> on another topic--did i hear that you were exploring an initiative to limit
> growth in latah county? i didn't know that initiatives worked at the
> city/county level. if they do, and you are, i'd be interested to know if
> you'd hang such a proposal on keeping the demand on the aquifer to the 1%
> growth rate.
A growth management initiative is something that I could get behind.
The postive side of an initiative campaign is that one is on the
offensive, rather than defensive. An initiative is a proactive,
feel good, effort while public hearings amount to a form of punishment.
With an initiative, citizens can *define* the future desired state
of the city/county.
I've looked into the initiative process. In fact, I'm leading a
statewide initiative on black bear hunting reform. Initiatives
are options at both the city and county level. To qualify an
initiative for Moscow, we would need to collect valid signatures
equivalent to 10% of those that voted in the last election.
If I were to draft a growth management initiative, I would tie
growth to the demand on the aquifer. The current aquifer agreement
is voluntary. The city continues to annex without regard to water
usage. (Moscow has used above its share of allocation the
last 2 years).
Even though the 1% figure is an estimate, it would still be worth
requiring cities/universities to adhere to the agreement. A growth
management initiative would codify what is now voluntary (and
ignored) in planning decisions.
> at a recent 2020 mtg there was talk of doing something to boost public
> awareness of the aquifer issues as part of the water summit. i'm still
> trying to imagine a water-table drawdown game. nothing brilliant so far.
Sounds interesting.
-- Greg Brown gregb@uidaho.edu Computer Services Moscow, ID 83843 University of Idaho (208) 885-2126