vision2020
Re:Groundwater Forum
- To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
- Subject: Re:Groundwater Forum
- From: "Brent Capener" <cape@moscow.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 10:57:22 -0800
- Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 10:57:26 -0800 (PST)
- Resent-From: vision2020@moscow.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <2RmGGD.A.XGU.S-839@whale2.fsr.net>
- Resent-Sender: vision2020-request@moscow.com
I also
attended the two Ground Water forums, and would like to thank
online those who are spending much time and effort on this issue for
putting on this public showcase. To those that missed out: it was well
presented, well attended, informative, and the free carrot cake and cider didn't
hurt either.
A couple V2020 questions
were answered during these presentations. Why aren't county reps. more
concerned about Naylor Farms' application, since most rural residents rely on
wells for their domestic water supply? Answer: There are essentially
three different 'communities' of water below us - ground level, upper aquifer,
lower aquifer. Almost all rural wells use ground level; Moscow and Pullman
use the upper and lower aquifer. Naylor Farms' have
applied for rights to the two aquifers, therefore their use would
effect the cities, but not county residents on private wells. Why are
these negotiations between Naylor Farms and the cities of Moscow and Pullman still off limits to the
media and public? It was explained that if the meetings were
open to the public or announced 'real time' to the media the discussions
very likely would fall into an 'us versus them' adversarial
battle with little hope of resolve or compromise. Kind of
like V2020 when it gets heated up about something. Our
city reps. chose to go the path of listen, talk, reason, and resolve,
within a limited group setting.
About the water dept. "making a
profit". I interpreted Mark as stressing that the water dept. budget
should be kept in the black, rather than largely in the red has it has been in
the last several years, and would rather use the phrase "building
reserves". I do share Garrett's concern about revenue flow
influencing pricing policies. Last year's increase of the base rate while
leaving the consumption rate the same was all about revenue, and I believe very
misguided. The city fears that if the price of consumption increases, use
will decrease, thereby resulting in insufficient revenue. Although this is
a valid concern, I believe it is overblown somewhat. We are not
yet in 'panic mode'. A small adjustment in the pricing schedule would make
little difference to the dept.'s revenues or to consumption rates, but might
yield a little data to extrapolate from.
BC
Small print: Info provided here is 'as interpreted
by me', not official by any authority
Back to TOC