[Vision2020] Water Concern?

[Joe Campbell]

Not surprising that I've got your story wrong -- you keep changing it!

When progressives like Ted advocate science in support of concern for global
warming, it is time to emphasize its fallibility. Yet this won't do if it suits your 
political agenda, as in the case of the information from the City of Moscow 
Water Department web site. You completely miss the fact that in as much
as your comments undermine Ted's point, they undermine yours, as well!
You are merely picking and choosing the science that supports your views.

Still you failed to answer my original question. If the information is conflicting, 
is it more responsible to err on the side of caution or to assume that we'll 
have water for the next 200 years, as GMA candidate Krauss does?

--
Joe Campbell

---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote: 

=============
The point of the post you refer to wasn't to present an "anti-science stance." It was to remind folks that scientists are not gods and that a little bit of thinking for yourself  and questioning some of what is force fed to you by the media (and partisans such as yourself) might be a good thing. I don't remember anyone saying that "all science was junk" or that "all peer reviewed articles are crap." But then again being accurate has always been much harder for you then being contentious and insulting.

g
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>; "'Mark Solomon'" <msolomon at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:46 AM
Subject: re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?


Given the anti-science stance of your last post, which cited the non-existent 
Schwaller's anti-peer-review comments as support, there is no question about 
whom you put your faith in.

Mark replied to much of this. It is incredible to me how ignorant you and the rest of the GMA are about the topic of water in Moscow. Incredible but not surprising.

Yet if science is a bunk of junk, what hope do you have of formulating a 
cogent argument? If peer-reviewed articles are all crap, so much the worse 
for your appeals to your peers: 'Schwaller' and Wilson. If half of what you say 
is true, we've steped behind the looking glass and talk is useless. The fact
that you continue to argue only shows that you don't really believe any of it.

--
Joe Campbell

---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote: 

=============
>From the City of Moscow water dept. web site:

" Wanapum well levels in Moscow area wells fluctuate some due to pumping and recharge but appear to be quite stable."

And

" Since 1990 in the Moscow area, the water levels in the Grande Ronde have been very stable."

Who should I put my faith in, Water dept. professionals or the chicken littles who would prefer to see Moscow as some sort of story book fantasy?It really seems to me that water is the scare tactic du jour and campaign issue of the moment for the MCA shills. Till they find a different drum to beat.

I repeat,  Conservation can never be a bad idea but using the water issue as a club to force other ideological visions on the community where they don't apply (big box ordinances for one example) is disingenuous.

g


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>; "'Mark Solomon'" <msolomon at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?


There were so many things wrong with the Super Walmart plan it is hard to begin. 
Some people noted the water issue – which is as pervasive as water itself – but I 
never did. For one thing, we have a problem with west-east traffic flow that a Super 
Walmart located on Route 8 would only exacerbate. This ‘plan’ is indicative of the 
GMA approach to grow first and ask questions later.

In your original letter on this topic you wrote: "Could be 50-75 years, could be 115-120 
years? Could be we really don't know for sure?"

But if we really don't know for sure, is it wiser to ACT like we have water for the next 
200 years (Krauss: "We could have, at the least, 200 years of water left"), or to act like 
we MIGHT have water for only another 50-75 years? Which would be the better course 
of action if we wanted to, conservatively speaking, plan for the future?

The MCA candidates do much better on this issue. Look at the original
Johnson article for starters.

--
Joe Campbell

---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote: 

=============
I beg to differ, when a rational was needed for denying a change in the 
comprehensive plan to accommodate a Wal-Mart in east Moscow water was 
brought up as an issue. Water use is currently being used to meddle in 
Whitman Counties Hawkins development. Water was cited as a reason to oppose 
Naylor Farms.

In reality the MCA candidates are not as knowledgeable on water issues as 
they (and you) would like to have us believe. The science is not settled and 
there most certainly is not a emergency currently. Pretty much like Dan, 
Wayne, and Walt indicated.

Water most certainly is an issue but it isn't a crisis and no quote you can 
produce will change that fact.

g
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>; "'Mark 
Solomon'" <msolomon at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?


> No one is using the water issue "as a club to force other ideological 
> visions."
>
> The point is just that the GMA candidates are uninformed about water 
> issues.
>
> Voters need to know which candidates are and which are not informed about
> important local issues like WATER. Especially when this can be easily
> conveyed by merely QUOTING the candidates comments during a DEBATE.
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> Conservation can never be a bad idea but using the water issue as a club 
> to force other ideological visions on the community where they don't apply 
> (big box ordinances for one example) is disingenuous. I don't believe that 
> the GMA endorsed candidates are suggesting that we make a desperate 
> attempt to suck the aquifer dry before their terms expire. To suggest 
> otherwise is simply partisan politics at its worst.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
> To: "'g. crabtree'" <jampot at roadrunner.com>; "'Joe Campbell'" 
> <joekc at adelphia.net>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "'Mark Solomon'" 
> <msolomon at moscow.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:29 PM
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Water Concern?
>
>
>>g -
>>
>> You suggested that perhaps none of the city council candidates have a 
>> firm
>> handle on the water situation.
>>
>> If this is true, wouldn't it be better advised to err on the side of
>> caution?
>>
>> Both Lamar and Ament cited PBAC as authorities on the figures they 
>> presented
>> yesterday at the CofC Forum.  Krauss cited "something [he] read 
>> somewhere"
>> and Steed simply wants to remove limitations and controls.
>>
>> Your thoughts?
>>
>> Seeya round town, Moscow.
>>
>> Tom Hansen
>> Moscow, Idaho
>>
>> "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college
>> students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."
>>
>> - Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com 
>> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
>> On Behalf Of g. crabtree
>> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:33 PM
>> To: Joe Campbell; vision2020 at moscow.com; Mark Solomon
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?
>>
>> I assume the statement that includes "...regarding
>> the upper aquifer which if continued to be pumped at current levels could 
>> be
>>
>> in crisis as soon as 15-20 years from now." is couched that way to leave
>> room for the obvious corollary?
>>
>> Could be 50-75 years, could be 115-120 years? Could be we really don't 
>> know
>> for sure? Could be that Krauss, Carscallen, and Steed have as firm a 
>> handle
>> on the water situation as any of the MCA candidates do.
>>
>> g
>>
>>
>>
>>
>