[Vision2020] Water Concern?
pkraut at moscow.com
pkraut at moscow.com
Sat Oct 20 16:41:46 PDT 2007
Now in the interest of getting along and being nice...why don't you just
ask Wayne? Would you like it if someone took one thing you said out of
context and used it to suppose you KNOW all that you think?? I do not
think you would so call Wayne or show up to the next forum and ask him. I
have known Wayne a long time and do know how he feels about the water
problem but I still would ask him some questions and listen closely before
I decide I KNOW all about him.
> I guess this will be it for me since you're back to your old personal
attacks.
>
> First, you did not answer the question. I gave you a choice and you
chose
> neither. You evaded the question with a lame, general comment.
>
> Second, my comments about Krauss were based on a quote from a
> newspaper that covered the most recent debate. In the article, it said:
>
> "We don't have a water emergency. I think most of us can agree to that,"
> said Krauss. "We could have, at the least, 200 years of water left. ...
But right
> now, folks, I'm just really tired of seeing all our yards just burned
up,
> including the cemetery."
>
> How do you interprete that in any way other than the he thinks we have
at
> least 200 years of water left? It certainly does not sound like a
candidate
> who shares your stated views on water conservation, since he sees no
> emergency and thinks that we need to water the lawns more than we do.
>
> It is interesting that now, after you realize that evasion won't work,
you bring
> up the old Wilson excuse of Krauss being "quoted out of context."
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> Mr. Campbell fallaciously asserts:
>
> "Still you failed to answer my original question. If the information is
> conflicting, is it more responsible to err on the side of caution or to
> assume that we'll have water for the next 200 years, as GMA candidate
Krauss
> does?"
>
> Actually I believe that I have answered this repeatedly but I'll be
happy to
> indulge you and take yet another whack at it. "Conservation can never be
a
> bad idea." Heard that one before? Being cautious is fine but using the
issue
> to further an agenda that has precious little to do with water and every
> thing to do with a small group wanting to freeze Moscow at some
speciously
> idyllic point in time for their own pleasure is not.
>
> I must say I rapidly tire of hearing you, Ms.Swanson, Mr.Livingston, Ms.
> Lund, Mr. Hayes and the rest of the MCA cheerleading squad take comments
> made by Wayne and the others out of context and then draw erroneous
> conclusions from them. What has actually been said is:
>
> "Forward thinking on water means A SMART CONSERVATION PLAN, cooperation
> neighboring communities, sound research to identify the extent of our
> situation, and creative ways to use surface water."
>
> Not that there is unquestionably 200 years worth of water. Not that we
> should all water our lawns till they have the consistency of a bayou,
and
> most assuredly not that "we don't have a water problem. Let's use it up
> because it will be good for growth."
>
> I anxiously await your next misrepresentation,
> g
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>; "'Mark
> Solomon'" <msolomon at moscow.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 11:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?
>
>
> Not surprising that I've got your story wrong -- you keep changing it!
>
> When progressives like Ted advocate science in support of concern for
global
> warming, it is time to emphasize its fallibility. Yet this won't do if
it
> suits your
> political agenda, as in the case of the information from the City of
Moscow
> Water Department web site. You completely miss the fact that in as much
> as your comments undermine Ted's point, they undermine yours, as well!
> You are merely picking and choosing the science that supports your views.
>
> Still you failed to answer my original question. If the information is
> conflicting,
> is it more responsible to err on the side of caution or to assume that
we'll
> have water for the next 200 years, as GMA candidate Krauss does?
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> The point of the post you refer to wasn't to present an "anti-science
> stance." It was to remind folks that scientists are not gods and that a
> little bit of thinking for yourself and questioning some of what is
force
> fed to you by the media (and partisans such as yourself) might be a good
> thing. I don't remember anyone saying that "all science was junk" or
that
> "all peer reviewed articles are crap." But then again being accurate has
> always been much harder for you then being contentious and insulting.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>; "'Mark
> Solomon'" <msolomon at moscow.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:46 AM
> Subject: re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?
>
>
> Given the anti-science stance of your last post, which cited the
> non-existent
> Schwaller's anti-peer-review comments as support, there is no question
about
> whom you put your faith in.
>
> Mark replied to much of this. It is incredible to me how ignorant you
and
> the rest of the GMA are about the topic of water in Moscow. Incredible
but
> not surprising.
>
> Yet if science is a bunk of junk, what hope do you have of formulating a
> cogent argument? If peer-reviewed articles are all crap, so much the
worse
> for your appeals to your peers: 'Schwaller' and Wilson. If half of what
you
> say
> is true, we've steped behind the looking glass and talk is useless. The
fact
> that you continue to argue only shows that you don't really believe any
of
> it.
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> >From the City of Moscow water dept. web site:
>
> " Wanapum well levels in Moscow area wells fluctuate some due to pumping
and
> recharge but appear to be quite stable."
>
> And
>
> " Since 1990 in the Moscow area, the water levels in the Grande Ronde
have
> been very stable."
>
> Who should I put my faith in, Water dept. professionals or the chicken
> littles who would prefer to see Moscow as some sort of story book
fantasy?It
> really seems to me that water is the scare tactic du jour and campaign
issue
> of the moment for the MCA shills. Till they find a different drum to
beat.
>
> I repeat, Conservation can never be a bad idea but using the water
issue as
> a club to force other ideological visions on the community where they
don't
> apply (big box ordinances for one example) is disingenuous.
>
> g
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>; "'Mark
> Solomon'" <msolomon at moscow.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?
>
>
> There were so many things wrong with the Super Walmart plan it is hard
to
> begin.
> Some people noted the water issue – which is as pervasive as water
itself –
> but I
> never did. For one thing, we have a problem with west-east traffic flow
that
> a Super
> Walmart located on Route 8 would only exacerbate. This ‘plan’ is
indicative
> of the
> GMA approach to grow first and ask questions later.
>
> In your original letter on this topic you wrote: "Could be 50-75 years,
> could be 115-120
> years? Could be we really don't know for sure?"
>
> But if we really don't know for sure, is it wiser to ACT like we have
water
> for the next
> 200 years (Krauss: "We could have, at the least, 200 years of water
left"),
> or to act like
> we MIGHT have water for only another 50-75 years? Which would be the
better
> course
> of action if we wanted to, conservatively speaking, plan for the future?
>
> The MCA candidates do much better on this issue. Look at the original
> Johnson article for starters.
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> I beg to differ, when a rational was needed for denying a change in the
> comprehensive plan to accommodate a Wal-Mart in east Moscow water was
> brought up as an issue. Water use is currently being used to meddle in
> Whitman Counties Hawkins development. Water was cited as a reason to
oppose
> Naylor Farms.
>
> In reality the MCA candidates are not as knowledgeable on water issues as
> they (and you) would like to have us believe. The science is not settled
and
> there most certainly is not a emergency currently. Pretty much like Dan,
> Wayne, and Walt indicated.
>
> Water most certainly is an issue but it isn't a crisis and no quote you
can
> produce will change that fact.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>; "'Mark
> Solomon'" <msolomon at moscow.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?
>
>
> > No one is using the water issue "as a club to force other ideological
> > visions."
> >
> > The point is just that the GMA candidates are uninformed about water
> > issues.
> >
> > Voters need to know which candidates are and which are not informed
about
> > important local issues like WATER. Especially when this can be easily
> > conveyed by merely QUOTING the candidates comments during a DEBATE.
> >
> > --
> > Joe Campbell
> >
> > ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> >
> > =============
> > Conservation can never be a bad idea but using the water issue as a
club
> > to force other ideological visions on the community where they don't
apply
> > (big box ordinances for one example) is disingenuous. I don't believe
that
> > the GMA endorsed candidates are suggesting that we make a desperate
> > attempt to suck the aquifer dry before their terms expire. To suggest
> > otherwise is simply partisan politics at its worst.
> >
> > g
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
> > To: "'g. crabtree'" <jampot at roadrunner.com>; "'Joe Campbell'"
> > <joekc at adelphia.net>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "'Mark Solomon'"
> > <msolomon at moscow.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:29 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Water Concern?
> >
> >
> >>g -
> >>
> >> You suggested that perhaps none of the city council candidates have a
> >> firm
> >> handle on the water situation.
> >>
> >> If this is true, wouldn't it be better advised to err on the side of
> >> caution?
> >>
> >> Both Lamar and Ament cited PBAC as authorities on the figures they
> >> presented
> >> yesterday at the CofC Forum. Krauss cited "something [he] read
> >> somewhere"
> >> and Steed simply wants to remove limitations and controls.
> >>
> >> Your thoughts?
> >>
> >> Seeya round town, Moscow.
> >>
> >> Tom Hansen
> >> Moscow, Idaho
> >>
> >> "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The
college
> >> students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."
> >>
> >> - Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> >> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
> >> On Behalf Of g. crabtree
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:33 PM
> >> To: Joe Campbell; vision2020 at moscow.com; Mark Solomon
> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Concern?
> >>
> >> I assume the statement that includes "...regarding
> >> the upper aquifer which if continued to be pumped at current levels
could
> >> be
> >>
> >> in crisis as soon as 15-20 years from now." is couched that way to
leave
> >> room for the obvious corollary?
> >>
> >> Could be 50-75 years, could be 115-120 years? Could be we really don't
> >> know
> >> for sure? Could be that Krauss, Carscallen, and Steed have as firm a
> >> handle
> >> on the water situation as any of the MCA candidates do.
> >>
> >> g
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
http://www.fsr.com/
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list