Time for a ‘rural vs. urban’ truce — A Longer View

Like a massive glacier irresistibly grinding across deserts, mountains and county boundaries alike, Idaho’s population is shifting from rural to urban.

That’s not new news. Over time, Idaho has witnessed the steady exodus of people from rural to urban areas. But this shift has accelerated in the past three decades.
It’s reached the point where it’s creating new political realities that must be recognized in dealing with future problems. These “realities” will be institutionalized in the legislative redistricting process after the 2010 census, emphasizing the long-term shift of political power from rural areas to urban centers.
The “news” is, it’s long past time for the players in Idaho’s political system (including us citizens) to get over the harmful geographical jealousies that have pitted region against region – usually, the rest of the state versus what is scathingly referred to as “The Great State of Ada.”
(This attitude amazes me. I’ve never heard of, or attended, a meeting where participants plotted darkly to “stick it to the rural folks.” But I’ve been in a hundred meetings where those involved were bent on killing an idea because they feared it might benefit the state’s main population center as much as or more than their rural-oriented home districts. The jealousy is counterproductive because that metropolitan area is the chief driver of Idaho’s economy.)
Change is coming for two reasons: (1) redistricting moves legislative districts from east to west across Idaho after each decade’s U.S. Census, and (2) emergence of urban slants on traditional issues like transportation, taxation, air quality and water.
Right now, 25 percent of Idahoans live in Ada County. Add in Canyon, and the two-county population share is 37 percent. Extend the lines to include the 10 southwest  counties, and this one corner contains 44 percent of all the people in Idaho. Here, for ruralites, are the grim population facts:
• Reapportioned after the 1970 census, Ada County had six legislative districts, Canyon County three and the rest of the state 26 full districts.
• After 1990 reapportionment: Ada County seven districts, Canyon County three, the rest of the state 25.
• After 2000 reapportionment: Ada County eight districts, Canyon County three districts and parts of two others. The rest of the state had 22 full districts and two shares.
• After 2010? Ada County’s population will deserve nine full districts. Canyon County should get four full districts and part of a fifth. But with the 10 southwest Idaho counties hosting 44 percent of Idaho’s population, that area should get 15 full districts and part of another, leaving the rest of the state with just 19+ districts.  
Urbanization creates new, specifically urban, responses that change the way we address many issues – including such questions as:
Create a new community college? In 2006, more than two-thirds of voters in Ada and Canyon counties created a new College of Western Idaho. An outcome like that in any other part of Idaho? Won’t happen.
Extend and raise Ada County’s vehicle registration fee? The most convincing proof of the emerging urban mood is 67 percent voter approval to extend the local motor vehicle registration fee for another 20 years, and, in the process, double it. That amounts to approval of a local-option tax, and we know the knee-jerk reaction (no, and hell no) in other areas to the unfailingly controversial local-option tax issue.
But there’s another point on which rural and urban voters have fundamentally different takes – that ne plus ultra of all Idaho issues: WATER.
Historically, Idaho water management has prioritized agricultural uses, with urban needs a secondary concern. But as growth multiplies urban water needs, urban users increasingly will compete with rurals for available water. And remember Cadillac Desert author Marc Reisner’s famous quote: “Water runs uphill, toward money.”
Managing Idaho’s water in the best interests of all concerned will require a whole new willingness to discuss, negotiate and compromise. There already are Idahoans who recognize this new reality – the necessity of urbans and rurals working together.
In Rexburg, the heart of irrigation country, Chris Mann “gets it.” The president of the Rexburg City Council recently told me, “I hope we never get to that point where agriculture and urban folks fight over water, because rural interests will lose when water becomes a ‘money’ question. We’ve got to get together at the same table and make sure it works for both parties.”
And David Tuthill “gets it.” The director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources says, “Negotiation is the key to dispute resolution. Ultimately, the best solutions are crafted by the parties as they review issues. The sooner these interests get together, the more satisfying the solutions will be, and at the least cost.”
To manage this ongoing rural-to-urban power shift, rural legislators should be building bridges to their urban brethren to have effective working relationships in place when the inevitable tough issues – like water management – arise.  
The time is past for handling Idaho issues as “either-or” propositions. It’s no longer “You” versus “Me.” From now on, it’s got to be “Us.” What we must all focus on, going forward, is “The Great State of Idaho.”