Stephanie Mickelsen — She was called on for a motion.
Dustin Manwaring — Warned that introducing the bill could imply Idaho should renegotiate prior decisions made over the last 15 years.
Dustin Manwaring — Invited a response and then reiterated that the issue was not a big deal, noting Singapore Air Force training at the base and a permanent facility for Qatar.
Dustin Manwaring — Said Qatar's facility would include buildings and additions, and argued that wealthy countries should help pay for the project.
Dustin Manwaring — Clarified that the bill would simply ask for reimbursement or a rental/user fee, not broad renegotiation.
Dustin Manwaring — Explained the proposal as a lease, rental, or user payment left to the Water Resources Board's discretion.
Dustin Manwaring — Said the committee was not alerted that foreign training would become a major part of the base and reiterated the request for help paying for the project.
Dustin Manwaring — Was addressed as the sponsor in the discussion.
Dustin Manwaring — Was addressed as the sponsor in the question.
Dustin Manwaring — Explained that the pipeline was funded by ARPA and general fund money, while the treatment facility is paid for by the Air Force or Department of Defense.
Dustin Manwaring — Clarified that the state owns the water right and referenced costs from the Governor Otter era.
Dustin Manwaring — Continued explaining the funding and acknowledged the chair while speaking.
Dustin Manwaring — Estimated that the statement of purpose referenced about $33 million in ARPA money and $15.2 million in general funds for the pipeline.
Dustin Manwaring — Said general funds did not cover the treatment facility and that part of the money went to the water right and the rest to the pipeline.
Dustin Manwaring — Responded to Representative Boyle's question.
Dustin Manwaring — The transcript says 'Representative Deiger,' which appears to be a transcription error; the speaker is likely Representative Dygert or another member, but the exact identity is uncertain.
Monica Church — Monica Church is identified as the sponsor of the bill, then follows up by offering a substitute motion, requesting to speak to it, and moving to introduce RS 33185 C1.
Monica Church — Referenced as the member who made the substitute motion to introduce RS 33185C1.
Charlie Shepherd — Charlie Shepherd asked the sponsor a question about the pipeline, focusing on how much the federal government had already contributed and whether the original agreement included a federal share. The exchange continued into discussion of federal and state funding for the project, forming one continuous funding-related moment.
Ron Mendive — Addressed by name in the discussion as chair.
Ron Mendive — Referenced as the chair presiding over the vote and adjournment.
Judy Boyle — Judy Boyle questioned the proposal’s cost implications, asking whether it accounted for electricity, roads, and sewer expenses for foreign countries using the base, and then asked whether the sponsor had talked to the Department of War, noting that the RS refers to the Department of Defense. The exchange also included direct references to Boyle as the member being addressed.
John Woude — Representative Vander Woude spoke in favor of the original motion and against the substitute motion, arguing that the water project is important to keep Mountain Home Air Force Base viable. He continued by defending the project as necessary support for the base and rejecting the idea of taxing or charging others for its use of state resources, concluding that the base effectively pays Idaho back simply by being there.
Douglas Pickett — Speaks in support of the original motion, emphasizing the good-faith agreement and the value of the base.
Jack Nelsen — Representative Jack Nelsen is called on to comment and states that he supports the original motion. He explains that INL and the Air Force Base are major economic drivers for Idaho and continues that federal facilities have a significant impact on the state, so they should not be singled out.
Britt Raybould — Britt Raybould asked whether Idaho water users had seen the legislation and whether they had taken a position on it, continuing the same line of inquiry across the exchange.
Dustin Manwaring — Responded that the issue of foreign training at Mountain Home was known in 2010 and that the Legislature or Water Board could have acted earlier if concerned.
Dustin Manwaring — Argued that the legislation would reopen prior negotiations and could undermine Idaho's reliability in honoring deals.
Dustin Manwaring — Said the evidence shows the Legislature knew in 2010 about other troops using the base and that this was not part of the financing decision.
Dustin Manwaring — Explained that the pipeline was intended to replace groundwater due to nitrate and aquifer issues, and that growth in Elmore County was part of the context.
Dustin Manwaring — Continued explaining that the pipeline addressed aquifer and water quality issues and that growth in Elmore County was part of the rationale.