<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16544" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From the City of Moscow water dept. web
site:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>" Wanapum well levels in Moscow area wells fluctuate some due to
pumping and recharge but appear to be quite stable."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>" Since 1990 in the Moscow area, the water levels in the Grande Ronde
have been very stable."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "Joe Campbell" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>joekc@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: "g. crabtree" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@roadrunner.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Cc: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>; "Tom
Hansen" <</FONT><A href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>thansen@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>; "'Mark
Solomon'" <</FONT><A href="mailto:msolomon@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>msolomon@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:51 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water
Concern?</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>There were so many things wrong with the Super Walmart plan it is hard to
begin. <BR>Some people noted the water issue – which is as pervasive as water
itself – but I <BR>never did. For one thing, we have a problem with west-east
traffic flow that a Super <BR>Walmart located on Route 8 would only exacerbate.
This ‘plan’ is indicative of the <BR>GMA approach to grow first and ask
questions later.<BR><BR>In your original letter on this topic you wrote: "Could
be 50-75 years, could be 115-120 <BR>years? Could be we really don't know for
sure?"<BR><BR>But if we really don't know for sure, is it wiser to ACT like we
have water for the next <BR>200 years (Krauss: "We could have, at the least, 200
years of water left"), or to act like <BR>we MIGHT have water for only another
50-75 years? Which would be the better course <BR>of action if we wanted to,
conservatively speaking, plan for the future?<BR><BR>The MCA candidates do much
better on this issue. Look at the original<BR>Johnson article for
starters.<BR><BR>--<BR>Joe Campbell<BR><BR>---- "g. crabtree" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@roadrunner.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>> wrote:
<BR><BR>=============<BR>I beg to differ, when a rational was needed for denying
a change in the <BR>comprehensive plan to accommodate a Wal-Mart in east Moscow
water was <BR>brought up as an issue. Water use is currently being used to
meddle in <BR>Whitman Counties Hawkins development. Water was cited as a reason
to oppose <BR>Naylor Farms.<BR><BR>In reality the MCA candidates are not as
knowledgeable on water issues as <BR>they (and you) would like to have us
believe. The science is not settled and <BR>there most certainly is not a
emergency currently. Pretty much like Dan, <BR>Wayne, and Walt
indicated.<BR><BR>Water most certainly is an issue but it isn't a crisis and no
quote you can <BR>produce will change that fact.<BR><BR>g<BR>----- Original
Message ----- <BR>From: "Joe Campbell" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>joekc@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>><BR>To: "g.
crabtree" <</FONT><A href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@roadrunner.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>><BR>Cc:
<</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>; "Tom
Hansen" <</FONT><A href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>thansen@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>; "'Mark
<BR>Solomon'" <</FONT><A href="mailto:msolomon@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>msolomon@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>><BR>Sent:
Friday, October 19, 2007 6:57 AM<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water
Concern?<BR><BR><BR>> No one is using the water issue "as a club to force
other ideological <BR>> visions."<BR>><BR>> The point is just that the
GMA candidates are uninformed about water <BR>> issues.<BR>><BR>>
Voters need to know which candidates are and which are not informed
about<BR>> important local issues like WATER. Especially when this can be
easily<BR>> conveyed by merely QUOTING the candidates comments during a
DEBATE.<BR>><BR>> --<BR>> Joe Campbell<BR>><BR>> ---- "g.
crabtree" <</FONT><A href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@roadrunner.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
wrote:<BR>><BR>> =============<BR>> Conservation can never be a bad
idea but using the water issue as a club <BR>> to force other ideological
visions on the community where they don't apply <BR>> (big box ordinances for
one example) is disingenuous. I don't believe that <BR>> the GMA endorsed
candidates are suggesting that we make a desperate <BR>> attempt to suck the
aquifer dry before their terms expire. To suggest <BR>> otherwise is simply
partisan politics at its worst.<BR>><BR>> g<BR>> ----- Original Message
----- <BR>> From: "Tom Hansen" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>thansen@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>><BR>> To:
"'g. crabtree'" <</FONT><A href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>jampot@roadrunner.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>;
"'Joe Campbell'" <BR>> <</FONT><A href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>joekc@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>;
<</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>; "'Mark
Solomon'" <BR>> <</FONT><A href="mailto:msolomon@moscow.com"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>msolomon@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:29 PM<BR>> Subject:
RE: [Vision2020] Water Concern?<BR>><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: </FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<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; </FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>; 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 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><BR><BR><BR></FONT></BODY></HTML>