[Vision2020] Water Concern?

[g. crabtree]

"First, you did not answer the question. I gave you a choice and you chose 
neither. You evaded the question with a lame, general comment."

Since you only seem capable of hearing the answer if it's parroted back to 
you in your own terms, Yes it is responsible to err on the side of caution 
and I believe that is what Wayne is talking about in the part of his remarks 
that you so conveniently leave out. The unmodified quote would read "Dale 
Ralston & John Bush, neither one think that we have an absolute emergency 
right now. We COULD have at least 200 years of water left" he goes on to say 
"BUT we definitely need to continue to approach this problem from the 
standpoint of how we are going to stabilize the situation."

So lets apply this to your question of "How do you interpret that in any way 
other than the he thinks we have at least 200 years of water left?"  Clearly 
Ralston and Bush think that we could have 200 years of water left and Wayne 
was deferring to their expertise. He then followed the remark by saying that 
we should look in to stabilizing the situation. Hardly sounds to me like 
someone who "sees no emergency and thinks that we need to water the lawns 
more than we do."

I hope this answers your question. I'll be curious to know where you find 
the personal attack hidden within it. I also hope it helps you with your 
problem of recognizing an out of context quote.

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 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?


I guess this will be it for me since you're back to your old personal 
attacks.First, you did not answer the question. I gave you a choice and you 
chose
neither. You evaded the question with a lame, general comment.

Second, my comments about Krauss were based on a quote from a
newspaper that covered the most recent debate. In the article, it said:

"We don't have a water emergency. I think most of us can agree to that,"
said Krauss. "We could have, at the least, 200 years of water left. ... But 
right
now, folks, I'm just really tired of seeing all our yards just burned up,
including the cemetery."

How do you interprete that in any way other than the he thinks we have at
least 200 years of water left? It certainly does not sound like a candidate
who shares your stated views on water conservation, since he sees no
emergency and thinks that we need to water the lawns more than we do.

It is interesting that now, after you realize that evasion won't work, you 
bring
up the old Wilson excuse of Krauss being "quoted out of context."

--
Joe Campbell

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

=============
Mr. Campbell fallaciously asserts:

"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?"

Actually I believe that I have answered this repeatedly but I'll be happy to
indulge you and take yet another whack at it. "Conservation can never be a
bad idea." Heard that one before? Being cautious is fine but using the issue
to further an agenda that has precious little to do with water and every
thing to do with a small group wanting to freeze Moscow  at some speciously
idyllic point in time for their own pleasure is not.

I must say I rapidly tire of hearing you, Ms.Swanson, Mr.Livingston, Ms.
Lund, Mr. Hayes and the rest of the MCA cheerleading squad take comments
made by Wayne and the others out of context and then draw erroneous
conclusions from them. What has actually been said is:

"Forward thinking on water means A SMART CONSERVATION PLAN, cooperation
neighboring communities, sound research to identify the extent of our
situation, and creative ways to use surface water."

Not that there is unquestionably 200 years worth of water. Not that we
should all water our lawns till they have the consistency of a bayou, and
most assuredly not that "we don't have a water problem. Let's use it up
because it will be good for growth."

I anxiously await your next misrepresentation,
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 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?


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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>