<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16544" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mark,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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</FONT>.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "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>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" <</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>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>>; "Matt Decker"
<</FONT><A href="mailto:mattd2107@hotmail.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>mattd2107@hotmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 6:16
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>> Gary,<BR>> <BR>> I worked closely with John Bush on the Latah
Hydrogeological <BR>> Characterization Project and I think I can safely say
that if John <BR>> was asked if the Wanapum had 200 years of water potential
he would <BR>> have laughed and said "no way, the Grande Ronde,
maybe".<BR>> <BR>> As I've said before, we are in a very hydrogeologically
complex area <BR>> being on the very edge of the basalt flows. When you ask a
scientist <BR>> a question, either you have to be prepared for a very long
answer or <BR>> have asked a very specific question. If the question posed to
John <BR>> was "when are we going to run out of water?", then his answer in a
<BR>> strict sense may be correct. That does not mean we won't start to
<BR>> lose a lot of our water way before then. We'll still have water, just
<BR>> not as much.<BR>> <BR>> Have you had a chance to look at the well
data discussed in previous <BR>> posts? I'd be interested in your analysis in
light of your post re <BR>> the city of Moscow water website.<BR>>
<BR>> m.<BR>> <BR>> At 6:05 PM -0700 10/20/07, g. crabtree
wrote:<BR>>>"First, you did not answer the question. I gave you a choice
and you <BR>>>chose neither. You evaded the question with a lame, general
comment."<BR>>><BR>>>Since you only seem capable of hearing the
answer if it's parroted <BR>>>back to you in your own terms, Yes it is
responsible to err on the <BR>>>side of caution and I believe that is what
Wayne is talking about in <BR>>>the part of his remarks that you so
conveniently leave out. The <BR>>>unmodified quote would read "Dale
Ralston & John Bush, neither one <BR>>>think that we have an absolute
emergency right now. We COULD have at <BR>>>least 200 years of water left"
he goes on to say "BUT we definitely <BR>>>need to continue to approach
this problem from the standpoint of how <BR>>>we are going to stabilize
the situation."<BR>>><BR>>>So lets apply this to your question of
"How do you interpret that in <BR>>>any way other than the he thinks we
have at least 200 years of water <BR>>>left?" Clearly Ralston and
Bush think that we could have 200 years <BR>>>of water left and Wayne was
deferring to their expertise. He then <BR>>>followed the remark by saying
that we should look in to stabilizing <BR>>>the situation. Hardly sounds
to me like someone who "sees no <BR>>>emergency and thinks that we need to
water the lawns more than we <BR>>>do."<BR>>><BR>>>I hope this
answers your question. I'll be curious to know where you <BR>>>find the
personal attack hidden within it. I also hope it helps you <BR>>>with your
problem of recognizing an out of context
quote.<BR>>><BR>>>g<BR>>><BR>>>----- Original Message
----- 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>>;
<BR>>>"'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: Saturday, October 20, 2007 3:40
PM<BR>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water
Concern?<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>I guess this will be it for me since
you're back to your old <BR>>>personal attacks.First, you did not answer
the question. I gave you <BR>>>a choice and you chose<BR>>>neither.
You evaded the question with a lame, general
comment.<BR>>><BR>>>Second, my comments about Krauss were based on a
quote from a<BR>>>newspaper that covered the most recent debate. In the
article, it said:<BR>>><BR>>>"We don't have a water emergency. I
think most of us can agree to that,"<BR>>>said Krauss. "We could have, at
the least, 200 years of water left. <BR>>>... But right<BR>>>now,
folks, I'm just really tired of seeing all our yards just burned
up,<BR>>>including the cemetery."<BR>>><BR>>>How do you
interprete that in any way other than the he thinks we have at<BR>>>least
200 years of water left? It certainly does not sound like a
candidate<BR>>>who shares your stated views on water conservation, since
he sees no<BR>>>emergency and thinks that we need to water the lawns more
than we do.<BR>>><BR>>>It is interesting that now, after you realize
that evasion won't <BR>>>work, you bring<BR>>>up the old Wilson
excuse of Krauss being "quoted out of
context."<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>>>Mr. Campbell fallaciously
asserts:<BR>>><BR>>>"Still you failed to answer my original
question. If the information is<BR>>>conflicting, is it more responsible
to err on the side of caution or to<BR>>>assume that we'll have water for
the next 200 years, as GMA candidate
Krauss<BR>>>does?"<BR>>><BR>>>Actually I believe that I have
answered this repeatedly but I'll be happy to<BR>>>indulge you and take
yet another whack at it. "Conservation can never be a<BR>>>bad idea."
Heard that one before? Being cautious is fine but using the issue<BR>>>to
further an agenda that has precious little to do with water and
every<BR>>>thing to do with a small group wanting to freeze Moscow
at some speciously<BR>>>idyllic point in time for their own pleasure is
not.<BR>>><BR>>>I must say I rapidly tire of hearing you,
Ms.Swanson, Mr.Livingston, Ms.<BR>>>Lund, Mr. Hayes and the rest of the
MCA cheerleading squad take comments<BR>>>made by Wayne and the others out
of context and then draw erroneous<BR>>>conclusions from them. What has
actually been said is:<BR>>><BR>>>"Forward thinking on water means A
SMART CONSERVATION PLAN, cooperation<BR>>>neighboring communities, sound
research to identify the extent of our<BR>>>situation, and creative ways
to use surface water."<BR>>><BR>>>Not that there is unquestionably
200 years worth of water. Not that we<BR>>>should all water our lawns till
they have the consistency of a bayou, and<BR>>>most assuredly not that "we
don't have a water problem. Let's use it up<BR>>>because it will be good
for growth."<BR>>><BR>>>I anxiously await your next
misrepresentation,<BR>>>g<BR>>><BR>>>----- Original Message
----- 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: Saturday, October 20, 2007 11:07
AM<BR>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water
Concern?<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>Not surprising that I've got your
story wrong -- you keep changing it!<BR>>><BR>>>When progressives
like Ted advocate science in support of concern for global<BR>>>warming,
it is time to emphasize its fallibility. Yet this won't do if
it<BR>>>suits your<BR>>>political agenda, as in the case of the
information from the City of Moscow<BR>>>Water Department web site. You
completely miss the fact that in as much<BR>>>as your comments undermine
Ted's point, they undermine yours, as well!<BR>>>You are merely picking
and choosing the science that supports your views.<BR>>><BR>>>Still
you failed to answer my original question. If the information
is<BR>>>conflicting,<BR>>>is it more responsible to err on the side
of caution or to assume that we'll<BR>>>have water for the next 200 years,
as GMA candidate Krauss does?<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>>>The point of the post you
refer to wasn't to present an "anti-science<BR>>>stance." It was to remind
folks that scientists are not gods and that a<BR>>>little bit of thinking
for yourself and questioning some of what is force<BR>>>fed to you
by the media (and partisans such as yourself) might be a good<BR>>>thing.
I don't remember anyone saying that "all science was junk" or
that<BR>>>"all peer reviewed articles are crap." But then again being
accurate has<BR>>>always been much harder for you then being contentious
and insulting.<BR>>><BR>>>g<BR>>>----- Original Message -----
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: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:46
AM<BR>>>Subject: re: [Vision2020] Water
Concern?<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>Given the anti-science stance of
your last post, which cited the<BR>>>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<BR>>>the rest of the GMA are
about the topic of water in Moscow. Incredible but<BR>>>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<BR>>>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<BR>>>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<BR>>>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<BR>>>been very stable."<BR>>><BR>>>Who should I put my
faith in, Water dept. professionals or the chicken<BR>>>littles who would
prefer to see Moscow as some sort of story book fantasy?It<BR>>>really
seems to me that water is the scare tactic du jour and campaign
issue<BR>>>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<BR>>>a club to force other
ideological visions on the community where they don't<BR>>>apply (big box
ordinances for one example) is
disingenuous.<BR>>><BR>>>g<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>-----
Original Message ----- 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 6:51
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<BR>>>begin.<BR>>>Some people
noted the water issue - which is as pervasive as water itself -<BR>>>but
I<BR>>>never did. For one thing, we have a problem with west-east traffic
flow that<BR>>>a Super<BR>>>Walmart located on Route 8 would only
exacerbate. This 'plan' is indicative<BR>>>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,<BR>>>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<BR>>>for the next<BR>>>200 years (Krauss:
"We could have, at the least, 200 years of water left"),<BR>>>or to act
like<BR>>>we MIGHT have water for only another 50-75 years? Which would be
the better<BR>>>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 ----- 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>>>>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 ----- 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>>>>>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><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>>>>[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>></FONT></BODY></HTML>