An important part of Rapid City's water development plan is being temporarily put on hold while Rapid City leaders and representatives from the state Game, Fish & Parks Department try to find common ground.

Rapid City is seeking an easement from GF&P to build a pump station on land adjoining the Cleghorn Springs Fish Hatchery. At the same time, GF&P is seeking approval to use land across from Cleghorn Springs for development of a multi-million dollar regional office complex and learning center.

The problem that has arisen is that Rapid City Mayor Alan Hanks has already as much as shelved the GF&P request; and now, it appears, GF&P is returning the favor, holding off on granting the easement for the city pump station.

Rapid City's water needs trump the GF&P project in terms of necessity. However, there's no reason the two entities couldn't make both projects work as planned.

The pump station is part of the planned Jackson Springs water-treatment plant and will be instrumental in providing millions of gallons of water each day to Rapid City. We understand GF&P "putting their mission foremost" in their planning, but the city's water needs shouldn't become a bargaining chip in the development of an educational center.

Mayor Hanks has objected to GF&P building near the stream, harkening back to the 1972 flood. Institutional memory of the 1972 flood is strong, and rightly so. But evoking the memory of the flood in cases like this has limited effect. After all, former disputes about flood plain development revolved around putting housing or other people-heavy structures in areas proved to be dangerous in 1972.

But the GF&P proposal is a different type of structure - an educational facility and nature area. It's hard to argue the feasibility of that project based on flood issues.

Rapid City's need for water creates a sense of urgency to the dealings between the city and GF&P. The pump station in question is a key part of the development of the city's proposed million-dollar water plant at Jackson Springs - we don't want to see that project held up and we're sure the city doesn't, either.

Because there's an urgency, the city and GF&P need to enter into an open discussion about land use and area impact to find a plan that's agreeable to both and best serves the needs of the community.

Water is crucial to the growth of the city and the pump station plays an important role in providing water for Rapid City's growth. So as the discussions with GF&P continue - and they should - the water needs of the city need to remain of top concern and the GF&P project proposal discussion should be about practicality, location and land use - not the possibility of future floods and the impact it would have on the proposed project.