[Vision2020] Living on the Border

[Mark Solomon]

Dan/Joan:

Just catching up on messages after a week away skiing the back 
country of Yosemite. Very handy to be out of town for the last week 
of candidacy filings as all temptation to file is eliminated when 
climbing on 20' of snow at 10,000 foot with the sun shining when it 
isn't blizzarding.

Anyway, water over the state line: unless the city of Moscow supplies 
the water (an unlikely idea as the city simply doesn't have that 
amount of water to give away even if they could figure out how to 
work across the state line) the developer must secure water rights to 
somewhere between 70-100 acre foot of water. That's a lot of water. 
Compared to Moscow pumping, it's about 10% of the entire amount 
pumped by the city last year. Washington law allows two paths to 
secure a water right: apply for a new water right or transfer an 
existing right. New rights are about impossible to acquire as a de 
facto moratorium is in place while WA evaluates how much they've 
already given away. Transferring a right is allowed. But here's the 
kicker: a transfer has to be from within the same source of water as 
the new well to be drilled.

We know a lot about the hydrogeology of the subject area and without 
getting into a lot of details, it is just about impossible to find 
existing rights that would add up to enough water for this 
development even if they purchased and then shut down all the other 
uses in the corridor.

Bottom line: the argument that if we don't build in Moscow retail 
development will go just across the line doesn't hold water. Big 
boxes could locate to Pullman proper but they've got the same water 
capacity concerns Moscow has. They just haven't been pushed as hard 
as Moscow. Yet.

Mark Solomon

At 11:13 AM -0800 3/15/06, Joan Opyr wrote:
>On 15 Mar 2006, at 10:20, Area Man wrote:
>
>>Vision people (and illustrious City people),
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>After reading the articles in last night's Daily News (March 
>>14) and this morning's Lewiston Trib (March 15), it got me thinking 
>>(dangerous prospect, I know).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>There was some talk about how there is the "physical" (but not 
>>necessarily "legal" or "desirable") ability to connect water and 
>>sewer to the proposed shopping center across the border 
>>(http://www.hawkinscompanies.com/fliers/WA_Pullman_Hwy270_AirportRd_F.pdf -- 
>>for those who haven't seen it), and also talk of how allowing such 
>>a hookup would be a "momentous decision."  There are questions as 
>>to whether the city of Moscow can even collect fees for allowing 
>>such a hookup.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>I wonder how other places do it.  The first place that popped into 
>>my head was Kansas City Missouri/Kansas, which obviously straddles 
>>the border between those two states.  Then I started thinking about 
>>places in Idaho, and two jump out at me:  Oldtown ID/Newport WA up 
>>North, and Fruitland ID/Ontario OR to the South. 
>>Lewiston/Clarkston would be a good example as well, but I don't 
>>believe there is much sharing of infrastructure due to the 
>>geographic seperation by the Snake River.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Anyhow, these are probably only a miniscule few of such 
>>communities.  I think the City of Moscow should look at how things 
>>are done in such cases to help guide them in making this work the 
>>best for everyone, especially for Moscow.  I hate to say it, but I 
>>think this development across the border is inevitable, due to the 
>>Whitman County Commission's recent turn toward retail development 
>>in the county.  None of us have to like it, but wouldn't it behoove 
>>the City of Moscow to do all they can to make it benefit us as much 
>>as possible over here on the east side of the border? 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Starting to hear a sucking sound from the west . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Dan Carscallen
>>
>>
>
>Just a question -- can we (Moscow) supply water and sewer services 
>to Pullman without upgrading our systems to meet Washington 
>standards?  Don't know where I heard this (perhaps it came to me in 
>a dream), but I believe that our neighboring state has more 
>stringent requirements for such things than laissez-faire Idaho. 
>Are we up to snuff?  And, if not, what would it take to get us 
>there, and would it, in the end, be worth?
>
>Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
>www.joanopyr.com
>
>PS: On a related note, I'm really puzzled by the Daily News and the 
>Lewiston Tribune's coordinated and concerted effort to portray the 
>new Moscow City Council as anti-growth.  Rubbish!  What we have in 
>place now is a majority of pro-business, smart growth liberals; they 
>have no interest in stifling the economy.  Far from it.  Our present 
>city council is more far-sighted than its predecessor, and 
>consequently recognizes that not all development is good.  It's best 
>to target development to support existing business while growing new 
>opportunities.  This is a new economy council, not an old boys 
>network, thank God.  I'm looking forward to what Mayor Chaney and 
>the council will accomplish in the next few years.  Just for a 
>start, we, the citizens, are talking to one another about exactly 
>what kind of Moscow we want rather than sitting on our complacent 
>backsides and allowing city development to be dictated by the wants 
>and (monetary) needs of real estate agents and developers.
>
>BTW, Tom and Virginia Henderson -- of the Trib and the Daily News, 
>respectively -- need to get out more.  Tell you what, let's have a 
>few of us pro-business liberals (yes, I am one) offer to meet them 
>on Turkey Tuesday at Moscow's Subway.  I'll treat them to 
>buy-one-get-one-free foot longs with the works.  While they're 
>chewing, they won't be writing.  It'll be a lovely chance for them 
>to be quiet and listen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060321/711c4f4c/attachment.htm