PUMPS: Blatant over-reach

Dear Mr. Scott and board members,

As employees of the taxpayers of Idaho, I am shocked and outraged that you and your fellow members appear to fear public and legislative oversight of your board’s actions. So much so that you called for an emergency meeting on Monday, March 7. Why? You appear to believe that you and your board operate in a vacuum and that what you decide is the gold standard and cannot be questioned.

Your attempt to force the removal of submersible pumps being used for residential use in the lakes of this state is a huge over-reach, and it’s apparently solely based on a white paper produced by one of your members. Where was this white paper published? Has there been a peer review of the paper? Where can I go to read this paper? Where and when have you and your board held hearings on this subject? Where was the public notice of those hearings? Where is the anecdotal evidence of ANYONE EVER being shocked in an open body of water in this state, or elsewhere for that matter? It appears that you have stumbled on a solution and are looking for a problem where no problem exists.

What physical, financial or economic analysis was performed when considering this change? Did your board determine the number of homes this rule will impact? Have you done any research on the cost to remove and replace existing systems with your proposed system? Have you considered the impact that an outright ban would have on the real estate markets for lake property? The only beneficiaries of this rule will be the plumbing contractors and suppliers as well as the taxing and code enforcement entities that will levy a fee to permit for the new installation. And the state doesn’t even have a process for determining which pumps would be safe.

Any argument about banning submersible pumps should also include full disclosure of the numerous weaknesses of a shore-based system. It is far more efficient and requires less energy for a pump to push liquid uphill; a pump that is sucking the fluid must inherently be larger than a submersible, is less efficient even with that increased size. It consumes more energy while operating, costs more initially and requires thermal protection (more energy) for the winter months. Finally, the simple requirement of a GFIC installation on any circuit that is in or near a body of water will accomplish the same thing. That’s the way my system is connected and it’s worked well for decades.

W.L. BILL HAMILTON

Coeur d’Alene