Quote of the Day

If there weren't people here, we wouldn't have an aquifer problem.

- Allyson Beall, Instructor, Washington State University School of Earth and Environmental Science, "Researcher considers the 'what ifs' of water use; Model estimates effects with algebraic equations," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, August 4, 2008

And there you have it. The environmentalist argument, reductio ad absurdum

This statement also shows that it is the Aquinuts who have their collective heads buried in the sand. Even without "behemoth" Wal-Marts or the Hawkins "sprawl mall" the "pristine prehistoric" waters of the aquifers will continue to decline and eventually run out as long as people live on the Palouse, just like any other resource that is taken from the ground (oil, coal, precious minerals, et. al.), whether it's in 100 years or 1000 years. However, unlike oil or rock, water routinely falls on the Palouse from the sky. All we need to do is plan for the aquifers running dry and identify alternate sources of surface water.

Say What?

The people making those kind of statements are not hydrologists - they're developers and builders. ... That kind of attitude is kind of sticking your head in the sand. Hydrologists and geologists have been studying the basin and they say it's dropping.

- Jim Mital, rural Moscow resident and member of the Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee Citizen Advisory Group, "A thirst for answers: Water concerns are a flood of opinions and a drought of facts," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, August 2, 2008

There are a lot of hypotheses, but the frustration is that we just don't know much. There's a lot of gray area. The Palouse isn't going to run out of water anytime soon so communities don't need to dig deeper and deeper or drastically move to a plan B. We're going to run out of oil far before Moscow and Pullman run out of water. It's not a critical situation, but it's something that we need to watch.

- Professor of Hydrogeology, University of Idaho, "A thirst for answers: Water concerns are a flood of opinions and a drought of facts," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, August 2, 2008

...the idea that a community can only thrive with unlimited growth and development is a notion that must disappear, hopefully before the water does.

Post-World War II economy was based on a planned scheme for consumerism —and it worked. The economy grew, people consumed and planned obsolescence became an accepted norm. We become anxious when we consider voluntary reductions of any type. But, we must begin to imagine a “restorative economy” where having less is truly more satisfying, more interesting, and of course, more secure.

In the relatively near future, we must achieve a balance between what we are consuming and the capacity of the earth’s ecosystems to provide, according to author and businessman Paul Hawken. “We need to create an economy… that is not an either/or argument, but a means to create the best life for the greatest number of people precisely because we do not know the eventual outcome or impact of our current industrial practices. In other words, we need an economy based on more humility.”

- April 2003 Moscow Co-Op newsletter

Let's call a spade a spade. The only people calling the water situation on the Palouse a "crisis" are not water experts either. They have a distinct agenda of social(ist) engineering, just the same as those warning of "global warming crisis."

Aquiferealists vs. Aquinuts

The Lewiston Tribune has been runnning a series about water issues on the Palouse. What follows below is a compilation of quotes (Aquiferealists in blue, Aquinuts in red) from several articles that were published in the Sunday issue of the Tribune, along with my comments:

King Solomon vs. Science:

"It's a little scary," says Mark Solomon, a longtime water watchdog and current hydrology doctoral student at the University of Idaho. "There is a looming water crisis."

Even with state-of-the-art technology, no amount of scientific probing will ever provide total understanding of the groundwater supply on the Palouse, says a University of Idaho hydrology and water quality professor.

"There are geophysical tools that you can use," Fritz Fiedler says of equipment designed to collect underground data. "But they aren't very accurate. And they don't work well in deep systems like we have. The main aquifer on the Palouse, which is the Grand Ronde, is about 1,000 feet deep."

"There's always going to be uncertainty that we're going to have to manage around," Fiedler says. So while more scientific data is desirable, cooperation between user groups and agencies is much more critical at this point.

"I don't think there's a looming crisis," Fiedler says. "I really don't think we're about to run dry by any means. But in the future, maybe 15 to 20 years out there, it's much harder to tell."

"I'm not saying the decisions will be here next year. I don't think the situation is that dire at all," [Jan] Boll [director of the Univeristy of Idaho Waters of the West graduate program] says. "But it's a planning process that we all need. And that's what our process is trying to develop."

In the meantime, Boll says no crisis is imminent. In fact, he says, the aquifers may be much deeper than realized at this point.

Surface water is plentiful. Reservoirs could be built. Treated runoff could be injected into the aquifers. The technology is even available to pump and pipe water from the major rivers to the south. While perhaps costly alternatives, Boll says the availability of water is more than adequate for the region.

One thing for certain, warns Boll, no amount of scientific investigation will ever provide enough answers to erase all questions about how much water is available. "The thing we need to come to grasp with is the uncertainty we will always have. There is always going to be uncertainty about how much water is left and how much we can keep pumping."

I think in this case I'll go with the professors over the "student." And since there is no way we will ever know how much water is left in the aquifer, it only seems logical to implement thoughtful conservation measures and develop economical alternatives versus the radical growth-killing solutions advocated by King Solomon and his Knights of the Water Table.

Larry Kirkland vs. Bill French

Larry Kirkland, former PBAC executive secretary, counters that there is no shortage. "The water is here. It's just a question of how we can get it."

Enough precipitation, for example, falls on the Palouse to make the shortage debate moot, say Kirkland and other experts. They contend capturing runoff in reservoirs or injecting treated surface water into underground aquifers, while costly, would meet future demands.

Kirkland, after leaving PBAC and being able to observe the big picture, warns that fears about lack of water can be used as both political and legal levers. "Water can become sort of a spotted owl to establish what you want as far as social engineering."

The spotted owl became the focus of national attention decades ago when
conservation groups used the bird's endangered species status to block logging of old-growth forests.

The potential for alternative water sources aside, [Bill] French [of the Palouse Water Conservation Network] says there's something "obscene" about the current situation. "I just think it's ethically wrong to take a 20,000-year-old resource like pristine groundwater that got into the ground during the last ice age and dump it on lawns or flush it down toilets."

"Obscene? ""Ethically wrong?" Kirkland is right. The Aquinuts ARE comparing the "pristine 20,000 year old water" to a living creature like the spotted owl to block growth on the Palouse. Let's illuminate Mr. French about the water cycle, shall we?


There will never be any more freshwater on Earth than there is now. No new water is being made and water can’t escape from the Earth. The water we use is recycled over and over again. It is never "destroyed." It just changes states or moves somewhere else. So that "pristine" water that got into the Grande Ronde aquifer during the last ice age was on the Earth's surface for hundreds of millions of years in various forms (clouds, rain, snow, ice, rivers, oceans) before that. And when it gets to the surface again to water your lawn or flush your toilet, it will stay around for hundreds of millions of more years before going back into the ground, into the ocean, etc. Water is not a living creature that can die off and go extinct forever. That same water will be here long after we are dead and gone. Arguing over water on the Palouse is as silly as arguing over dirt would be. If we can't get water from the aquifer, we'll get it from somewhere else. As the scientists above stated, this is a region that has ample water supplies through rainfall, snowfall, and rivers.

Proof that the Aquinuts are all about anti-capitalist socialism and not water conservation (as if their rejection of any proposal to recharge the aquifer or build reservoirs isn't enough proof) comes from this April 2003 Moscow Co-Op newsletter (notice that Spokane attorney Rachael Paschal Osborn, who is leading the legal fight against the WSU golf course, was at the meeting being reported on:)

...the idea that a community can only thrive with unlimited growth and development is a notion that must disappear, hopefully before the water does.

Post-World War II economy was based on a planned scheme for consumerism—and it worked. The economy grew, people consumed and planned obsolescence became an accepted norm. We become anxious when we consider voluntary reductions of any type. But, we must begin to imagine a “restorative economy” where having less is truly more satisfying, more interesting, and of course, more secure.

In the relatively near future, we must achieve a balance between what we are consuming and the capacity of the earth’s ecosystems to provide, according to author and businessman Paul Hawken. “We need to create an economy… that is not an either/or argument, but a means to create the best life for the greatest number of people precisely because we do not know the eventual outcome or impact of our current industrial practices. In other words, we need an economy based on more humility.”

Bill French vs. Michael Echanove

Not that PBAC would curb pumping if it could, suggests French, who likens the pumping entities to foxes guarding the henhouse. "I think the whole concept of PBAC is flawed. I think PBAC was mostly formed to have the appearance of doing something. And it kind of fooled the state of Idaho into not stepping in to regulate water."

"The state of Idaho has a couple of designations they can put on a groundwater basin," explains French. His and other groups, in fact, waded in amid the Naylor flap to petition the Idaho Department of Water Resources to intercede and regulate pumping from both the Wanapum and Grand Ronde.

After another round of hearings, the state backed away in favor of a local solution. That solution, suggested by the IDWR, was to form an 11-member citizens group to offer advice to the 19 representatives of PBAC. The group, says French, had the potential to be a watchdog over PBAC. "But in practice, it (the citizens group) has just become a mirror image of PBAC. It's a group of people who get together once a month and talk about stuff but they never do anything."

Michael Echanove, chairman of the citizens group as well as mayor of Palouse, disagrees with French's assessment of PBAC.

More regulatory authority, however, isn't needed, Echanove says. What's needed is more scientific data about just how big and how full or empty the aquifers really are. "Until we get that data, it's just a bunch of people with opinions. And you've got universities that have their own projects. You've got counties that have their projects. I mean, I could make a career just thinking about it."

The politics of Palouse water, Echanove says, are perhaps best illustrated by the differing opinions of his mayoral counterparts in Pullman and Moscow.

"Remember, you've got to get elected. And you've got to be able to lead and you've got to be able to look at the big picture, as such, and you can't come in with one opinion and run with it, because you're not going to get anywhere."

Yes, the Aquinuts would love nothing more than to have an unelected body of envirocrats, who would of course have to buy into the idea of "looming water crisis," to beat back every new big-box store, golf course, highway, or housing project on the Palouse.

The fact remains that PBAC HAS been successful, greatly reducing water usage on the Palouse since 1992 (8.3% less than was pumped in 2006 than in 1992) through VOLUNTARY guidelines.

Nancy Chaney vs. Glenn Johnson

Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney was accused of social engineering when she leaped across the state line into Washington to legally challenge water rights for development of the proposed Hawkins Companies shopping center.

She defends her actions as an attempt to ensure water "sustainability."

"I come from a scientific background," says Chaney, who holds a master's degree in environmental science. "I get the scientific principle. I understand objectivity. But having entered the realm of politics, I've sort of straddled that line."

Ultimately, newly elected members of the Moscow City Council usurped Chaney's political power by agreeing to not just abandon the legal appeals, but to actually supply water to Hawkins.

Chaney laments that while the politics of water continue to vacillate, the groundwater supply will continue to drop. "It's certainly political. I think we should be informed by science, but there are competing interests. So we're sort of waiting out a cost-benefit analysis. We're looking at long-term and short-term values and things we can afford to gamble with and things we cannot afford. Unfortunately, political cycles don't coincide with natural resource needs."

Eight miles away in Pullman, Mayor Glenn Johnson declines comment on Chaney's tactics. "To be honest with you, I'm leaving that one alone."

As for the politics of water on the Washington side of the border, Johnson suggests they're quite different than in Idaho, and especially Moscow. "What we're trying to do is, we're not going to discourage growth over here. We're telling everybody that 'Yes, we know we have adequate water supplies, we've had plenty of research on that. But at the same time, we want you to conserve. We want to make sure you watch your use of water.' So that's the message."

Chaney comes from a "scientific background?" Oh, brother. She's a nurse, for God's sake. The only line she is straddling is the line between San Francisco hippie and all-out barking moonbat. The Queen's "realm of politics" will be over next year. meanwhile, Mayor Johnson's pragmatic political views have earened him two unopposed terms in office.

"Group sues over WSU water rights decision"

I was struck with the similarity between this quote from urban planner Richard Carson's essay, "Wicked Thoughts at a Public Hearing:"

The outraged and uninformed neighbor spends money to hire a lawyer and possibly other experts to prove that a proposed development project is an abomination against nature (their nature) and violates all manner of codes and the comprehensive plan. This outrage results in an appeal of a staff or planning commission decision to the locally elected officials, and ultimately to a land use appellate board or a state court of appeals.

In every state there is a cottage industry made up of professionals who make a living aiding and abetting such unhappy neighbors. I say "cottage industry" because many of these folks pride themselves on their anti-establishment and a counter-culture lifestyle that is strangely at odds with the often gluttonous lifestyles of the property owners they represent. It is a perverse fact of life that instead of buying the now offending property, the neighboring property owner ends up financially supporting people he (or she) otherwise would shun. You know, like lawyers with names like Freedom Child.

And this quote from today's Daily News:

A group of conservationists is continuing its legal fight against a decision that allows Washington State University to consolidate its water rights.

Rachael Paschal Osborn, a Spokane-based attorney with the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, filed a lawsuit Thursday against WSU, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board.

Osborn represents the Palouse Water Conservation Network, the Palouse Group Sierra Club and Pullman-area resident Scotty Cornelius.

I just want to know who is financially supporting the anti-development cottage industry. Prince Cornelius is not doing it on his own.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

A group of conservationists is continuing its legal fight against a decision that allows Washington State University to consolidate its water rights.

Rachael Paschal Osborn, a Spokane-based attorney with the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, filed a lawsuit Thursday against WSU, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board.

The lawsuit, filed in Whitman County Superior Court, is a request for review of the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board's April decision that shot down the group's appeal of an Ecology decision granting WSU's water rights consolidation.

Osborn represents the Palouse Water Conservation Network, the Palouse Group Sierra Club and Pullman-area resident Scotty Cornelius. They claim the WSU consolidation will allow WSU to annually pump more than three times as much water as it currently does.

The Pollution Control Hearings Board based its decision on the state's 2003 Municipal Water Law, which allowed Ecology to issue water rights based on how much a municipal system's pumps and pipes can handle, rather than how much water actually is needed. The Municipal Water Law was challenged by conservationists and a handful of American Indian tribes, and key parts of it were ruled unconstitutional by a King County Superior Court judge in June.

The King County ruling could affect the amount of water WSU is allowed to pump on an annual basis, considering the university is deemed a municipality under the water law.

The consolidation permit allows the university to pump up to 5,300 acre feet, or 1.72 billion gallons, of water each year. However, WSU only pumped 505 million gallons of water in 2007, when irrigation began on the new golf course. That's an increase from the 477 million gallons it pumped in 2006.

Osborn said the King County decision provides additional ammo for her case.

"The board found WSU's water rights were valid based on the Municipal Water Law. Now, King County has held that it's not constitutional. So the very law the board and Ecology relied on is invalid," she said. "We've known all along that these cases would affect each other."

WSU spokesman James Tinney said university officials are hoping for a positive outcome.

"The substance of (the lawsuit) was not a big surprise, but we think our position will be upheld in court," he said. "We agreed with the Department of Ecology's original decision and the Pollution Control Hearings Board's original decision. We hope that will prevail in court this time around, too."

In 2006, Ecology granted WSU's request to consolidate its seven wells. The Pollution Control Hearings Board reviewed the conservationists' initial appeal in January, and ruled April 17 that they did not prove that the consolidation would negatively affect other wells in the area. The board also denied the group's request for reconsideration.

Last month, Osborn filed an appeal of the hearings board's April decision in Whitman County Superior Court.

The group points to the university's new 18-hole Palouse Ridge Golf Club as a project that will create more drawdown of the area's primary water source.

Osborn said the case in Whitman County Superior Court will allow oral argument and testimony in front of a judge only. Ecology and WSU have 20 days from Thursday to file a response to the lawsuit. A conference likely will then take place to set a court date.

Is the Cold War Between Moscow and Whitman County Back On?

It appears that the short period of Détente enjoyed between Moscow and Whitman County since January is (temporarily?) over.

If you read Queen Nancy's rambling and paranoid missive concerning Hawkins, it's not surprising really.

Now, to quote April, Hawkins needs to drill here, drill now, and worry less about Moscow.

From today's Lewiston Tribune:

Progress stalls on shopping center

Disputes over water have set project back two years, Whitman County commissioner says

MOSCOW - Development of the Hawkins Companies shopping center just across the border into Washington has been delayed again, a Whitman County commissioner confirmed Monday.

"They've lost a construction season, that's what it boils down to," Commissioner Jerry Finch said. "They're going to get some work done this fall, but they're not going to have any construction until next year."

Jeff De Voe, spokesman for Hawkins on what's being called the "state line project," declined comment about when construction might begin.

"He's speaking of his own opinion, not mine," De Voe said of Finch. "A lot of things are happening. I don't have anything for you quite now. As of today, it's just quiet."

In April, De Voe estimated earth-moving equipment would start work at the site around June 1, weather permitting.

But Finch, one of the principal proponents of the development, said he talked with De Voe last week and received an update on delays. The proposal calls for a 714,000-square-foot shopping complex with a Lowe's home improvement center as its anchor.

Finch blamed the latest and previous construction delays mostly on Moscow elected officials who've stymied progress by questioning the development's impact on regional groundwater supplies.

"I think this is a stalling technique to kill the project," Finch said, referring to an initial Moscow appeal of Hawkins water rights transfers by Mayor Nancy Chaney, and subsequent slow progress toward reaching a possible agreement for Moscow to provide water services over the state line.

"That, quite frankly, has set this project back about two years," Finch said of the water issues.

His words come two weeks after members of the Moscow Public Works Committee agreed to forward a draft joint powers agreement to Finch and the other Whitman County commissioners. The agreement is necessary before officials at the Idaho Department of Water Resources will consider interstate transfer of a municipal groundwater supply.

"We've been reviewing it," Finch said of the eight-page draft, adding his cursory assessment has left him thinking more negotiation might be needed. He said the county's legal counsel must review the document before anything is sent back to Moscow. The agreement is necessary because IDWR, which has authority over groundwater, wants the water transfer agreement to be between two governmental entities, not between a city government and a private company.

In the meantime, Finch said, De Voe assured him Hawkins will move ahead with or without Moscow's participation. "I was assured by Mr. De Voe last week that drillers would be on site," Finch said of the company's intentions to drill for its own groundwater. "They're going to drill regardless. Hawkins is doing this on their own. They are not willing to gamble with Moscow."

Finch, who has worked closely with Hawkins on promotion of the shopping center, said the company would "cap" any wells it drills and retire its water rights if an agreement is eventually reached with Moscow. He said drilling could start in two weeks.

But the 204-acre construction site appeared to remain untouched Monday. This despite De Voe saying in April that a ribbon-cutting ceremony would likely be conducted to publicly announce the start of construction. A sign promising arrival of the shopping center remained standing Monday.

Finch and fellow commissioners Michael Largent and Greg Partch have heralded the Hawkins shopping center as the beginning of retail development in the Moscow-Pullman corridor. Likewise, Pullman officials have endorsed the project as a much-needed economic catalyst.

Critics, mostly in Moscow, have said it's the beginning of unnecessary retail sprawl. Pro-development candidates who were elected last November to the Moscow city council have couched their support in terms of the development being "inevitable" and Moscow needing to tap into profits by supplying water.

Hawkins completed its $5.45 million purchase of the development site in April. In addition to Lowe's, plans show room for at least two additional big box stores as well as a number of other retail outlets.

Hawkins 3-Fer, Part One

It seems the Whitman County Commissioners approved the formation of a Revenue Development Area in the Pullman-Moscow corridor over the objections of King Solomon's heir to the Aquinut throne, Prince Cornelius.

Cornelius is as factually-challenged about the Hawkins development as he is the Palouse Ridge Golf Club. Maybe he should spend more time Googling and less time putting.

Scotty seems to believe that Hawkins shouldn't be built because "the closest District 12 station is in west Pullman, more than 7 miles away." Apparently, Prince Cornelius didn't catch Item #7 in the draft Letter of Intent between Hawkins and the county:

On the Development site, Hawkins will build a rural fire station and donate the land and building to Fire District 12.

Oops. No wonder that whole golf course appeal thing isn't working out too well.

You can read Cornelius' RDA comments here, (is that a WSU fax number that he used?) as well as those from fellow Aquinut David Hall of Moscow, who quoted the New York Times (the case cracker!) to the commissioners, and Queen Nancy's pruned response.

UPDATE: Despite Chaney's downplaying of the matter, Dale Courtney at Right Mind is pursuing the blatant lie the Queen has been caught in. Seems she claimed at a council meeting that Whitman County sent a letter to Moscow soliciting input on the LIFT proposal. There was no such letter. Dale also has a copy of the original draft of Her Honor's LIFT comments, as well as the draft RDA proposal. Check them out here.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Board moves forward with LIFT plans;
Approval of Revenue Development Area was necessary for grant request

Whitman County commissioners unanimously approved the formation of a Revenue Development Area in the corridor that runs between Pullman and Moscow at a public hearing in Colfax on Monday.

The formation of the RDA clears another hurdle for the county in its effort to secure $18.1 million in grants through Washington's Local Infrastructure Financing Tool program. The RDA - which encompasses about 300 acres, including the site of Hawkins Companies' retail development and surrounding properties - is a geographic area in which public infrastructure improvements may be financed with state-collected sales taxes.

The program awards $2.5 million annually to city and county governments across the state in an effort to create local jobs and increase economic growth. Counties and cities can apply for up to $1 million a year for the next 25 years under the program.

LIFT money is awarded from the state's portion of the county's 7.8 percent sales tax. The state will recoup its money and benefit from additional tax revenue from the developed land that might otherwise be left vacant.

The county hopes to use a significant portion of the grant money to cover the costs of bonds that will pay for the construction of public infrastructure at the site of the Hawkins development on the Pullman-Moscow Highway.

In February, the county approved a preliminary development agreement to enter into a public-private partnership with Boise-based Hawkins. According to the agreement, the county will finance the construction of public infrastructure at the site through the sale of $9.1 million in bonds.

However, Public Works Director Mark Storey said money still will be available for additional improvements within the RDA.

During the hearing, Pullman resident Darl Roberts questioned the location and the size of the RDA and its proximity to Moscow rather than Pullman. He said it would likely only perpetuate the problem of businesses choosing to locate in Moscow rather than Pullman.

Commissioner Michael Largent addressed Roberts' concerns by explaining that the grant money also would free up county money and expand the county's capacity to invest in other areas.

"This doesn't preclude us from spending county dollars outside of the RDA," Largent said.

Storey said extending the size of the RDA to encompass more area along the Pullman-Moscow Highway or Airport Road actually would decrease the county's chances of beating out other entities competing for LIFT money.

Commissioner Greg Partch said Pullman still stands to benefit from the RDA if the county and city can come to terms on a sales-tax sharing plan for the corridor. Both the county and city would receive equal portions of the sales tax generated in the corridor.

"It's good for both of us and we have become partners rather than competitors," he said.

Partch added that the RDA and LIFT grant would move Whitman County closer to controlling its financial destiny.

"We can't depend on the federal government and the state government," Partch said.

The state also stands to benefit in the coming years from growth in the RDA.

"A million dollars would be a very small percentage of what is generated in that area," Storey said.

Partch estimated that the state will generate $250 million in sales tax over 20 years. He said that was a conservative figure.

"It's a great investment for the state," he said.

Partch said Whitman County should have a strong chance against other entities vying for the money.

"I think we are going to be right on the top of the pile," Partch said. "We think we are going to be very competitive in this."

The county has until June 30 to submit its completed application to the state.

"We are in that time frame and everything is moving along," Partch said. "This is just one more step - and a big step - in the process."

LIFT money is awarded by the Community Economic Revitalization Board, which is expected to announce its decision Sept. 18.

"WSU WATER RIGHTS: Group to appeal board's decision; State's Pollution Control Hearings Board denies request to reconsider earlier ruling"

We're just puttin' on the green and filin' frivilous lawsuits. Where all the money for this is coming from, nobody knows.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

A group of conservationists intend to appeal a ruling in their water mining case against Washington State University and the state Department of Ecology.

The appeal will be filed in Whitman County Superior Court, said Rachel Paschal Osborn, a Spokane-based attorney with the Center for Environmental Law and Policy who represents the group of conservationists.

The group contends WSU's attempts to consolidate its wells will adversely affect other wells in the area, arguing that the university will annually draw more than three times the amount of water it currently does.

In 2006, Ecology granted WSU's request to consolidate its seven wells. The Washington State Pollution Control Hearings Board reviewed the conservationists' initial appeal in January, and ruled April 17 that the Palouse Water Conservation Network, the Palouse Group Sierra Club and Pullman-area resident Scotty Cornelius did not prove that the consolidation would negatively affect other wells in the area.

Osborn said the appeal to Whitman County Superior Court is necessary because the three-judge hearings board denied her request to re-evaluate its decision.

Osborn asked the board to reconsider specifically because the Department of Ecology was not required to analyze the declining Grand Ronde aquifer. The analysis would determine how low aquifer levels can drop before the state intervenes. The outcome of the analysis, called a "reasonable and feasible pump lift," could lead the state to limit the amount of water used by major pumpers such as WSU, or put a freeze on water rights applications.

"Our reaction is that we're going to appeal," Osborn said. "We think that this is the final decision in a series of decisions where we think justice has not been done, so we're going to pursue review.

"They said they properly interpreted the case. They said there's not a problem with the declining aquifer," she added. "If you don't have to do the test in this situation, where would you ever have to do it? It's abundantly obvious there is a problem with the Grand Ronde aquifer."

Osborn has 30 days from Friday to file the necessary paperwork in Whitman County.

The conservationists claim WSU's ability to consolidate its water rights will allow it to annually pump more than three times the amount of water it currently does. The group argues that the university has contributed to the dropping levels in the Grand Ronde aquifer, and claims that the 18-hole Palouse Ridge Golf Club will create more drawdown of the area's primary water source.

The group was forced to prove that the consolidation interrupts or interferes with the availability of water in the Grand Ronde aquifer for residents throughout the Palouse. The hearings board determined that the general decline of the aquifer, claims that the university is mining water and the role of the golf course in the aquifer's declining levels were not relevant in the case.

"The board is operating on two assumptions: That they're requiring us to show causation ... but they have interpreted the law in a way that we can't prove that," she said. "We have to appeal."

"WSU, Ecology state their case; Entities ask Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board to stick to water rights ruling"

The silliness continues.

Meanwhile, I understand one of the appellants in this case was recently seen and photographed on the putting green at Palouse Ridge. One thing we never run out of in Pullman is bullshit.

From last Friday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Washington State University and the Washington State Department of Ecology have asked that a panel of judges uphold its recent ruling regarding WSU's water rights, despite conservationists' request for reconsideration.

Sarah Mack, a Seattle-based attorney representing the university, and Washington assistant attorneys general Alan Reichman and Sarah Bendersky have submitted documents requesting that the three-member Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board maintain its April 17 ruling. The board determined that a 2006 ruling by the Department of Ecology allowing WSU to consolidate its water rights did not harm nearby water users tapped in to the Grand Ronde aquifer.

The board also determined there was not enough evidence to prove that the state erred in granting the consolidation, and that an analysis of the declining Grand Ronde aquifer does not need to be pursued at this time.

WSU and Ecology's requests to the board are in response to a motion filed late last month by Rachael Paschal Osborn. The Spokane-based attorney with the Center for Environmental Law and Policy represents the Palouse Water Conservation Network, the Palouse Group Sierra Club and Pullman-area resident Scotty Cornelius. They claim the consolidation will allow WSU to annually pump more than three times as much water as it pumps now.

The group also contends that the university has contributed to the dropping levels in the aquifer and point to the 18-hole Palouse Ridge Golf Club as a project that will create more drawdown of the area's primary water source.

Osborn's motion asked that the panel reconsider a portion of their ruling, and require that an analysis of the aquifer be performed. The analysis would determine how low aquifer levels can drop before the state intervenes. The outcome of the analysis, called a "reasonable and feasible pump lift," could lead the state to limit the amount of water used by major pumpers, or put a freeze on water right applications.

Osborn was given a chance to respond to the defendants' comments, and said she did so Thursday. Once her response is received, the board will take both sides into consideration.

The defendants argue that the appellants are way off base in asking for a reconsideration.

"The appellants' argument is flawed because this case involves applications for water rights changes and does not involve applications for new water rights," Reichman and Bendersky wrote in the state's response. "The quantities of water WSU is authorized to pump has not been increased as a result of the changes. Ecology evaluated whether the consolidation would cause interference or interruption to Mr. Cornelius' availability to use his exempt well for domestic water use and determined that it would not. ... the impairment analysis for changes stops here and there is no requirement for ecology to make a pumping lift analysis in the area."

In her response, Mack points to groundwater code, which says the state has the power to determine whether granting permits will hinder existing rights.

She views the appellants appeal "as a vehicle to force Ecology to promulgate a groundwater regulation that would limit aggregate pumping in the Palouse Basin," she wrote. Most significantly, it "glosses over the fundamental fact - established by their own expert's testimony - that changing the location of WSU's pumping will not injure or damage Mr. Cornelius or any other existing groundwater user."

Mack added that the university has made strides to reduce water use, and "has not only met but significantly exceeded water conservation goals and targets in this region."

Osborn continues to stress that an analysis is needed.

"While we disagree with conclusions regarding impacts of WSU pumping on the Cornelius well, that is not the question we are putting before the Board," she wrote in her final response. "Rather, the trigger for applying the 'reasonable or feasible pump lift' arises from the condition of the (Grand Ronde aquifer), regardless of who is causing that condition."

Osborn expects the board to make a quick decision on the request for reconsideration.

"Group will continue challenge of WSU water rights; Pollution board's decision not to overturn consolidation will be appealed"

They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

"Conservationists?" Please. The only thing Scotty Cornelius is trying to conserve is his 15 minutes of fame.

They do realize, of course, that the aquifer is not like a spotted owl or a redwood. It does not reproduce. Like any well, it will run dry one day, no matter how much we try to "conserve" it. However, plenty of water and snow fall from the sky in our region. All we need to do is figure out how to store it above and/or below ground. Or we just burn everything down and drive all the people out of the Palouse Basin. That seems to be the approach the aquinuts prefer.

And where in the hell is the money for all these appeals coming from?

From today's Lewiston Tribune:

PULLMAN - A group of conservationists will continue to challenge Washington
State University's water rights after saying last week further action was
unlikely.

One of the group's attorneys said it will now ask the state Pollution Control
Hearings Board to reconsider its recent decision not to overturn a 2006
consolidation of those rights.

"The ruling now requires that water supplies be depleted before the state will
step in," Rachael Paschal Osborn, the group's Spokane attorney said in a
statement issued Tuesday. "With this decision, WSU has a green light to
over-pump groundwater supplies."

WSU officials have maintained the consolidation only joins water rights
scattered across several campus wells, allowing it to increase pumping from its
two modern wells. The alternative would be expensive upgrades to aging wells,
according to WSU.

But the group - which includes the Palouse Conservation Network, the Sierra Club
Palouse Group and Pullman resident Scotty Cornelius - said the consolidation
means WSU can triple the amount of water it pumps, if it wants to.

And it does want to, Osborn said. "The appeal challenges WSU's request to
consolidate all of its rights so that it may pump from new wells, in part so
that it may irrigate a new 315-acre, 18-hole golf course which WSU expects will
double water use compared to the previous golf course."

That course, Palouse Ridge, is set to open inAugust. Its practice facility opens
Thursday, with a grand opening celebration scheduled for Friday at 4 p.m.

Osborn said water rights have been "over-allocated" during WSU's 118-year
history. The majority of its unused water rights should have been returned to
the public before the 2003 Washington Legislature killed "use it or lose it"
provisions in state water law, she said.

A three-member panel from the hearings board recently split 2-1 on overturning
the state Department of Ecology's award of the consolidation. Osborn has
previously said action in Whitman County Superior Court to overturn it is also a
possibility, albeit a remote one.

Quote of the Day

We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.

Co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace Patrick Moore, "Why I Left Greenpeace," Wall Street Journal, April 22, 2008.

Attention Scotty Cornelius, Queen Nancy, and King Solomon....

This column by Moore is a must-read.

BREAKING NEWS: State Board Sides with WSU on Water Rights Consolidation Case

Is this a surprise to anyone? Remember, during the hearing in January, Scotty Cornelius stated, "I can't say it's because of anything WSU did ... There's not enough data for me to draw any conclusion."

Construction on the Palouse Ridge Golf Club is nearly complete. Cornelius, the Sierra Club and King Solomon's Palouse Water Conservation Network were just tilting at windmills and grandstanding for the media. Promised next stop for the aquinuts: the Washington State Supreme Court, which I'm sure will promptly decline to hear their case.

FORE!!!!!!

From Dnews.com:

A state hearings board has sided with Washington State University regarding the appeal of a water-right decision.

The Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board has determined the appellants did not provide enough evidence to effectively prove that the university’s water rights impairs other existing rights in the area.

The decision was rendered late last week and follows a three day January hearing regarding the university’s application to consolidate its water rights — a practice that would allow WSU to pump water through any combination of its seven wells.

The appellants — the Palouse Water Conservation Network, the Palouse Group Sierra Club and Pullman-area resident Scotty Cornelius — claim WSU’s water right consolidation will allow the university to pump more than three times as much water per year as it currently does. They argue that the university has contributed to the dropping levels in the Grand Ronde aquifer, and point to an 18-hole golf course under construction as a project that will create more drawdown of the area’s primary water source.

Cornelius, who lives outside Pullman, has said his well is decreasing at a rate of 10 inches per year.

WSU currently has the rights to operate seven wells, though two large wells pump a majority of the water needed on campus at 2,500 gallons per minute. Additional wells can be used in case of emergency.

“We conclude a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that consolidation of WSU’s existing water rights will not impair Mr. Cornelius’ well or other existing water right holders,” the decision reads. “In the absence of impairment, we also therefore conclude that the public welfare will not be harmed by Ecology’s approval of these water changes. Finally, we conclude Ecology’s approval ... did not unlawfully ‘enlarge’ the water right represented by that permit.”

The appellants originally argued 40 issues and all but three were resolved in 2004. The remaining issues for the hearings board included whether the state’s decision would impair neighboring water rights, harm the public welfare or enlarge the university’s pumping ability beyond permit’s guidelines.

According to the decision, the three-member board does recognize that the Grand Ronde aquifer is “experiencing a long-term and troubling trend of declining water levels.” But the board members made clear in the hearings that the decision before them would have no bearing on the declining aquifer or how the state should manage groundwater in the area.

“...this case was focused on the much narrower question of whether WSU is legally entitled to consolidate it’s existing water rights in order to be able to pump its currently authorized quantities from a different configuration of wells within it’s integrated cam us water system.

"P&Z commission worried about water"

Nice to see Moscow is finally looking at its own water usage issues instead of meddling in Whitman County. I've always said, once Moscow stops allowing new houses to be built, THEN we'll have a water crisis.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

The Moscow Planning and Zoning Commission will ask the City Council whether it can consider water issues when making land-use decisions.

Chairman Art Bettge said water concerns should be factored into the discussion for new subdivisions, rezones and the like.

"Every development that is approved and is built increases the overall use and depletion of the aquifer," Bettge said after Wednesday's commission meeting.

However, he said the commission risks infringing on private property rights if it bases decisions on water use without the go-ahead from the council.

Commissioners said they would at least like to draw developers' attention to how their proposed projects will use water resources.

"The water issue kind of slips through unrecognized at times," Commissioner Donald Crawford said.

For example, Commissioner Nils Peterson requested a study of how the Legacy Crossing Urban Renewal District would use and conserve water after a presentation on the proposed district during Wednesday's meeting.

"I don't see any concern on the part of this proposal for aligning itself with the extensive mentions of water consumption that are in the current comprehensive plan," Peterson said.

The other commissioners agreed, and voted unanimously for City Supervisor Gary Riedner to include language about water sustainability in the Legacy Crossing plan.

The discussion of making water a formal part of land-use decisions arose after the city's water conservation specialist, Nichole Baker, gave a presentation on city water-use trends.

Baker's data showed that Moscow met its Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee overall water-use goals in 2006 and 2007 and that per capita water usage is lower now than it was in the 1990s. The city has increased its water conservation efforts in recent years by offering free tools like water-saving shower heads. The city also has encouraged water conservation by imposing a tiered rate system that charges a higher rate for those who use large amounts of water.

Bettge said the data shows Moscow is doing something right.

"That says that despite development, a good many more subdivisions and things like that, we're using less than we were," he said.

He said the city must continue to manage its water use as it grows. He suggested further adjusting the tiered water rates to curb the few households using substantial amounts of water.

The commission also briefly discussed a city water budget. The City Council made developing a budget one of its goals for this year.

Crawford said the council needs to give the planning and zoning commission information about what actually will be done to develop that budget.

"We hear the city's going to develop a water budget and we hear that and we hear that and we hear that, and the issue's not going away," he said.

Bettge said he would prefer not to have a water budget until the city has more solid data on how quickly the Palouse's major aquifer, the Grand Ronde, is being depleted. A state study slated for 2011 could help provide that information.

"Unless you know how much is in the aquifer, you could establish a tight water budget and it still wouldn't mean anything," he said.

The council could approve a resolution allowing the commission to factor water use into its decisions in the meantime. Bettge said some form of direction is vital.

"We could get into an endless discussion of water in public hearings and other than having a nice discussion about water, we can't go any further than that," he said.

Moscow developer Rick Beebe said water should be part of land-use discussions.

"Water issues are something we consider in virtually everything we do right now," he said, adding that developers also should consider issues such as how their development addresses transportation and energy use.

"Some growth is better than none"

One more time, with emphasis. There is no "urban sprawl" on the Palouse. There is no "runaway growth" on the Palouse. The 2006-2007 population data just released from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that the Pullman and Moscow micropolitan areas are growing the slowest of any urban area in Washington and Idaho respectively, two very fast-growing states.

Our problem is just the opposite of "sprawl." We cannot "afford to be choosy" as some advocate. We cannot allow unproven concerns over a poorly understood water source be the nails in the coffins of our two towns. We cannot let the Palouse become a social engineering laboratory for academics and students who will be somewhere else in five or ten years. Instead, we had better do everything we can to encourage growth and roll out the red carpet to any business that wants to locate here. As UI prof Jeff Harkins always says, towns grow or they die. This is the conclusion the Daily News editorial board reached in a column published in last Thursday's edition:

Growth has long been a controversial topic in Moscow and Pullman.

Some want it at any expense, others would like the status quo maintained in perpetuity.

We think the correct approach is somewhere in the middle, and that's why recently released statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau are cause for concern.

The Moscow and Pullman "micropolitan" areas - urban cores of 10,000-50,000 people and the surrounding counties - grew 0.5 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively, from mid-2006 to mid-2007.

That's not far from negative 0.5 percent and 1.2 percent, and that's what is most troubling.

Negative growth would cause a downturn in the local economy, resulting in the loss of jobs and local businesses and forcing some residents to leave the area in search of other opportunities.

Stagnation might produce similar results considering the basic cost of living - gas, groceries, energy - is only going to rise. Money to offset that rise is needed in the form of new jobs and residents.

Further complicating matters is declining enrollment at the University of Idaho. There currently are 9,980 students enrolled at the UI's Moscow campus, down 702 students from fall 2006.

UI economist Steve Peterson said there's a direct correlation between the number of students and the number of jobs in the area.

"If you're down 1,000 students, you can figure a loss between 500 and 1,000 jobs anywhere in the region," he said.

Imagine what would happen if Washington State University saw a similar decrease in enrollment.

A number of area business leaders and elected officials are encouraging growth, and residents need to get on board if they want their children and grandchildren to be able to live and work on the Palouse when they grow up, graduate and enter the work force.

The speed and direction in which the area expands might not agreeable to everyone, but growth at any pace is a far cry better than no growth at all.

"Legal arguments linger over Hawkins water sale; Lamar questions whether IDWR will approve extension"

I'm glad someone on the Moscow City Council realizes the hypocrisy that was involved with Moscow obtaining a water right to drill a new well while opposing the Hawkins Companies attempting to do the same thing.

From yesterday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Moscow City Councilman Tom Lamar suspects the Idaho Department of Water Resources may deny the city's application to extend its water service area into Whitman County.

Lamar was the lone council member to vote against accepting Public Works Director Les MacDonald's report about the application at Monday's City Council meeting. The city seeks to provide water for the Hawkins Companies' proposed retail development on the Pullman-Moscow Highway, just across the state line.

"I guess I still haven't acquired any additional comfort in doing that, so I just wanted to state my continued concern for this process," Lamar said.

The city agreed to make "prompt application" to IDWR in a settlement with Hawkins, reached during closed-door mediation in February. MacDonald will send a copy of the application to Hawkins for review before it is sent to IDWR.

City Supervisor Gary Riedner said the city will notify the public when the application is sent to IDWR.

The application requests a modification of the city's service area, which usually is the same as the city's corporate limits. The application states the water will be supplied to Whitman County for use by "a commercial development located immediately adjacent to but outside of the city's corporate limits."

MacDonald said the application would not modify Moscow's water rights in any way other than extending services. It does not ask for additional water rights, surrender any rights or make other changes to current services.

Lamar said after the meeting he has doubts there is room in Idaho law for selling water across state lines. He does not know of any example where it was allowed.

He also is concerned that the request could be seen as water mining, which is illegal in Idaho.

"We're taking water out faster than it's being recharged, and now we're going to sell it as a commodity," he said.

City Attorney Randy Fife said he sees no legal problem with Moscow's request "because the Idaho state code provides a mechanism to deliver water outside of the state, and because IDWR agrees that that is an appropriate mechanism."

Fife said IDWR officials want the city to enter a joint powers agreement with a Washington political entity, likely Whitman County, to extend the water service area.

He said he would prefer the city and county reach an agreement before the application is sent to IDWR.

Mayor Nancy Chaney, who does not support selling water to Hawkins, said there should be more communication between the parties involved in the settlement agreement "to ascertain whether being fast or being thorough is preferable" before the application is submitted.

Councilman Walter Steed reminded the council that Hawkins still would have access to 45 acre-feet of water rights should the application be denied.

"Once this is approved and we are able to physically supply water then they are to abandon those water rights and they will be given back to the state of Washington and not be used," he said.

In other business:

MacDonald reported on the city's preparations for Well No. 10, which is scheduled to be drilled on the west end of A Street in 2009.

The city will apply to IDWR to utilize Well No. 9's existing water right for the new well. The amount of water the city can pump will not be increased, but it will be able to pump from either Well No. 9 or Well No. 10. Riedner said the purpose of Well No. 10 is to provide backup in case Well No. 9 temporarily shuts down.

MacDonald said at an earlier meeting he would prefer to apply for a new water right. Councilman John Weber agreed, and voted against accepting the report on the application.

Weber said after the meeting it seems like a waste of time and money to drill a new well but not obtain a new water right.

Steed and Councilman Wayne Krauss said Moscow should not apply for a new right just after asking Hawkins Companies to relinquish its water rights in exchange for the water sale.

'Councilman says litigation could have proven costly for city; Krauss: Hawkins deal had to be made"

It's so refreshing to finally have a breath of sanity on the Moscow City Council and wathcing all the no-growth liberals squirm because there is not a damn thing they can do to stop this project now. Congrats to the Hawkins Companies for their resolve for putting an end to this nitwittery. I only wish Wal-Mart would act as aggressively.

And no, Gerard, water is not an issue for Whitman County, just the selfish efforts by you and other Moscow business people to hold Pullman and Whitman County back all these years.

Moscow City Councilman Wayne Krauss said a February mediation session in Spokane was the last chance to get Hawkins Companies at the negotiation table.

Krauss said at a forum Tuesday that the actions of company representatives during mediation led him to accept a controversial settlement agreement. The agreement includes a deal to sell water and possibly sewer services to the proposed retail development just west of Moscow in Whitman County.

"I was under the very strong impression that Hawkins was not going to talk about it any longer," he said.

Krauss spoke at the forum along with Tom Lamar, the sole council member to vote against the agreement, and local business owners Dennis Baird and Gerard Connelly. The forum was sponsored by the Moscow Civic Association, the Moscow Chamber of Commerce and the Palouse Water Conservation Network.

Krauss, who attended the mediation with Councilman Walter Steed and Mayor Nancy Chaney, said Hawkins representative Jeff DeVoe started packing his briefcase toward the end of the 22-hour meeting, indicating he was ready to make a deal or leave.

"When you see Jeff DeVoe and his attorney sit back in their chairs and cross their arms and they say (a section of the settlement) stays like it is, that's it, you pretty much understand where they're at," Krauss said.

He also said Peter Scott, an attorney hired by the city of Moscow who specializes in water issues, recommended taking the settlement to avoid costly litigation over the appeals that Moscow likely would have lost.

"We paid a lot of money for his recommendation, and I thought it was probably a good idea to do it," Krauss said.

In addition to the water and sewer sale, the settlement required Moscow to drop its appeals of two water rights approved for Hawkins by the Washington State Department of Ecology, and required Hawkins to drop an appeal of a right denied by the Department of Ecology. Hawkins will retire the water rights approved by Ecology as soon as it hooks up to Moscow's system.

Tri-State owner Connelly, who said the settlement deal is probably the best for Moscow in face of inevitable development, said the council could have tabled the settlement to allow public comment without returning to mediation.

He said it's good to get the best advice possible from lawyers, but the city can't let them dictate what to do.

In response to a question about why the decision to sell water seemed so rushed - the council voted to approve it at its first meeting after mediation - Krauss said he felt the next step would otherwise be costly litigation with Hawkins over the appeals.

Lamar disagreed.

"I thought we had all the time in the world," he said.

Lamar said the council was obligated to move quickly once it accepted the settlement, but it could have decided to spend more time thinking about it before voting.

Lamar said the decision to sell water was more significant than concerns about the appeals.

"It just seemed to me to be too big of a gift to switch," he said.

Tina Baldwin, a Viola resident who said she came to the forum because the development will draw from the same aquifer she does, said she was interested to learn that the City Council "was intimidated by lawyers."

"I guess the only one that voted with conscience and in the best interest for the business community and citizens was Tom Lamar," Baldwin said.

Moscow resident Jo Bohna said the forum increased her questions and concerns about the Hawkins deal.

Council members "were intimidated by big-city attorneys, panicked, and gave away our retail dollars to the state of Washington, along with 1 percent of our sewage processing capacity," Bohna said. [Have you noticed how contradictory all these moonbat's arguments are? If the Hawkins development will ultimately fail, as they predict, why all the "strong arm tactics" by Hawkins to push the deal through? Obviously, Hawkins sees a gold mine of untapped retail needs here, worth enough to but up with all this BS. - tf]

Palouse Water Conservation Network President Bill French said he still had questions after learning about the mediation process and influence of attorneys.

"If this is such a good deal for Moscow, why did all the high-powered attorneys from Hawkins let us get away with it?" he said. "They wouldn't have agreed to go with anything that would benefit them less than it benefits us."

The forum also included discussion of the possible effects the Hawkins development could have on Moscow business.

Baird, who owns the Wine Company of Moscow, said he is "deeply afraid" that Hawkins will cause some Moscow businesses to close. He also is not confident there is enough retail demand to support the Hawkins development.

He said he's concerned "that mall will survive just long enough to sink a whole lot of ships in Moscow and probably Pullman for that matter and then fail."

Lamar said he's worried that Hawkins will approach Moscow businesses and convince them to relocate to the development.

Connelly emphasized that retail shopping centers like the one proposed by Hawkins create economic displacement, not economic development.

"When Lowe's opens up, do you think people in Moscow are going to buy more lumber and more hardware?" Connelly asked. "They're not. [How about people from all over the region that curently go to Lewiston or Spokane to Home Depot? Connelly is too successful to be this dumb about business. It's got to be a put-on - tf]

"Having said all of that, I think that the council probably didn't have any good choices, because apparently water is not an issue for Whitman County."

Connelly said he preferred having Hawkins build right next to Moscow than in Pullman.

He said his father always told him "it's always best to be right next door to your competition."

Krauss asked audience members to raise their hands if they were concerned about the downtown business district "suffering tremendously" because of Hawkins.

Almost everyone raised their hands, and Krauss admonished them to stop being pessimistic. He said people have been worrying about downtown for decades, and downtown has survived.

He said that downtown businesses fill specialized niches. They might lose some price-shopping customers, but will keep others.

"Dennis, there's absolutely no way that anybody can put you out of business because of what you offer," he told Baird. "Yeah, they can beat your prices, but they can't beat you."

Editor's note: Wayne Krauss was referencing a conversation with another person who said small business owners should quit if they can't stand up to big business. The comment, included in Wednesday's edition of the Daily News and an earlier version of this story, was incorrectly attributed to Krauss due to a Daily News error.

"Forum on Hawkins deal brings questions, answers"

Let me sum up last night's Moscow Com, er, Civic Association forum on the Hawkins development.

Moscow will receive $170,000 a year for selling Hawkins the same water Hawkins could have been pumping themselves, versus nothing.

Leftists still view national chain retail as some sort of capitalistic murder-suicide plot versus an investment.

And Gerard Connelly is still against any retail development in Pullman.

Now, can everyone please shut up? It's a done deal.

From today's Lewiston Tribune:

MOSCOW - Secrecy in government and a hurried business deal became fodder here Tuesday night for a bevy of questions and answers, some lengthy explanations and at least one concession.

"Has the council learned a lesson? Absolutely," Councilor Wayne Krauss said during a public forum about the city's recent closed-door deal with Hawkins Companies developers. "Should there be more public process? Absolutely. I agree with that."

The city council voted 5-1 last month to provide water and sewer service across the state line to Hawkins' proposed 714,000-square-foot shopping center. The action came after 22 hours of secret mediation and no public input.

"We got bad results from a process that was dubious at best," said Dennis Baird, owner of the Wine Company of Moscow.

Krauss and Baird were joined on a panel by Councilor Tom Lamar and Tri-State business owner Gerard Connelly. The forum, attended by about 100 people at the 1912 Center, was co-sponsored by the Moscow Civic Association, the Moscow Chamber of Commerce, and the Palouse Water Conservation Network.

Lamar, the only council member who voted against the agreement, said while the city council was on firm legal ground, "morally I feel like we should have done a lot of things differently."

Connelly defended the intentions of all elected officials. "I believe that every single person on the old council and the new council, and the mayor, acted honorably. And don't question anybody's motives."

But he said retail development is not economic development. "Retail follows economic development," Connelly said, adding he couldn't think of a more important vote taken by a Moscow City Council than the rushed decision with Hawkins. And yet there was "woefully inadequate public comment."

Krauss pointed out the lack of public involvement and secrecy started when Mayor Nancy Chaney and members of the old city council went into executive session last year and apparently came to a consensus to appeal Hawkins Companies attempts to secure water rights for the development. Then the city, without public input, decided to enter into mediation, Krauss said.

"We suddenly found out, guess what, we're going to mediation next week," Krauss said of how the process was sprung on new council members. He, Chaney and Councilor Walter Steed attended the mediation session with Hawkins in Spokane. All had to sign a confidentiality agreement.

"We felt that the Hawkins development, it was coming no matter what Moscow did," Krauss said. If the city didn't supply sewer and water, Hawkins would drill its own well and sewer system. "So the next best thing was hammer out the best deal we can."

Krauss estimated Hawkins will pay the city upward of $170,000 annually for water and sewer service on top of thousands more for hookup fees.

Most of the written questions at the forum focused on details of the water and sewer deal, rather than the secrecy of the decision making.

Baird expressed his doubts about the development, saying local businesses will lose out. "And then the place will close ..., and the whole community will be stuck with less business and less tax revenue than we have right now. That's the scenario that I'm really afraid of, that the mall will succeed just long enough to sink a whole lot of ships in Moscow and Pullman ... and then fail."

Connelly predicted the shopping center would amount to the latest exercise in "economic displacement," not growth. Nonetheless, if the development is inevitable, he'd rather have it right next to Moscow than farther away. "The closer you can be to your competition, the better."

Concerns about the development using too much water, Krauss said, should be less under the proposed agreement because Moscow will be able to regulate the amount. He also said people who fear excessive water use by Hawkins need to be more concerned about residential developments that go in with little or no discussion about their drain on groundwater supply.

"Hawkins reactions reflect unneighborliness"

Another masterpiece from Michael O'Neal in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Two weeks ago, I offered some observations about the Moscow City Council's decision to peddle water to a proposed retail development over the state line. I took a tongue-in-cheek view of the kerfuffle based on frenzied reactions to the council's "betrayal" of Moscow and the preposterous notion that the five who voted for the sale should be booted from office.

This week, let me offer some less tongue-in-cheek observations, all admittedly based on utter ignorance of the intricacies of water law, though I suspect those intricacies perplex people who are smarter than I.

In the Bible, God gave humans dominion over the animals by giving us the power to name them. There's a class of amateur geologists in Moscow who seem to believe that if they can name the aquifer we sit on, it belongs to us.

But the water under our feet no more "belongs" to the city of Moscow than does the air surrounding us - as though, if a wind blows through, we have to go to the recorder's office and reassert our ownership rights to the new air. The aquifer, like the air, is an amorphous mass whose boundaries are difficult to define and whose contents alter over time. The water isn't Moscow's water, like a huge bottle of Evian. (Legally, it belongs to Idaho.) Rather, what Moscow owns is the right to pump the water out of the ground and deliver it. When we say we "buy water," that's a bit of a misnomer. We don't buy water, strictly speaking, as much as we buy a pumping and delivery service.

When you get down to it, it's no different from a brothel, where you buy a service, not a product (so I'm told). And as in a brothel, no matter how often you breathlessly pant a name, you don't own anything. Some people, though, think that by selling water over the state line, Moscow and its people are the ones getting screwed and the City Council members are the pimps.

But how so? Presumably, if the retail development goes in - and Moscow has no say in that matter - the developers will obtain the right to use water. They're going to get that water from either Moscow or Pullman. But it's the same aquifer. So what real difference does it make who sells the pumping and delivery service? The answer, I would argue, is simple. None.

What strikes me, though, is a kind of mean-spiritedness, a lack of neighborliness, about many of the reactions to the sale of the service, as though by driving over the state line, you enter an alien land populated by, I don't know, Romulans - or Republicans. But that's absurd. Moscow and Pullman are intimately connected. People who work in Pullman live in Moscow, and vice versa. Shoppers smuggle goods across the state line. The universities cooperate. The economic, social and cultural fortunes of Moscow and Pullman are symbiotically linked, and enhanced. But to read some of the feverish letters to the editor, we should be installing armed border guards.

Here's another way to look at it. Say my neighbor asks for an easement or a lot-line adjustment to access his property from mine. The only alternative for him is to cut in access from elsewhere, with tree cutting, blasting, and disruption to the landscape, all at huge expense. If I can provide that access, and indeed can sell it to my neighbor, it strikes me that refusing to do so is pure cussedness, a kind of me-first attitude that's indecent. At best, it leads to a misallocation of resources.

Similarly, if it would cost the developer piles of cash to dig in water lines from Pullman, but far less to pipe water - and not very much water - a hop, skip, and jump from Moscow, the neighborly thing to do is sell that service. Everyone benefits, including Moscow shoppers, who now maybe won't have to gas up to drive to Spokane or Lewiston, or even over to Bishop Boulevard.

But see, none of this is really about water. It's about development, which threatens the city's regressive "progressives." Development makes the pond bigger. And in a bigger pond, some of the fish start to look like sprats.

Sour Grapes Redux

Citizen Ament and his ponytail provided yet another angry and churlish reminder today of why he finished dead last in last November's Moscow City Council election.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

An economic assault on Moscow

When I took my seat on the Moscow City Council the Hawkins development was an inevitability.

By the end of my term [i.e., when the voters booted him out - tf] Hawkins was a possibility, nothing more. I took it for granted that it was my responsibility as an elected official to protect the natural resources and economic health of Moscow. [Obviously the voters disagreed - tf] The Hawkins development will be detrimental to both.

The possibility of the Hawkins project was so remote that without financial assistance the project would not move forward. Whitman County made the same bad decision that many other government entities have made - to offer financial incentives to lure new business. [That's why we're getting Hawkins and Home Depot ditched Moscow - tf] Then our Greater Moscow Alliance-dominated Moscow City Council went to work. I knew these guys had a business-first philosophy. I naively thought they meant Moscow business. Our GMA City Council made the Hawkins development a surety.

Moscow sits atop a resource that is in scarce supply worldwide - pure, clean, unpolluted water. We have yet to work out our own water issues. We need to carefully consider each new burden we place on our water supply. Our GMA City Council sees no need to conserve our water.

Our GMA City Council allocated our water to ensure growth in Whitman County. I am not opposed to growth in Whitman County. I believe we need a healthy region to have a healthy city. Placement by Whitman County of a "big-box village" right next to Moscow, miles from needed Whitman County utilities, is growth I can not support. The Hawkins development is nothing less than an economic assault on Moscow.

The GMA City Council voted against Moscow business and for squandering our resources. Thanks to our GMA City Council, Whitman County will be building infrastructure "in Moscow" that will ship our resources out, their waste in.

Aaron Ament, Moscow

WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH! You had your shot and voters overwhelmingly rejected your point of view. Get a life.

"Moscow meetings will face legal review"

As I predicted, an "onslaught of efforts" to overturn the Moscow-Hawkins water deal is underway. Dennis Baird, owner of the W(h)ine Company in Moscow, has asked for legal review of the council's executive sessions with regards to the deal. Five will get you ten, however, that Baird could really give whit about the secret exectutive sessions between Chaney and the previous council that led to the various Moscow appeals that stopped Hawkins.

From today's Lewiston Tribune:

MOSCOW - Downtown businessman Dennis Baird said Thursday he asked for a legal review of circumstances surrounding several city council executive sessions because government secrecy shouldn't be tolerated.

"The results of secrecy in government are almost always awful," said Baird, owner of the Wine Company of Moscow.

Latah County Prosecutor William Thompson Jr. accepted Baird's request and will be reviewing the matter next week. City Attorney Randy Fife, meanwhile, has said the city acted well within Idaho's open meeting law.

The debate swirls around the city council's recent 5-1 decision to provide water and sewer service across the state line for the proposed Hawkins Companies shopping mall. That action stemmed from an initial executive session last year after which the city appealed water rights transfers Hawkins had secured in neighboring Whitman County.

"The process was really terrible; making major substantive decisions on city resources in executive session is simply not a good way to run a government," Baird said.

There was no public discussion prior to the appeals being filed. Nor was there any public input prior to or after another executive session that resulted in a 180-degree turnaround to dismiss the appeals and ultimately offer water and sewer services to Hawkins. What's more, the deal with Hawkins was hammered out during a 22-hour secret mediation session in Spokane.

The city of Moscow issued a release Thursday stating the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board ordered the dismissal of all water rights challenges on Feb. 13 based on the negotiated settlement agreement.

And it's that process leading to the settlement Baird is challenging.

"It stayed awful from day one to day three," Baird said. "The problem is the process, the secrecy. The second part of the process problem was the rush to approve the secret deal. They could have waited another week."

The city had been taking heat since last summer from Whitman County officials who claimed Moscow overstepped its jurisdiction by filing the water rights appeals. The appeals, said the county's three commissioners, unjustifiably held up construction of the mall.

Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney, who signed the appeals, said they were filed out of concern for the region's groundwater resource. Critics across the border, however, said the legal maneuver was taken mostly to stymie retail development in the Moscow-Pullman corridor.

Baird said he doesn't like the city's decision to extend services across state lines. But he's most concerned about the action stemming from attempts to circumvent Idaho's open meeting law. "There's plenty of blame to pass around," Baird said about city officials who participated, including members of the past and current city councils.

Chaney, Fife and council members said they acted legally. The law allows for executive sessions to "discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated."

Baird said litigation usually refers to legal actions taken by others against the city, not actions initiated by the city. "Since the city had filed an administrative appeal in the state of Washington, I suppose that could be called litigation," he said. "But the things they discussed went way beyond anything that was subject to litigation, including committing the city's resources outside the state."

It Ain't Over 'Til The Hippie Lady Sings

As you may have noticed by letters and stories in the Daily News, the anti-growthniks in Moscow are not going gentle into that good night with regards to the Moscow-Hawkins water deal. Accusations of smoke-filled backroom deals, juicy quid pro quos for Greater Moscow Alliance members, and cries for a recall of city council members have been flying faster than a pair of stretched tights ripping at the Renaissance Festival.

But a more sinister threat is growing behind the scenes. King Solomon, ominously quiet during the drama these past few weeks, is working behind the scenes to thwart the evil plot of the running lap dogs of capitalism.

Exhibit 1: The following e-mail exchange between Solomon and the Deputy Attorney General for the Idaho Department of Water Resources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rassier, Phil
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:58 PM
To: 'Mark Solomon'
Cc: Haynes, Bob; 'rfife@ci.moscow.id.us'
Subject: RE: Moscow out of state sale of water

Mark,

This is a brief informal response to your request for my thoughts on your discussion set out below relating to the authorities under which the City of Moscow could seek authorization to provide water across the Washington state line. Many of the statutes and issues you discuss were addressed in the attached June 16, 2005 letter from Steve Strack of the Idaho Attorney General's Office to Randy Fife.

For the reasons stated in the Strack letter, the provisions of I.C. 50-324 do not provide usable authority for the City of Moscow in the present case. That statute provides authority for a city in Idaho to acquire and operate an out of state private water distribution system in order to supply water to the Idaho city from an out of state source.

The Strack letter also addresses the provisions of I.C. 42-401 governing applications for use of public waters outside the state. While this statute certainly governs applications by persons from outside the state it also governs applications from persons within Idaho who intend to "withdraw water from any surface or underground water source in the state of Idaho and transport it for use outside the state ..." To read the statute otherwise would mean the Legislature intended to withhold from Idaho citizens a benefit required under the Commerce Clause that is being provided to non-citizens. In my view, this would not be a plausable reading of the statute.

I appreciate your inquiry and hope you find this response helpful.

Sincerely,

Phil Rassier

________________________________

Phillip J. Rassier
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Department of Water Resources
322 East Front Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0098
Phone: (208) 287-4808
Fax: (208) 287-6700
Email: phil.rassier@idwr.idaho.gov

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mark Solomon [mailto:msolomon@uidaho.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 11:22 AM
To: Rassier, Phil
Subject: Moscow out of state sale of water

Dear Phil,

I am writing you today to seek your assistance in clarifying the statutory authorities under which the City of Moscow may seek IDWR permission to sell water across the Washington state line to a private entity. The city attorney, Randy Fife, and I have discussed this matter and come to diametrically held opinions. In the interest of resolving this issue as expeditiously as possible, informal guidance from IDWR, short of a court's determination, may serve all the interests at hand - especially if provided prior to an actual application from the City of Moscow to IDWR.

I understand from communications received by the City from IDWR that an application might be considered under 42-401 I.C. et seq. There is another statute within Title 50 (Municipal Corporations) that I believe may control in this instance as it is specific to the powers of a city regarding transfer of water across a state line.

50-324. CITIES AUTHORIZED TO JOINTLY PURCHASE OR LEASE, MAINTAIN OR OPERATE A JOINT WATER SYSTEM. All cities of this state are empowered by ordinance to negotiate for and purchase or lease, and to maintain and operate, in cooperation with adjoining cities of states bordering this state, the out of state water distribution system, plant and equipment of privately owned utilities used for the purpose of supplying water to the purchasing or leasing cities from an out of state source; provided, the legislature of the state in which such water distribution system, plant, equipment and supply are located, by enabling legislation, authorizes its cities to join in such purchase or lease, maintenance and operation. The city council of the cities acting jointly under this section shall have authority, by mutual agreement, to exercise jointly all powers granted to each individual city in the purchase or lease, maintenance and operation of a water supply system. (Emphasis added).

Here the state has spoken specifically to the conditions under which cities are authorized to distribute water across the state line. By my understanding of the rules of statutory interpretation, when a statute speaks specifically to a circumstance, it then excludes the extension of the power in question. In other words, by specifically granting cities the power to cooperate with adjoining cities in bordering states, the state excludes the cities' power to cooperate with other entities in the operation of a joint water system across state lines. If my interpretation is correct (and while I've read a lot of law, I am not a lawyer), then deciding how to proceed under 42-401 is a moot point.

If it is not mooted, then consideration of the other statutes is required. It is the City's position that 42-401 provides the authority and permitting process for its sale of water across the state line. A simple reading of the Chapter's title "APPROPRIATIONS FOR USE OUTSIDE STATE" would appear to support that position. However, a plain reading of the statute accompanied by its legislative history indicates that this statute speaks to a set of facts that do not fit the City's circumstances.

42-401 I.C. seems to be intended to address facts similar to those that gave rise to the U.S Supreme Court decision in Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 (1982) and the subsequent test of New Mexico's statute interpreting that decision in City of El Paso v. Reynolds (El Paso II), 597 F. Supp. 694 (D.N.M. 1984). 41-401 I.C. repeatedly refers to an applicant's use of water in an adjoining state as in Sporhase, not the provision of water by an entity in Idaho to a different entity in another state:(

2) Any person, firm or corporation or any other entity intending to withdraw water from any surface or underground water source in the state of Idaho and transport it for use outside the state or to change the place or purpose of use of a water right from a place in Idaho to a place outside the state shall file with the department of water resources an application for a permit to do so.

(3) In order to approve an application under this chapter, the director must find that the applicant's use of water outside the state.

(7) Upon submittal of the application, the applicant shall designate an agent in the state of Idaho for reception of service of processs.

Taken together the various sections of 42-401 seem to clearly imply that the applicant is an out-of-state entity with a water right in Idaho who intends to use the water outside the state. This interpretation would coincide well with the facts in Sporhase, but not with the intention of the City of Moscow to apply for a permit to sell water across the state line. Even if 42-401 could be read so broadly as to include such a sale, it appears the applicant could not be the City of Moscow but would have to be the out-of-state entity who intends to use the state's water. It is my reading that 42-401 et seq simply does not apply to the situation at hand no matter who is the applicant.

I understand that you would not want to comment on whether a legally viable application will or should be granted, but here, it appears that there is no legal means for the city to obtain the permit they have contracted to request. An informal opinion from you (perhaps to your director that could then be passed on to the city informally?) might save the city a lot of embarrassment, time, money, and public protest. If the City then chose not to file its application, the merits of the question "should the water use be allowed" would never need to be debated and protested in public hearings.

Your thoughts and guidance would be most welcome.

Sincerely,

Mark Solomon
Moscow, ID

Knowledgable observers believe this is just the beginning of an onslaught of efforts to bring pressure upon the Idaho Department of Water Resources and their upcoming decision to approve the water supply agreement.

The 2005 Moscow Water Transfer opinion by Deputy Attorney General Steven W. Strack attached to the e-mail is not promising. Click here to view a copy of this opinion. But that was a past IDWR director's interpretation of Idaho Code. The new IDWR director, Dave Tuthill, interprets the law somewhat more favorably for the extension of water services to occur across state lines. However, this will not stop the Aquinuts from trying to push this as far as they can. The Hawkins cause célèbre, as Gordon Forgey has called it, is still very far from over.

The pro-growth Moscow City Council members, or the "Hawkins 5" as they are being derisively dubbed, are being lambasted publicly in the most concentrated smear campaign we have seen on the Palouse since Jerry Weitz had the temerity to challenge the school levy.

I admit, it is tempting to sit this one out. A business-unfriendly Moscow is very business-friendly to Whitman County and Pullman. And Whitman County is covered with the infrastructure bond and Hawkins still has water rights it can pursue if IDWR doesn't allow Moscow to sell water. Hawkins can still build their mall. Many, including myself, would like to see Whitman County control the water for development in the corridor and not be dependent on Moscow.

BUT WE CANNOT LET THE LEFTISTS WIN THIS ONE!!!!!!! Thw Moscow City Council vote to drop the appeals and agree to sell water and sewer services was a HUGE kick in the teeth to the local socialists. The constant screeching and dramatic rhetoric is evidence of that. But if they manage to stop the water sale to Hawkins, they'll be emboldened to stop every new project by beating down everyone who supports it they way they have this time. And don't forget, there will be other developments in the corridor besides Hawkins. If they win this one, King Solomon and the Knights of the Water Table will oppose every one of them. The Moscow-Hawkins deal has thawed the Cold War between Whitman County and Moscow. It has reestablished relations between our two communities. And this is important. We are a regional economy sharing regional resources. We either work together or fail alone. Plus, as I have stated before, if you believe in preserving the aquifer, Moscow municipal water service will ultimately save more water than the original Hawkins plan for development of new wells.

Someone told me yesterday that, "I attended Mayor Chaney's State of the City address today. The elephant in the room (Hawkins) was never mentioned but many could smell the peanuts...."

What can you do? Consider writing a letter to the editor in support of common sense and the Hawkins-Moscow water deal, whether you are a resident of Pullman, Moscow, Whitman County, or Latah County.

Also, consider sending the Moscow City Council members an e-mail expressing your support:

Bill Lambert
Dan Carscallen
John Weber
Walter Steed
Wayne Krauss

You can also leave a phone message for the council members at (208) 883-7080.