here because of the cost of living and lack of job opportunities. 

  If you want a reservoir, you have to pay for it through private means, not taxes, which means you have to get a private company like Naylor Farms to do it. If they can engineer a mining operation, they can engineer digging a hole and filling it with water. 

  I don't think that conservation is the solution to our problem. I think water levels are not decreasing because of our consumption rate, but rather because of a shift in global weather patterns. Even if Moscow residents left town all today, the water would still run out.  Just look at all the other aquifers around the world that are also declining. 

  Second, I don't want to leave behind this aquifer water for people. I think it is nasty, smelly, bad tasting water. We have fresh water springs less than 50 miles from here, don't you think people of the future, 200-300 years from now would rather be drinking that than the stale water that corrodes our pipes and smells like sulfur if your water tank isn't over 130 degrees? I know I would. 

  If we took two years to build one mile of pipe, we would get to a fresh healthy water supply in less than 100 years, a good 200 years before our supply ran out.

  I think speculation and research is a good thing, and so is coming up with a plan B for our water situation. However, asking for money for a water reservoir with the limited knowledge we have is going to get a big NO from Moscow property owners which make up most the vote. 

  Thinking realistically, you aren't going to get a reservoir anytime in the near future with tax dollars. Naylor Farms is more most likely our best shot.   

  I suppose lots of people, and MCA are going to spend lots of time pushing this idea, some will use scare tactics, but it in the end, it isn't going to happen. 

  Best,

  _DJA

  Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote: 
    Dear Donovan,

    Let me preface this by saying that I know very little about water; I know more since last night -- thanks to our wonderful panel! -- but that is still very little compared to other folks. Here are some brief thoughts, though.

    1/ The kind of area needed for a reservoir is one thing; the kind of area needed for a mine is another. Why think that they would coincide? Others can speak to this issue with more authority, but I remain skeptical that a mine can be easily transformed into a reservoir.

    2/ What I especially liked about last night's meeting is that we discussed an issue that was not "in our face." Yet it is an issue that needs to be dealt with soon. The fact is that we use more water than is being replaced. As long as the water supply is not endless, it will eventually end. What to do?

    A reservoir is one possible solution. Water conservation is another one. But CAN we conserve enough water to solve the problem? Shouldn't we also look at other solutions? We're just beginning this dialogue, I think. (We're just beginning it as a COMMUNITY. It was clear last night that there are quite a few folks who have been thinking about these issues for a while.)

    3/ One thing that came across last night is that we are in a rather unique situation, water-wise. It is possible that there is a large -- though limited -- body of water that is currently available to Moscow. We need to think about how we are going to use it and -- until we can provide a way of increasing that amount -- we should plan to use it wisely.

    Naylor farms has plans to use a great deal of our current supply. Forgetting about the other costs of their enterprise, it is questionable whether -- short of some long term solution to our current water problem -- we should invest our water capital to meet their ends.

    4/ I wish Naylor farms would hold a public forum similar to the one held last night. Which is just to say, I wish that Naylor farms would give me the feeling that they gave a rat's -ss about how I and others think about these issues.

    I challenge Naylor farms to approach this problem in a way that illustrates their concern for the overall community. It is our water and the supply is limited. If Naylor farms wants to use some of that supply, then they need to tell us how we might benefit from their use. So far I have not seen the benefit. Nor have I seen any recognition on their part that there is a genuine problem here. Currently, there is just a limited supply of water. We might debate on the amount but that the supply is limited is not an issue for debate.

    Until we can figure out a way to increase our current supply of water -- through a reservoir, conservation, or some other means -- it seems irresponsible to allow Naylor farms access to it for their own personal needs.

    Note that these comments are reflective of my own thoughts, and not those of any other organization with which I might be affiliated (the members of which likely know more about these issues than I do).

    Best, Joe

    ---- Donovan Arnold wrote: 

    =============
    Joe and Bruce,

    I would love to attend your meeting, however, I cannot. You guys really need to check with me before you schedule these meetings to make sure I am free, cause you know, I work and go to school and right now I am also sick. ; )

    But my advice is that you work with Naylor Farms to meet both your goals. Maybe the money raised from mining can be used to pay for the reservoir. Working with people you have disagreements with rather than shutting them down all the time might work better to meet some of your long term goals. 

    Is there any reason why the water used by Naylor Farms cannot be used to fill the reservoir? Is there any reason why the hole they dig cannot be the reservoir? Is there any reason why the taxes and fines they pay the county to mine cannot be used to pay for the project? I think a reservoir on top of a hill just a mile or town out of town is a perfect place to have one. 

    Those are the questions I would ask if I could attend this meeting. 

    Best,

    _DJA

    Joe Campbell wrote:Come to the meeting, Donovan! Note that the title of the meeting is a question, not a statement. We're going to discuss the plusses and minuses and try to help folks reach an informed decision on the matter.

    --
    Joe Campbell

    ---- Donovan Arnold wrote: 

    =============
    Won't digging a reservoir cause health problems with dust being less then 1.5 miles away from Moscow? And won't it use a lot of water?

    Why don't we just have Naylor Farms dig us a hole, take the clay and dirt away, and use the water to fill the reservoir?

    Curious minds want to know. 

    Best,

    _DJA

    Bruce and Jean Livingston wrote: Reminder: MCA meeting on whether Moscow should consider building a water reservoir.

    MCA General Public Meeting on Monday Oct. 9 at 1912 Building @ 7p.m.
    Water Solutions Ã¢â,¬â?o Is Moscow Ready for a Reservoir?
    Panelists: 
    Jerry Fairley, Professor of Hydrogeology, U of Idaho
    Dianne French, founder of Palouse Water Conservation Network
    Gary Riedner, Moscow City Supervisor
    Steve Robischon, Exec. Mgr. of Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee
    Mark Solomon, Palouse Water Conservation Network

    =======================================================
    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
    =======================================================

    ---------------------------------
    Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2Ã,Â¢/min or less.

    =======================================================
    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
    =======================================================

    ---------------------------------
    How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengerâ?Ts low PC-to-Phone call rates.

    =======================================================
    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
    =======================================================

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  =======================================================
   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
  ======================================================= 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Donovan writes:

  "In Boise mortgages are only like $700 for a three or four bedroom house.  Jobs in Moscow pay less than 30K a year, our county population is shrinking and native Moscow residents are being replaced by Californians and others not from here because of the cost of living and lack of job opportunities."

  If you want to be taken seriously please tell us the sources of the above information and expand the details:  What percentage of 3 - 4 BR homes in Boise can be had on a regular mortgage for $700.00/month?  What is the average cost of a 3 - 4 BR house in the Boise Metro area?  What is the average mortgage amount?  What is the average monthly payment?  What is the average income in Moscow when students are not counted in the data?  How many Moscow natives were displaced by Californians beyond those that would have left anyway?  How are these numbers different for similar sized cities in the west which are islands in rural ag or forest resource areas?

  Since the issue of water quality and quantity is important to many on this list, please give the sources for your information or resign yourself to be regarded once and for all times as the area's largest but not cleverest fabulist.

  Donovan writes:

  "I don't think that conservation is the solution to our problem. I think water levels are not decreasing because of our consumption rate, but rather because of a shift in global weather patterns. Even if Moscow residents left town all today, the water would still run out.  Just look at all the other aquifers around the world that are also declining."

  Let's see.  The aquifers are declining since they are not being replenished as quickly worldwide and not because water is being pumped from them.   Hmmm.   So pumping water from aquifers has little or no effect on their levels?  Please give some scientific sources for this amazing statement including sources for data that purport to show that precipitation is declining globally.  Is it your contention that if we were to stop pumping groundwater, the levels would still be falling at the same rate?   Perhaps a solution to your great knowledge would be a simple Googling on "global aquifers" and a few minutes reading.

  Since the aquifers are falling for whatever cause or causes, it seems to me that is all the more reason to conserve.

  After you Google on "global aquifers," try Googling to discover the problems with using surface water for urban use and what the project urban use is over the next few years.

  Without commenting on your Naylor Farms remarks in depth, it should be asked that if Naylor Farms cannot even retain an effective attorney who could correctly fill out a CUP application form or a competent, believable geologist, is it reasonable to expect that they could even begin to competently design, finance, and construct a large privately financed public works project?

  There is no doubt that the cost to taxpayers for water and many other natural resources will increase sharply over the next few years.  This reasons for this rise includes the rise in population, dwindling resources, and a sharp rise in the long term ecological debt we have now and continue to accumulate at an accelerating pace.

  The community has lots of citizens that do not understand the local or global water resource issue, do not want to understand it, have all kinds of absurd, ill-defined plans to solve it, and do not want to pay for its solution.

  Old, and coming from a childhood in communities where most of the citizens then faced major problems and worked together, more or less, try to solve them, I find the cultural shift to wide scale me-ism a sign that worst times are to come.

  I am glad that my life expectancy is short so that I won't have to see the near term ecological catastrophes and the sufferings wrought by them, and won't have to listen to the lame excuses of those that by their abysmal ignorance, uninformed opinionating, and selfish inaction helped bring them about.

  Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
  deco at moscow.com

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Donovan Arnold 
  To: Joe Campbell 
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for Reservoir?

  Joe,