Candidates Tim Chesnut and Pete Gosar responded to the Albany County Clean Water Advocates’ questionnaire and their answers are shown below. Candidates Jerry Kennedy and Heber Richardson declined to answer, but their responses to a related question in the Laramie League of Women Voters’ primary election guide are provided below.
Voters also may wish to read candidates’ responses to the League of Women Voters general election questionnaire, which included questions pertaining to land use and city-county cooperation. County Commissioner answers begin on page 20. (This link is provided as a service to voters; there is no organizational connection between the Laramie League of Women Voters and Albany County Clean Water Advocates.)
1. The county aquifer protection law now on the books prohibits the use of certain scientific data. The forbidden scientific evidence would help define an accurate western boundary for the aquifer protection area, thereby preventing inappropriate development in the aquifer protection area. (reference: Albany County Zoning Resolution, Chapter 3, Section 3, Subsection D(3))
As a County Commissioner, would you vote to repeal this anti-science language from the Albany County Zoning Resolution? Please give a reason for your answer.
Tim Chestnut – I voted against this language when it originally came before the County Commission as the “Kennedy Compromise” and I would do so again.
Pete Gosar – Decisions made on behalf of the citizens of Albany County and in the shadow of Wyoming’s only 4-year university must be based on the best available science. As a member of the Albany County Commission, I would lead efforts to repeal any law that prohibits the use of scientific data. The County must collect and use all available scientific data when discussing issues or crafting solutions, especially on issues as important as the Casper Aquifer. Limiting scientific research and the use of scientific data limits the County’s options. Fewer options will not improve the chances of finding a lasting solution to the protection of the Casper Aquifer and the drinking water of a vast majority of Albany County’s residents.
2. The aquifer protection area lies mostly in the county, while the Casper Aquifer provides about half the drinking water for the vast majority of county residents who live in or near the City of Laramie. Recognizing this common interest, the Casper Aquifer Protection Plan began as a joint city-county document.
As a County Commissioner, would you support returning to a unified Casper Aquifer Protection Plan? Please give a reason for your answer.
Tim Chestnut – It makes sense to do a unified aquifer protection plan, but the current makeup of the County Commission would not allow that to happen. It is in all of our best interest to protect the Casper Aquifer and having two plans does not serve the best interest of the people who depend on this vital resource.
Pete Gosar – Clean water is vital to the health, welfare, and future of Albany County and it seems entirely logical to return to one set of rules when protecting the water that so many in Albany County depend upon. It makes sense that an open, fair and equitable process can lead to a unified approach to protecting the Casper Aquifer and I am committed to seeing that all perspectives are heard. It is my belief that a Casper Aquifer Protection Plan that is scientifically valid and fair is obtainable and can be reached using a transparent process. Clean water is just too important and a single unifying plan for aquifer protection must be a priority.
3. Acquisition of the Pilot Hill property would protect 13% of the Casper Aquifer protection area as open space.
As a County Commissioner, will you commit to using the commissioners’ zoning authority to protect the remaining 87% by maintaining large-lot and/or agricultural zoning over the currently undeveloped portion of the aquifer protection area? Please explain.
Tim Chestnut – It is important to balance land use through zoning, but at the same time allow the community to grow in a sustainable way. Large lot subdivisions seem like a good idea, but you have to plan for growth allowing commercial development to mesh with residential so that we don’t land lock our community like has happened in Cheyenne.
Pete Gosar – The Pilot Hill land purchase represents an investment in the future for Albany County, its residents and I wholeheartedly support it. The Pilot Hill purchase will preserve critical open space, allow people to connect to their public lands and at the same time, protect 13% of the Casper Aquifer However, the residents of Albany County would be well served to elect representatives that will continue to work diligently until 100% of the Casper Aquifer is protected. The economic development of Albany County depends on the protection of our clean water source and luckily, there exist comprehensive studies that point the way forward. The current Casper Aquifer Protection Plan recommends large-lot or agricultural zoning, conservation easements, and other mechanisms to preserve open space and it makes sense to follow these thorough and well-reasoned recommendations.
4. The county’s portion of the 2010 specific purpose tax provided $250,000 for aquifer protection in the I-80 corridor. Some of this money was spent on a study of various protection options, but none have been implemented.
As a County Commissioner, what would you do with the $210,000 remaining from the 2010 specific purpose tax collected for aquifer protection in the I-80 corridor?
Tim Chestnut – It has always been my focus to work with the city and WYDOT to come up with solutions to the looming dangers of I-80 and its impact on the aquifer. It will take partnerships and possibly federal funding to mitigate this problem, but it will take millions of dollars to do anything more than a bandaid approach.
Pete Gosar – First and foremost, one recommendation of the aquifer protection study was to establish a comprehensive groundwater monitoring network to collect baseline data and to monitor changes in groundwater quality. In cooperation with the city, I will work to find the funds to implement the crucial collection of this data. The study further laid out several options that could be easily implemented now, including: Water Supply Protection Area road signs urging all passersby to immediately call 911 in the event of a spill; providing additional training to local emergency response personnel; constructing a supply shack containing spill containment materials for ready use by emergency response teams; and establishing an arrangement with an environmental services contractor to respond in an emergency. The collected specific purpose tax funds could be spent on these simple and relatively inexpensive steps toward protection and it is concerning that none of these options have been implemented.
5. The objection to regulating land use within the aquifer protection area seems to be based on a commitment to “private property rights.” However, Wyoming’s constitution gives ownership of water to the people, through the state. Decisions to allow development that may contaminate the aquifer risks the rights of other property owners without their consent.
As a County Commissioner, how would you resolve these competing property rights?
Tim Chestnut – It is in everyone’s best interest to protect the Casper aquifer and I don’t see why anyone who would develop on or near this resource that wouldn’t recognize that growth and protection is a win/win situation for everyone.
Pete Gosar – As an elected representative of the residents of Albany County, I believe it is a county commissioner’s responsibility to put the public interest first. I am a Wyoming native and believe in the protection of personal rights and liberties, including private property ownership rights. However, protecting a clean water drinking water supply for tens of thousands of people has to be a top priority. Albany County cannot rely solely upon state agencies to detect or prevent contamination threats, and we do not need to. We have the ability and necessary resources required to protect an irreplaceable resource like the Casper Aquifer in our own community. It is just too important not to. A comprehensive and lasting solution will require a thoughtful collaborative process with input from all stakeholders including the residents of Albany County, the City of Laramie, the University of Wyoming and the State of Wyoming agencies and representatives. I am convinced that a single Casper Aquifer Protection Plan will serve as a unifying document, protect the aquifer for future generations and reduce unnecessary duplication of services.
6. What do you see as the major issues affecting the Casper Aquifer, and how would you address them?
Tim Chestnut – I-80 and the thousands of hazardous loads that cross the aquifer every day is to me the biggest threat. As I said before it will take partnerships and a lot of money to divert a potential spill that is bound to happen someday.
Pete Gosar – The majority of the current commission seems to have tremendous reluctance to make aquifer protection a priority. There are very few issues that impact health, safety and the future like water resources, and I would make aquifer protection a top priority. The practice of ignoring data available from geologic mapping and well drilling must end. I would take advantage of all free resources, including expert scientific assistance and data, available from entities such as the city-county Environmental Advisory Committee and the University of Wyoming. The fact that aquifer protection has been turned into a political football by creating dissension between the city and county when we should all be working together, is a shame. I would strive to maximize information sharing and cooperation for the benefit of all county residents and taxpayers. I see no need to threaten homeowners currently in an aquifer protection area, whose impact is small, nor do I see a need to promote additional development that would endanger the aquifer. I do see a need, however, to craft a single Casper Aquifer Protection Plan that is based upon the best available science and does all that is possible to protect our drinking water.
Candidates Jerry Kennedy and Heber Richardson declined to respond to the questionnaire. Absent a response, here is their answer to an aquifer-related question published in the Laramie Boomerang/League of Women Voters’ primary election Voter Guide (August 5, 2018).
How do you interpret the responsibility of the county commissioners with regard to drinking water quality for all city and county users?
Jerry Kennedy – I previously served 12 years as Albany County Commissioner. We worked hard to make sure Albany County had regulations in place for well heads as well as regulations on septic systems and encouraged well drillers and septic installers to be qualified. It is important that County Commissioners do not encourage economic developments and subdivisions that may pollute the aquifers.
Heber Richardson – Tough question. The water in the ground belongs to the state. It isn’t ours until we pump it to the surface. The county has the prime responsibility after the state to protect the water we all use because the aquifer recharge area is largely outside the city. We can only do it through rules for land development. It is difficult to balance private property rights and the public’s need for clean water. We also can and will complete the Pilot Hill land purchase to preserve the land for conservation and recreation.