[Vision2020] Moscow's Growth Policies Don't Apply to Whitman (or dothey?)

[Bruce and Jean Livingston]

I have to disagree with Murf and the Daily News editorial board on this one.

Development in the Whitman County corridor affects not only Whitman County, but Pullman within it, and Moscow and Latah County, adjacent to it.  I disagree that Moscow has no right to comment on the effects of neighboring developments that have an impact upon us, even if they are in another geo-political subdivision that is arbitrarily drawn regardless of the underlying aquifer boundaries.  So long as we follow the procedures of the other political subdivision, our voice should be heard on issues that have an effect upon us.  

Conversely, it seems to me that people from Whitman County have a right to be heard on issues that may have an effect upon them, even if the situs of the particular project is in Latah County.  Proposed reservoirs, for example...

The insensitivity of some Pullmanites to concerns about our aquifer are reflected by the following comments taken from a story in Wednesday's Moscow Pullman Daily News:
  "Councilwoman Ann Heath said the city must lay claim to water soon, before turf wars occur with Latah and Whitman counties and the city of Moscow. 


  " 'That's all the more reason ... to set up wells, so we can grow the way we want to grow,' she said. 'How do we want to spend our water? I think we have enough water to make good choices about.' " 

Keeping an eye on the water hogs across the state line is important.  And the policy should not be "let's get ours, before they get it,"  despite Ms. Heath's thoughts to the contrary.  We ought to be trying to influence water policy regionally, and that means commenting on issues that affect our water, even if the proposed well is a few hundred yards across the state line from Moscow in Whitman County, or in Pullman.

Bruce Livingston



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
To: "Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 6:47 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Moscow's Growth Policies Don't Apply to Whitman (or dothey?)


> >From today's (January 13, 2007) Moscow-Pullman Daily News -
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> OUR VIEW: Moscow's growth policies don't apply to Whitman
> 
> By Murf Raquet, for the editorial board
> 
> Saturday, January 13, 2007 - Page Updated at 10:20:50 PM
> 
> Political boundaries on the Palouse are clear.Moscow city limits extend to
> the Washington state border as does the eastern edge of Whitman County. 
> 
> Both entities have their own regulations to follow when it comes to
> development. Often those rules are similar in that they require development
> plans to undergo sufficient public scrutiny to protect the environment. 
> 
> It's time for Moscow to recognize that Whitman County is perfectly capable
> of determining how and what acreage is developed within it borders. 
> 
> Whitman County has all but cleared the way for the Hawkins Companies of
> Boise to develop a 600,000-square-foot retail center along the
> Pullman-Moscow corridor. The center would abut the state line and Moscow.
> 
> Moscow registered concerns about the effects the development would have on
> the aquifers, wetlands and traffic. 
> 
> Those concerns and others were addressed through the Washington State
> Environmental Policy Act, an environmental assessment procedure that is one
> of the more stringent in the nation. 
> 
> Whitman County had no legal obligation to consider Moscow's concerns but did
> so because of Moscow's proximity to the development. 
> 
> That was the right thing to do. 
> 
> "Moscow is our very close neighbor," said Whitman County Prosecutor Denis
> Tracy. "We have taken extensive steps to take their concerns into
> consideration. If they have any concerns that are not part of the SEPA
> review the county hopes Moscow will pick up the phone and we can talk about
> their concerns." 
> 
> Dialogue is a fine way to resolve problems. 
> 
> Now, Moscow must accept the SEPA conclusion and not drag the issue through
> the court system. 
> 
> Moscow has every right to determine growth policy within its city limits. 
> 
> We hope the city can restrain itself in the future if the urge to impose its
> standards elsewhere pops up again.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> My concern is not with what facilities are built on Washington's side of the
> line, but what resources are used by those resources.  As has been discussed
> here on Vision 2020, Moscow and Pullman share a common aquifer.  The primary
> concern, in relation to the aquifer and facilities built on either side of
> the state line, is the "right to use" of that aquifer.
> 
> As discussed by guests Rocky Barker, environmental reporter (Idaho
> Statesman), State Senator Charles Coiner (R-Twin Falls), and Prof. Barbara
> Cosens, University of Idaho Law School, when "Mary in Moscow" called in on
> Thursday's Idaho Public Television's "Dialogue" program, this decision may
> not be made locally, but by the US Supreme Court.
> 
> http://www.tomandrodna.com/Stuff/Dialogue_011107_01.mp3
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
> 
> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
> and the REALIST adjusts his sails." 
> 
> - Unknown 
> 
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070113/1a6617ba/attachment.html