"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.

"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.

Non Sequitur of the Day

Instead of waiting until gas is $9 per gallon, we could seek to develop augmented water supplies.

- Chuck "Mr. Civil Discourse" Pezeshki, "Like it or not, change is coming for us all," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, May 10, 2008

Huh? What does the price of gas, which we have no control over, have to do with water supplies?

Runners-Up:

We could pull out all the stops and work toward developing sustainable housing close to the university, where many of the staff that now must commute from Colfax, could live.

Apparently, with Chuck away in Europe, he didn't hear that College Hill has been designated a historic district listed with the National Register of Historic Places. Good luck putting in your "sustainable housing" now. Those drafty, old, energy inefficient houses are here to stay.

We could work toward making both Moscow and Pullman the most bike-friendly communities in the West, and move the majority of our student population toward cycling.

Ditto. Chuckie must not be aware that Pullman was recently named one of the most pedestrian-oriented cities in the U.S.

We could actively engage our organic farming faculty toward a goal of campus food self-sufficiency.

I can't wait to see the organic farming faculty grow enough food to feed 18,000 students.

Honorable Mention:

Some of our faculty and staff in my university building, from professorial to janitorial, still drive from homes far distant, alone in their pick-up trucks, spending up to 15 percent of their take-home pay on gas.

15 percent?

We celebrate the commissioning of an unnecessary and useless golf course that will only further deplete our pristine water supply.

I am definitely taking up golf because it pisses off the liberals so much.

We still welcome obesity with our dietary choices.

What a rant. Chuck is taking swings at everything that makes him mad, including apparently, fat people driving pick-up trucks. You gotta love the intolerance of the "tolerant."

Instead of having city councils making backroom deals for large developments promoting failed models of consumerism, we could have our local governments actively address some of these big issues.

"Failed model of consumerism?" Unfortunately for Chuck and his fellow socialists, consumerism hasn't failed. Otherwise, Hawkins wouldn't be building a mall. And just what would he have local governments do? It's the people that decide where they want to shop last time I checked.

"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.

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.