Cliché Alert: "The Culture of . . ."

I read this headline the other day and was trying to figure out why it bothered me.

A culture of nagging helps California save water 

It seems to me that this phrase, "The culture of . . ." has been applied to so many things now that it's losing any serious meaning. 
Here are some examples I found googling "the culture of":


The Culture of Victimhood.

The Culture of Humiliation

The Culture of Drinking

The Culture of Fear

The Culture of Big Data

The Culture of Command.

The Culture of Criticism

This use of the term doesn't seem to fit the normal ways culture is defined.  The closest I could find was this Dictionary.com definition:

the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group:

the youth culture; the drug culture.

In some cases, it's a way of attacking an idea.  The culture of victimhood is used to attack the idea of micro aggression.   In other cases it may be closer to describing something like a subculture - a group of people with a similar set of general characteristics - like the culture of drinking.

At this point I'm not sure why this bothers me.  There's nothing wrong with coming up with new words and phrases to capture ideas that don't already have a word.  But this trend seems more like a lazy man's way of sounding deeper than he really is.  Just add "the culture of" to any phrase and it sounds almost like a serious scholarly study.  But some of these uses have no depth at all. 

Really.   Has California culture changed to where nagging is now a major characteristic of people living in the sunshine state?  Or does the author simply mean - 'nagging water wasters is becoming more prevalent?" 

Nine Percent of the US House Think Everyone Should Obey Them

According to the Clerk of the US House of Representatives, there are 247 Republicans, 188 Democrats, and 0 Independents, for a total of 435 Members of the House.  

Of these, "35-40" have been dubbed 'hard-liners' of the Freedom Caucus.  That makes them about 16% of the Republican members and about 9% of the Congress as a whole.  

Sixteen percent of Republicans and only 9% of the whole House think the other 84% of Republicans, the other 91% of the House, should drop what they believe and cater to this small minority's demands.  

In some ways it's reassuring that a small percent of a group can get people's attention if they feel really strongly about something and if they are willing to simply refuse to cooperate.  It's why dictatorships can be overthrown despite their power.  But that assumes the dictator is not as ruthlessly stubborn as the rebels are recalcitrant.  And that the rebels have something better to offer. 

Since I'm currently visiting my granddaughter, I can't help thinking about how familiar this behavior seems.  Here's a description of 2-3 year old social skills from Child Development Information:

Talks, uses “I” “me” “you.”  Copies parents’ actions.  Dependent, clinging, possessive about toys, enjoys playing alongside another child.  Negativism (2 ½ yrs).  Resists parental demands.  Gives orders.  Rigid insistence on sameness of routine.  Inability to make decisions.

Their sense of entitlement (a phrase they like to throw around) is staggering.   As the world changes, they are clinging and possessive about their toys.  And they're resisting parental (Speaker of the House?) demands they share a bit.  Instead they are giving orders.  And they rigidly insist on no taxes, cutting the budget, and getting rid of immigrants.

Which toys do they miss the most?   From Bloomberg News: 

“'We have emasculated ourselves because we have pretty much conceded that we don’t have the power of the purse,' said Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, a founding member of the Freedom Caucus, which continues to support Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla., for speaker." (emphasis added)

They no longer have the power they used to have.  As laws change to take down the barriers that blocked women and other ethnicities from power, white males are having to compete with less advantage than they used to have.  As women gain access to better jobs and control over when they give birth, they are less dependent on men.  Men are losing the power to control their wives.  Is it surprising that this group makes abortion a key issue?

OK, after making that generalization I realized I'd better check who is in this Freedom Caucus.  Wikipedia lists 36 members.  All but one are white males. (Mo and Jody look like men to me.)  The one female is Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming. I wonder if she feels emasculated. Here's the list from Wikipedia:

Known members

• Jim Jordan of Ohio, Chair^[14]
• Justin Amash of Michigan^[14]
• Brian Babin of Texas^[15]
• Rod Blum of Iowa^[15]
• Dave Brat of Virginia^[16]
• Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma^[17]
• Mo Brooks of Alabama^[18][19]
• Ken Buck of Colorado^[20]
• Curt Clawson of Florida^[21]
• Ron DeSantis of Florida^[14]
• Scott Desjarlais of Tennessee^[22]
• Jeff Duncan of South Carolina^[23]
• John Fleming of Louisiana^[14]
• Trent Franks of Arizona^[20]
• Scott Garrett of New Jersey^[14]
• Paul Gosar of Arizona^[24]
• Morgan Griffith of Virginia^[2]
• Andy Harris of Maryland^[15]
• Jody Hice of Georgia^[25]
• Tim Huelskamp of Kansas^[26]
• Raúl Labrador of Idaho^[14]
• Barry Loudermilk of Georgia^[25]
• Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming^[20]
• Mark Meadows of North Carolina^[14]
• Alex Mooney of West Virginia^[15]
• Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina^[14]
• Gary Palmer of Alabama^[17]
• Steve Pearce of New Mexico^[20]
• Scott Perry of Pennsylvania^[15]
• Ted Poe of Texas^[15]
• Bill Posey of Florida^[15]
• Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania^[15]
• Matt Salmon of Arizona^[14]
• Mark Sanford of South Carolina^[15]
• David Schweikert of Arizona^[20]
• Marlin Stutzman of Indiana^[15]

Microagression - Response to the Backlash

I've been thinking about the idea of fairness lately and want to write some on that topic.  Here's a related issue that I'll note for now.  

Little, isolated irritations can be brushed off by most of us, but when one becomes the victim of an onslaught of irritations, it can lead to more serious emotional problems.

That's the basic idea behind microagression.

The term has been specifically used to talk about how getting a daily flow of comments about one's race, religion, weight, or sexual orientation,  can take a heavy toll on people. 

Board members of Healing Racism in Anchorage talk about how the meetings are a place of refuge, a place where people understood their issues, where they didn't have to explain themselves.  That idea of needing a refuge, lends validity for me, of the idea of microagression. 

But there has recently been some pushback on that notion of microagression.  And here's a thoughtful response in the LA Times to that pushbook.

"Microaggressions hurt

By Regina Rini

   IF YOU live near a college campus or read anxious think pieces, you’ve probably heard about “microaggression.” A microaggression is a relatively minor insult to a member of a marginalized group, perceived as damaging to that person’s standing as a social equal. Examples listed on a blog called Oberlin Microaggressions include shopkeepers acting suspicious toward people of color, or someone saying to a Jewish student, “Since Hitler is dead, you don’t have to worry about being killed by him anymore.” A microaggression is not necessarily a deliberate insult, and any one instance might be an honest mistake. But over time a pattern of microaggression can cause macro harm by continuously reminding members of marginalized groups of their precarious position.    A recent paper by sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning claims that talk of microaggression signals the appearance of a new moral culture, a “culture of victimhood.” In the paper, Campbell and Manning present a history of Western morality.    First there was a “culture of honor,” which prized physical bravery. Insults demanded an aggressive reply. Picture two medieval knights glowering at each other, swords drawn.    Then the culture of honor was displaced by a “culture of dignity,” in which individuals let minor insults slide and reported more serious offenses to impartial authorities. Picture a 1950s businessman telling the constable about a neighbor peeking in windows.    Finally, there is an emerging “culture of victimhood,” in which individuals publicly call attention to insults in the hope of rallying support from others and inducing the authorities to act. Picture a Latina student tweeting about her professor’s racist comments.    There is a serious problem with Campbell and Manning’s moral history, and exposing it helps us see that the culture of victimhood label is misleading. .  .  ."

I've given the first few paragraphs,   You can read the whole article here.  

And if you think about how quickly white males of the Tea Party persuasion or some fundamentalist Christians feel attacked when other folks simply ask for fair treatment, you can see that the issue of sensitivity isn't limited to the marginalized of society. 

It's Not Repetitious If It Keeps Changing - LA To Seattle

Sometimes I think, enough already.  You have already posted pictures from airplanes.  But these pictures don't look anything like the ones I've done before.  Here are LA, Yosemite, and Seattle.

The black bar chart in the lower middle left is down town LA.

Half dome looms over Yosemite Valley.

Downtown Seattle has only one black monolith poking through the clouds.

Bullets For Better Brains Law - Feedburner Not Pinging Post

Not sure what to do here.  Feedburner sends blog posts off to blog rolls that list other blogs.  Usually it works, but sometimes it doesn't.  I put up "Bullets For Better Brains Law" yesterday, but it hasn't reached blog rolls that list this blog.  I've tried reposting it.  I've gone through the HTML to see if some screwy script was the problem.  I've tried posting via Safari instead of Firefox.  Nothing seems to matter.

So I'm doing this post to see if it will make it to blog rolls and then people can go to the link to see the other post.  So, here's the link again.

Looking for a link to put in for Feedburner, I got to the page that lists this blog.  It said I could subscribe to find out if there was trouble with my blog's feedburner.   I did.  it said everything is fine.

Good to know, but why isn't it pinging to blogrolls?

[update 9:40am  - this one worked.  Why didn't the other?  Mysteries of the web.]

Bullets For Better Brains Law [Reposted Slightly Amended]

In a piece in The Hill, Anhvinh Doanvo questions the Republican response that mental illness kills, not guns.

    "the record and policy proposals of most leading Republicans indicate  their interest in mental health is more of an excuse to not talk about gun control than a genuine effort to develop nuanced systems that reduce the federal budget and protect the safety of the public." 

The Republicans are strong on cutting the budget and strong on preventing any form of gun control.  Actually, I don't think that many of them care that much about stopping gun control, but their funders do.  So, here's my modest proposal to tie mental health funding to gun deaths:

Bullets For Better Brains Law

This federal law would commit $1 million dollars to mental health research, education, and treatment for every person killed in the United States by a gun.  The amount per death would increase by the number of people killed in a specific incident.  Thus, if two people were killed, it would require $2 million per death,  three people would be $3 million per death, four people would be $4 per death, etc.  So the recent Oregon shooting where ten people were killed would cost $10 million per death or $100 million.

A commission of educators, mental health experts, police, judges, social workers, family of gun victims, mental health patients, and suicide survivors would determine how the money is spent.

The intent of the law is to:

1.  Reduce mental illness in the US

2.  Increase understanding of mental illness

3.  Give budget cutting legislators more incentive to reduce gun deaths in the US

If the Republican theory is right, the more money spent well on mental health, the fewer gun deaths there would be.  As gun deaths drop, so would the budget.  For Republicans, it's win/win.  Gun deaths go down and the budget goes down with them.  (Not to mention the dropping of all the police, court, hospital, and emotional costs that are associated with each gun death.)  If the initial costs are a problem for Republican legislators, the money can be raised by taxing gun manufacturers to collectively cover the costs.  It would simply cover the externalities of their business which now are passed on to the public and not recaptured in the cost of guns.  That simply covers a basic market failure identified by Milton Friedman and other market economists.

However if their theory doesn't hold up and gun deaths don't go down, then mental health will prove not to be the critical issue, and the Republicans will have to face the possibilities that guns are the real problem.

Fiscal Note:  According to USConservatives (and supported elsewhere) there are about 32,000 gun deaths per year.   Thus, this bill would, to start, require an expenditure $32,000,000,000, though that number doesn't include the extra costs for multiple death shootings.  With every thousand deaths reduced, there would be a $1 billion cut to the budget. 

[Repost yet again cause Feedburner isn't feeding. For those of you who have already gotten here, I apologize. I've tried reposting it and pinging Feedburner manually.  This last attempt I've recopied it to word processing to get rid of any code and created a new post from there.  Let's see if it finally works.  All this assumes the problem is in the post, not with Feedburner.  Also, I'm doing it on Safari this time instead of Firefox.] 

Japanese Garden, Lilies, Birds, And Water

We visited with an old friend we hadn't seen in years.  She recommended the Japanese Garden in Van Nuys as the meeting place. 


Wow, we didn't even know it existed.  It was a great place to walk and talk. 

We know the Japanese Garden in Portland fairly well, having lived close to it when we were in that city for six months.   This one is totally different and interesting in its own way.

Lots of birds.  Like this osprey. 

And lots of lilies in a long flat rectangular lily and lotus pond.





And a wonderful way to catch up on lives. 







Not much time now.  Headed for the airport and Seattle before we get home.  If all goes well, we'll meet our granddaughter's plane in Seattle, which is why we're on such an early flight.  (Well, an 8 o'clock flight doesn't sound so early, it's getting to the airport on time that's the killer.)

So here are some of the pictures.

Lotus

Snowy Egret

There's an American Bittern sitting on the rock

There's also a very big modern building on the grounds that seemed too big and the style too space-agey for a Japanese Garden.  It turns out the garden is really part of a large water reclamation plant which sits directly next door and the building is for that rather than the garden. 


I didn't take any pictures of the building except of the garden through the walkway around the building.


The AAA explains this relationship:

"The Japanese Garden at the Tillman Water Reclamation Plant, 6100 Woodley Ave., is a water-treatment facility highlighted by a 6.5-acre Japanese garden."

It's a stark contrast between the garden and the plant which abut each other. 

And, apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks the building (not the plant, but the building which I didn't take pictures of) is space agey. From a Memory Wikia:

"The location can also be seen in episodes of Knight Rider (1986), Murder, She Wrote (1993), Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers (1995), L.A. Heat (1997), Charmed (1999), and Numb3rs (2009) and was featured in the action comedy Dead Heat (1988, starring Joe Piscopo), the crime drama Rising Sun (1993), the science fiction film CyberTracker (1994), the action film Red Sun Rising (1994), the comedy Bio-Dome (1996), the comedy Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997), the thriller Most Wanted (1997), the science fiction thriller Terminal Error (2002, with Marina Sirtis and Michael Nouri), and the science fiction film Sci-Fighter (2004). [1]"

Chuitna Citizens Coalition Gets Rights on Lower Reach of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 But Not Main And Middle Reaches

 The decision is just out.  Here's the DNR press release with links to the decision.  Haven't had time to figure out what it means.  At first glance this looks like a cutting the baby in thirds decision that will leave everyone dissatisfied, but then the parts of the Creek where rights weren't granted, it seems, weren't denied, but deferred because "they were not ready for decision."  

[Note at 11:17am same day after a little more careful reading:  It also says at the end:  "We will not approve significant impacts to the Chuitna River."  The mine plans to excavate thousands of acres 300 feet deep, including parts of the river.  They then say they will restore it after the coal mining.  But shutting down of the river - even if they actually can restore it later - has to qualify as "significant impacts" and so this seems to be a significant win for the Chuitna Citizens Coalition.]


Here's the press release: (with links to the whole decision)

"Decision reached on water reservation applications in Chuitna River watershed

The Division of Mining, Land & Water has issued a decision on the Chuitna Citizens Coalition Inc.'s three applications for instream flow reservations for Middle Creek/Stream 2003, a tributary of the Chuitna River. Two of the applications are for segments of the stream located within the footprint of the proposed Chuitna Coal project.
After review of the facts in the administrative record, public comments and hearing, the decision grants the Chuitna Citizen Coalition's application for the lower reach of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 but does not grant its applications for the creek's main and middle reaches. This decision does not award any permits or water rights to the proposed coal project.
This decision is a reasoned approach that reached conclusion on the lower reach of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 while denying the applications for reservations on the main and middle reaches because they are not ready for decision. The division cannot not yet determine, on this incomplete record, which of the competing applications for the same water would be subject to a preference as the most beneficial use. The division will adjudicate any remaining requests for water rights or instream flow applications in the Chuitna River watershed after the Clean Water Act 404, Surface Mining Coal Regulatory Act (SMCRA) and Title 16 fish habitat permits are done so that we can consider impacts to the watershed by an approved mine plan. We will not approve significant impacts to the Chuitna River. [emphasis added]

Please review the following documents to better understand the decision.

• October 6, 2015 Decision on water reservation applications for the Chuitna River watershed (PDF)
• Map of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 with reservation application reaches identified (PDF)

• October 7, 2015 Press Release (316 KB)"

OK, that's it for now.  The mine company, PacRim, and the various other opponents flat out said the reservation should be rejected, so in that sense it's a loss for them and a win for the Chuitna Citizens Coalition, but I hate to talk in terms of wins and losses.

This is not over and the decision is likely to be challenged in court. 

Dave Schade To Sign Chuitna Decision After Hours Tonight - To Be Posted Tomorrow Morning - Memos and Maps

As a blogger who works from home or wherever I happen to be, but basically without colleagues, I sometimes feel like maybe something happened but I didn't know about it.  I did google around to see if the Chuitna Citizens' Coalition application for an Instream Flow Reservation had been decided on before posting last night that the decision was due today.

This morning I checked the DNR webpages and also the Coalition's Facebook page, but there were no announcements.  I called the Chief of the Water Resources Management Unit, Dave Schade, who is the person who has to sign the decision.  His phone said he's out of the office for a week or so.  So I tracked down someone else and left a voice mail.

Elizabeth Bluemink called me back a bit ago to say that Schade will sign the document around 8pm tonight and that it would be posted tomorrow morning.  In the meantime, she's sending out copies of documents that are related but don't talk directly about the decision.

So I've posted them on Scrbd and embedded them below so you can look for clues to what the decision will be.

1.  A memo to the Commissioner of DNR called a primer on Types of Water Use.  This is sort of a Water Use for Dummies version that's pretty straightforward.  As I read it - having been to the objections hearing, but without any specific expertise here - it sounds like the opposition's arguments that the application should be simply denied was a lot of smoke.  But I'm sure there are subtleties here I'm missing.  Judge for yourself. 

2.  A list of water reservations certificates in Alaska.  There are 75 bodies of water listed (mostly rivers, then creeks, then lakes) and 131 certificates.

3. A map of the Chuitna Coal Mine project - which I can't totally make sense of.  I think my problem is that this is about the mine and doesn't identify the area where the Chuitna Citizens' Coalition is applying for the IFR.  But maybe I'm just missing it.

4.  The memo sent out to notify potential objectors to the reservation that the hearing would be held.  I don't have that up in this post, but I did post it before the hearing and have it at Srbd already.

Alaska DNR Types of Water Use Memo 9-30-15

Alaska Water Reservation Certification Status 09-29-2015

Chuitna Coal Mine Project Map - Alaska

IFR, Fish v. Coal: The Chuitna Water Decision Due October 6

Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2015 is the court ordered deadline for the Department of Natural Resources to make its decision on the Instream Flow Reservation application by the Chuitna Citizens Coalition.  I did a brief post during the lunch break for the hearing back in August and was hoping to try to give a better sense of what was argued.  But as a presidential candidate recently said, "stuff happens" and I didn't get around to it.

But tomorrow the decision is due and so I feel a need to at least say something here.  For a more organized view of the hearing itself, you can check Zaz Hollander's ADN article. 

Above everything, you need to understand what an IFR application is, because this hearing was about such an application.

This is important if you are to understand anything about this, because those opposing the application from the Chuitna Citizens' Coalition argued they had no business filing for this application in the first place and that DNR has only one option:  to reject it.   So Read Carefully.

So here's from DNR's own website:

What is reservation of water for instream use? A reservation of water for instream use is a water right that protects specific instream water uses,such as fish spawning or recreation. It sets aside the water necessary for these activities and keeps later water users from appropriating water that may affect the instream activity. Water can be reserved for one or more permissible uses on a particular part of a stream or lake during a certain period of time. Under AS 46.15.145, permissible instream uses include: Protection of fish and wildlife habitat, migration, and propagation Recreation and parks Navigation and transportation Sanitation and water quality A reservation of water for one use may also allow that same water to be used or reserved for another purpose. For example, a reservation for recreation may also benefit fish spawning. Like an out-of-stream water right, an instream reservation of water is similar to a property right. It cannot be abandoned,transferred, assigned, or converted to another use without approval of the Department of Natural Resources. Who can apply for a reservation of water? Private individuals,organizations, and government agencies may apply for a reservation of water for instream use.

Underlying Conflict

Essentially, the hearing exemplified the two narratives that were spelled out by sociobiologist E. O. Wilson's two narratives as he spells them out in his book The Future of Life.

"It's a battle between two narratives:

Narrative 1:

The free market is the most economical system for bringing prosperity to the world and government regulation just screws things up.

Narrative 2:
The free market has many positive benefits, but it also commodifies our collective resources resulting in the catastrophic destruction of the Earth's species and if we don't stop this trend immediately, we will destroy those things that makes life possible on earth."

 Essentially, the testimony given by the Chuitna Citizens' Coalition followed Narrative 2.  The testimony by PacRim and their supporters was based on Narrative 1.

It's sort of like the flat earth battling the round earth people.  Their predictions will be wildly different because they are beginning from wildly different assumptions about the nature of the world.  


This is going to be pretty quick and dirty because I squandered the month I had to write this.  (Presumably DNR's decision maker on this, Dave Schade. made better use of his time than I have.)

Background
PacRim proposes to build a mine.  Part of the plans call for them to excavate down 300 feet for thousands of acres, essentially wiping out the river.  Then they plan to restore that river to better than it was.  The Chuitna group doesn't believe that can happen.  They're applying for an instream flow reservation mainly because they are concerned about the salmon whose path to the tributary will be interrupted for the years that the mine exists. 

Also, there are different water bodies referred to.  There's the Chuitna and then the tributaries. 

Some issues that were raised at the testimony:

Procedural Issues

1.  PacRim argued that the Chuitna Citizens' Coalition shouldn't even be able to apply for an IFR.  They said this amounted to private citizens taking over public policy decisions the state should make.  CCC argued they would get no regulatory power, only the right to protect the river by getting the state to enforce their IFR.

2.  PacRim argued it's too early for them to apply for their own permit and CCC's permit shouldn't be reviewed until they are ready to have a competing permit.

3.  PacRim argued that if CCC got the IFR, it would kill the mine.  CCC argued PacRim's process could then keep going, but PacRim reps said their financial backers would all pull out because it would show the state opposed the mine.

4.  PacRim took the unusual position for a coal mining company (and it was echoed by the other resource extraction groups that testified) that the state and feds had excellent, rigorous regulatory processes that should be followed through that will protect the public and thus this IFR application was not only unnecessary, but counter to the process.   I don't recall so much praise for regulation by such organizations ever before. 

Measurement Issues

1.  Technical data about river, fish, flow, etc.  PacRim said that CCC's application was invalid because they had no data.  And what they had was methodologically flawed.  From my rough notes on the PacRim's first go at it:

"Lack of specific data.  Not even stream based data in places.  If the citizens coalition is asking to fulfill the role of government,  they should be at least as prepared as the government as another applicant.  That is the way it should be.  Huge problem.  Did not have site specific info.  Info about flow levels, specific features - ripples, spawning habitats.  At least one field season of work.  Methodology of their study is flawed.  Not appropriate here.  Quick and dirty method.  Hasn’t been validated for small streams like this."

The CCC argued there data and methodology were good, but PacRim's were bad.

2.  Economic Impact Data - PacRim's data focused on financial value of the coal.  CCC disputed their projections, saying there was nothing there to back them up.  Furthermore, given the change in the price of oil and the decline of coal everywhere, the PacRim project would now lose money.  CCC (different groups like Inlet Keepers also testified for CCC and I'm not distinguishing here who said what) also argued for considering a much wider range of economic impacts to be measured - the cost of the salmon fishery's damage, and even the cost of environmental infrastructure which helps clean the water and air and keeps the salmon and other species healthy.  They also talked about the recreational value of the land.  This is where the E.O. Wilson narratives seemed most obvious.

 Other Issues

There were a number of other interesting twists and I won't try to cover them all.  But a key one was the presence of the Alaska Mental Health Trust which stands to gain income from the mining on their land.  This income would be used to help provide mental health services in the state.

But I think the key issue is the conflicting narratives about the use of collective resources and private entities - whether they are coal companies or private citizens.

The impact of coal on climate change was also raised and how Alaska is the most impacted state already with melting glaciers and permafrost, eroding shorelines, ocean acidification, and loss of polar bear and walrus habitat. 



Criteria for the Decision

The criteria for making the decision are also listed on the DNR website: (I've reformatted them a bit to make it easier to read)

"When your application is complete, it will be reviewed to determine

• the need for the reservation of water and 
• its impact on other water right holders and 
• the public interest. 

An assessment will be made to determine if water is available for the reservation and if the information in the application is accurate and adequate. Public notice of the application must be given."

[UPDATE 10:41pm - here are the more detailed criteria I published in the August 20 post on this:

AS 46.15.080. Criteria For Issuance of Permit.

(a) The commissioner shall issue a permit if the commissioner finds that

(1) rights of a prior appropriator will not be unduly affected;

(2) the proposed means of diversion or construction are adequate;

(3) the proposed use of water is beneficial; and

(4) the proposed appropriation is in the public interest.

(b) In determining the public interest, the commissioner shall consider

(1) the benefit to the applicant resulting from the proposed appropriation;

(2) the effect of the economic activity resulting from the proposed appropriation;

(3) the effect on fish and game resources and on public recreational opportunities;

(4) the effect on public health;

(5) the effect of loss of alternate uses of water that might be made within a reasonable time if not precluded or hindered by the proposed appropriation;

(6) harm to other persons resulting from the proposed appropriation;

(7) the intent and ability of the applicant to complete the appropriation; and

(8) the effect upon access to navigable or public water.]

But whatever decision is announced tomorrow, you can rest assured it will be challenged by the party whose argument did not prevail.  This is just the beginning.