Byway supporter got facts wrong

Mr. Fury, how about getting your facts straight before mouthing off?

Fact 1: The Clean Water Act applies to all waters of the U.S., including Sand Creek. While you may dispute the fact that Sand Creek has ecological, aesthetic, recreational and economic values that will be destroyed if the highway in Sand Creek is built, these values are real (ask the downtown businesses situated on the creek) and the Army Corps is required by law to consider them when deciding whether to issue a permit for the proposed massive fills and dredging.

Fact 2: NICAN's lawsuit has been delayed, but not because "it has no merit." ITD has yet to produce the Administrative Record (AR) for the case. he AR (project documentation) must be provided to the U.S. District Court and NICAN's attorneys before the case can proceed. NICAN's suit was filed in July, 2005 — 16 months later ITD has missed three court-ordered deadlines to produce the AR.

Fact 3: What is your basis for categorizing Liz/NICAN as pro-development? Our position is that the highest and best use of the Sand Creek Peninsula would be a public park, with recreational amenities and no freeway.

Thanks for helping get the word out about the Army Corps/ IDL Public Hearing on Nov. 20 on ITD's application for permits. We hope that your staunch pro-"byway" folks are well enough informed about the law to make coherent, meaningful comments this time, instead of blathering on "been waiting 50 years," etc.

Finally, this is not a popularity contest. So even if you could produce conclusive evidence that as of today the majority of locals are in favor of the "byway" — it would not matter. The Corps' decision will be based on federal regulations, which the proposed project will violate. Get informed.

LIZ SEDLER

Sandpoint