<DIV>The real solution to solving the water problem is to ban water and switch completely to beer. After all, this is a college town, and we could fund the free beer by turning the Kibbie Dome into the Bud Light Dome and make it look like a keg. UI could once again be know as the University of Intoxication. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan<BR><BR><B><I>Mark Solomon <msolomon@moscow.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Jeff,<BR><BR>I know I've posted to this list the graph of static water levels in <BR>city Wanapum wells from the the 1930's to the present before and will <BR>gladly do so again when I'm at the computer with the files on it. No <BR>citations, no interpretations. Just two clearly similar declining <BR>curves, from the 30's to 1960 and from 1990 to the present with a <BR>rise from 1960-1990, the period when the city stopped
pumping the <BR>Wanapum wells. You're welcome to ask Tom Scallorn at the City of <BR>Moscow Water Department for the raw data and do your own analysis. <BR>The graph I'll re-post sometime this weekend was drawn by Dr. Dale <BR>Ralston.<BR><BR>m.<BR><BR>At 10:48 PM -0700 10/18/07, Jeff Harkins wrote:<BR>>If the facts are so readily available, please enlighten us all.<BR>><BR>>I've read all the material from the last several water forums, <BR>>committees and so forth. There is certainly no consensus evident <BR>>from the materials I read. Do you have a particular source or <BR>>reference that would validate your statements?<BR>><BR>>And frankly, I have not heard any of the statements you attribute to <BR>>Wayne Krauss, Walter Steed or Dan Carscallen. And if they did make <BR>>those remarks, please tell me where and when.<BR>><BR>>You raise an interesting point about relations with Pullman and <BR>>tangentially with Whitman officials. I
have visited with a couple <BR>>of elected officials from Pullman and from Whitman. It was made <BR>>rather clear to me that Pullman would have been delighted to talk <BR>>with Moscow officials about the various water issues and policies <BR>>and other matters of concern between our two communities. But, in <BR>>their mind, the contacts from our side have more or less poisoned <BR>>that well - when you threaten to sue your neighbors, when you <BR>>interfere in their activities, and attempt to coerce them to agree <BR>>with you - it does make it difficult to have a dialogue.<BR>><BR>>Wayne Krauss, Walter Steed and Dan Carscallen are probably our best <BR>>choices for bringing reason and rationale to the political quagmire <BR>>we find ourselves in now.<BR>><BR>>On the bright side, a change in our management may offer another <BR>>chance to revisit Pullman officials, to open some doors, to have <BR>>some conversations, etc. I
suspect Pullman would be very willing to <BR>>work with us, but I am fairly certain they have no interest in <BR>>working for us. They are charting their own course - as is their <BR>>right and responsibility.<BR>><BR>>Please let me know if you can provide me with citations about the <BR>>statements you attribute to Walter, Wayne and Dan. Also, any new <BR>>studies that affirm your claims about the aquifer status and its <BR>>future would also be helpful.<BR>><BR>><BR>>At 10:10 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:<BR>>>Jeff --<BR>>><BR>>>You've confused opinions with facts.<BR>>><BR>>>The GMA candidates have the right to whatever opinions they like. They<BR>>>can believe that it will be fine if we reach the bottom of the<BR>>>aquifer. They can believe that we can get water from elsewhere at<BR>>>reasonable cost. They can believe that we can negotiate with Pullman<BR>>>to keep them from depleting
our shared aquifer at an unreasonable<BR>>>rate. All of these things are reasonable opinions.<BR>>><BR>>>Wrong, but reasonable.<BR>>><BR>>>The issue of whether we are depleting our aquifer at a rate greater<BR>>>than the rate of replenishment isn't a matter of opinion. It is a<BR>>>matter of fact. Similar, for instance, to the fact that the Earth is<BR>>>getting warmer. GMA can either provide its own peer-reviewed<BR>>>projections or start talking about the facts as they exist.<BR>>><BR>>>Wishful thinking is not a water policy.<BR>>><BR>>>-- ACS<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>On 10/18/07, Jeff Harkins <JEFFH@MOSCOW.COM>wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>> Gary, good to see your clear and concise comments making a difference.<BR>>>> Here are some of my observations.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Ideologues are all around us in this region. They have no solution to<BR>>>>
resolve the water issue (or much of any other issue) but they follow the<BR>>>> same tactic used since the creation of the MCA; fear, intimidation,<BR>>>> heckling and smearing are their tools. If you support an organization like<BR>>> > GMA, you are publicly chided for supporting candidates endorsed <BR>>>by them. In<BR>>>> other words, you don't know as much as the MCA people and therefore your<BR>>>> voices and your opinions don't matter.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Frankly, all the candidates for city council seem to be honest, <BR>>>>sincere and<BR>>>> interested in doing what they perceive to be the best things for the<BR>>>> community. But when the actions of supporters and/or candidates sense a<BR>>>> challenge to their "vision for Moscow", rather than debate the issue, they<BR>>>> turn on the candidate and chide them for their opinions. Wayne Krauss,<BR>>>>
Walter Steed and Dan Carscallen are all honorable men. They have <BR>>>>spent most<BR>>>> of their adult lives in this community. They have a right to be <BR>>>>respected -<BR>>>> for their views, for their willingness to step up to the challenge of city<BR>>>> council and for their willingness to engage in honorable debate with<BR>>>> candidates that they don't agree with.<BR>>>><BR>>>> In a similar vein, Linda Pall, Aaron Ament, Tom Lamar and Evin Holmes are<BR>>>> honorable folks. Most have spent a good portion of their adult lives in<BR>>>> Moscow and they should be respected for their willingness to serve our<BR>>>> community.<BR>>>><BR>>>> To indict any of them for their opinions and views on a topic simply<BR>>>> validates that our citizens should not vote for the candidate the indictors<BR>>>> are supporting but should vote for the
candidate being scalloped. Issues<BR>>>> and answers and policies such as the water question are founded first in<BR>>>> science. Let the science do the talking - report studies, provide links to<BR>>>> the scientific evidence, establish the proposition of your hypothesis and<BR>>>> then talk about strategies for solutions. It is "very difficult" <BR>>>>to resolve<BR>>>> a problem with rhetoric and finger pointing (Joe and Bruce, you are<BR>>>> encouraged to think about this very carefully).<BR>>>><BR>>>> This coming election will say a lot about our community and about the<BR>>>> future we chart for ourselves. It is time for the hand-wringers to move to<BR>>>> the sidelines. We need decisive, thoughtful and forthright leadership to<BR>>>> guide us through the challenges that lay ahead. Will we have a community<BR>>>> that can support our children and the
children of our children? Will we be<BR>>>> able to welcome new residents with a bundle of opportunities that entices<BR>>>> them to stay or will we winnow them out - because they don't fit into our<BR>>>> lifestyle? Will we have the type of community that encourages <BR>>>>entrepreneurs<BR>>>> to come here and risk their investment capital here or will we worry<BR>>>> ourselves to death over whether or not this business or that business is<BR>>>> "acceptable"? What I have learned from listening to the forums this past<BR>>>> couple of years is that even if Santa Claus wanted to move his operation<BR>>>> here, there would be at least a handful of people who would object to that<BR>>>> move.<BR>>>><BR>>>> For my taste, it is time for a change in Moscow.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> At 07:02 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Conservation can never be a bad idea but using the water issue as a club to<BR>>>> force other ideological visions on the community where they don't <BR>>>>apply (big<BR>>>> box ordinances for one example) is disingenuous. I don't believe that the<BR>>>> GMA endorsed candidates are suggesting that we make a desperate attempt to<BR>>>> suck the aquifer dry before their terms expire. To suggest otherwise is<BR>>>> simply partisan politics at its worst.<BR>>>><BR>>>> g<BR>>>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>>>> From: "Tom Hansen" <THANSEN@MOSCOW.COM><BR>>>> To: "'g. crabtree'" <JAMPOT@ROADRUNNER.COM>; "'Joe Campbell'"<BR>>>> <JOEKC@ADELPHIA.NET>; <VISION2020@MOSCOW.COM>; "'Mark Solomon'"<BR>>>> <MSOLOMON@MOSCOW.COM><BR>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:29 PM<BR>>>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Water Concern?<BR>>>><BR>>>>
>g -<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> > You suggested that perhaps none of the city council candidates have a<BR>>>> firm<BR>>>> > handle on the water situation.<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> > If this is true, wouldn't it be better advised to err on the side of<BR>>>> > caution?<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> > Both Lamar and Ament cited PBAC as authorities on the figures they<BR>>>> presented<BR>>>> > yesterday at the CofC Forum. Krauss cited "something [he] read<BR>>>> somewhere"<BR>>>> > and Steed simply wants to remove limitations and controls.<BR>>> > ><BR>>>> > Your thoughts?<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> > Seeya round town, Moscow.<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> > Tom Hansen<BR>>>> > Moscow, Idaho<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> > "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The
college<BR>>>> > students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> > - Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> > -----Original Message-----<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> > From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com [<BR>>>> mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com]<BR>>>> > On Behalf Of g. crabtree<BR>>>> > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:33 PM<BR>>>> > To: Joe Campbell; vision2020@moscow.com; Mark Solomon<BR>>>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> > I assume the statement that includes "...regarding<BR>>>> > the upper aquifer which if continued to be pumped at current <BR>>>>levels could<BR>>>> be<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> > in crisis as soon as 15-20 years from now." is couched that way to leave<BR>>>> > room for
the obvious corollary?<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> > Could be 50-75 years, could be 115-120 years? Could be we really don't<BR>>>> know<BR>>>> > for sure? Could be that Krauss, Carscallen, and Steed have as firm a<BR>>>> handle<BR>>>> > on the water situation as any of the MCA candidates do.<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> > g<BR>>>> ><BR>>>> ><BR>>>> ><BR>>>> ><BR>>>> =======================================================<BR>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>>>> http://www.fsr.net<BR>>>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>>> =======================================================<BR>>>> =======================================================<BR>>>> List services made available by First Step
Internet,<BR>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>>>> http://www.fsr.net<BR>>>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>>> =======================================================<BR>>>><BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> __________________________________________________<br>Do You Yahoo!?<br>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <br>http://mail.yahoo.com