[Vision2020] The GWPZ Hearing

[Phil Nisbet]

I really feel that I have to say this as clearly as I can.

Last night at the hearing I was accused of being arrogant for stating that 
the groundwater protection zone ordinance does not do anything with regards 
to irrigation water requests to IDWR or the potential that IDWR will approve 
irrigation permits in the GWPZ.

First, I do not own any land nor am I involved in any project or property 
that would want or desire a water right in the GWPZ.

Second, neither the ordinance nor any County passed law has the ability to 
change the fact that water and its control is the Idaho Constitutional realm 
of the Idaho Department of Water Resources and that no law passed by the 
county can have an impact on that duty and right of IDWR.

So, if somebody in the future applies for a water right, it will be 
considered and will not and can not take into account any restrictions that 
the county might chose to impose.

Further, the Planning Commission itself stated pretty clearly that because 
of Idaho's Right to Farm legislation, the GWPZ Ordinance was not being put 
together to regulate any farming practice and that included agricultural 
irrigation practices.

It was stated that I was arrogant because I thought I could 'just go out and 
apply for any old water right I wanted with the county not having a say'.

That’s wrong on the above two points.  First, I do not own any land in the 
area in question so I can not apply for the water because I have no possible 
use for it or right to it under Idaho law.  But if I did own property, yes, 
I have a right to apply to IDWR and do not need to ask the county's 
permission to do so.

Those are facts.  Stating the facts is not arrogance, its simply giving 
people an understanding of what they are actually doing.

The ordinance allows large water uses like golf courses.  The ordinance does 
not restrict large developments or commercial developments.

According to the EPA, housing and commercial development are the largest 
disruptors of groundwater flow patterns.  Tens of acres of ground every year 
in the GWPZ are turned into those sorts of developments.  Hundred of acres 
in the zone of city impact are similarly impacted.

Who got restrictions or out right bans were gravel mines, livestock 
operations and similar activities.  Those activities impact fewer acres a 
year and not one of them is a long term flow restriction to groundwater.

You do not see any long term requirement that housing ever be reclaimed.  
Once that house or strip mall is there, its going to be there forever.

Yes, as one very nice lady suggested to me, people have to be housed.  But 
houses are made out of rurally produced materials, timber, rock, cement, 
brick, sand and gravel.  And people have to have water to drink, but if 
their consistent building practices restrict and restrict groundwater flows, 
they will slowly but surely destroy their ability to get drinking water.

And bans and restrictions to less than 1% of the problem on the lands of 
less than 1% of the population are not going to have much of a real impact.

Yet too many at the hearing seemed to think that somehow the ordinance 
'solved the problem' or that it would stop the entire sprawl and gobbling up 
of farm lands.  I would guess that it is arrogant to say that if they read 
that ordinance, it does not stop the sprawl or restrict large new water 
users or keep the farm lands in place.

The Sub-Committee that drafted this ordinance did the best they could to 
draft an ordinance that did some good, but the real strong interests, the 
big economic guns are left free and clear.  That’s politics, but the problem 
is not solved.  Frankly the group needs to continue its work and do a lot 
more to come up with solutions that will address the problem more 
completely, before somebody arrogantly builds a 40,000,000 gallon a year 
golf course or develops the next several hundred acres of water consuming 
housing project.

So when the Water Summit comes in October, I hope that the people who were 
there last night and were sure that the problem was solved take the time to 
attend.  There is still one heck of a lot more that needs to be done if the 
real root of the problem is ever to be solved.  Its going to take a lot more 
than the ordinance of last night to set this community on the path to a 
viable water future and as many people in the community as possible need to 
be working on it.  The Commissioners are struggling to do that and need all 
the help they can get to get the job done.

Phil Nisbet

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963