<!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>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</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: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:46
AM</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>Given the anti-science stance of your last post, which cited the
non-existent <BR>Schwaller's anti-peer-review comments as support, there is no
question about <BR>whom you put your faith in.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Yet if
science is a bunk of junk, what hope do you have of formulating a <BR>cogent
argument? If peer-reviewed articles are all crap, so much the worse <BR>for your
appeals to your peers: 'Schwaller' and Wilson. If half of what you say <BR>is
true, we've steped behind the looking glass and talk is useless. The
fact<BR>that you continue to argue only shows that you don't really believe any
of it.<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>From the City of Moscow water dept. web site:<BR><BR>"
Wanapum well levels in Moscow area wells fluctuate some due to pumping and
recharge but appear to be quite stable."<BR><BR>And<BR><BR>" Since 1990 in the
Moscow area, the water levels in the Grande Ronde have been very
stable."<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>g<BR><BR><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
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 6:51 PM<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water
Concern?<BR><BR><BR>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><BR></FONT></BODY></HTML>