[Vision2020] Water Concern?

Sat Oct 20 19:40:10 PDT 2007

Mark,

If you are referring to the "ralston graph" you posted yesterday it pains me to admit that I really can't make heads or tails of the information it may contain. I assume that it's meant to convince me that Moscow should be concerned about our future with regard to water. If that's the case you need not make any additional attempts to sway me. I DO believe that water is a concern. I just don't believe that Ament, Holmes, Lamar, and Paul are the answer. Further more, I believe that they are detrimental on a host of other issues unrelated to this one.

As to the first part of your post, I see nothing that changes anything I said regarding cambell's out of context quote or anything that makes any of Wayne's remarks fraudulent.

g
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Solomon" <msolomon at moscow.com>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>; "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>; "Matt Decker" <mattd2107 at hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?

> Gary,
> 
> I worked closely with John Bush on the Latah Hydrogeological 
> Characterization Project and I think I can safely say that if John 
> was asked if the Wanapum had 200 years of water potential he would 
> have laughed and said "no way, the Grande Ronde, maybe".
> 
> As I've said before, we are in a very hydrogeologically complex area 
> being on the very edge of the basalt flows. When you ask a scientist 
> a question, either you have to be prepared for a very long answer or 
> have asked a very specific question. If the question posed to John 
> was "when are we going to run out of water?", then his answer in a 
> strict sense may be correct. That does not mean we won't start to 
> lose a lot of our water way before then. We'll still have water, just 
> not as much.
> 
> Have you had a chance to look at the well data discussed in previous 
> posts? I'd be interested in your analysis in light of your post re 
> the city of Moscow water website.
> 
> m.
> 
> At 6:05 PM -0700 10/20/07, g. crabtree wrote:
>>"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
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071020/db4a49fa/attachment-0001.html 