[Vision2020] city emails and the water thing

[Garrett Clevenger]

Thanks, Dan, for replying to this issue.

Dan writes:

"1.  I felt that protracted litigation would have cost
hundreds of
thousands of dollars."

I reply:

>From what I understand, we haven't arrived at the
"litigation" part as the DOE had not heard the appeal
yet (thus the mediation before hand).

Am I correct in assuming Moscow still had time before
we would have spent significant money on litigation? 
In other words, there was a potential that DOE would
have ruled in Moscow's favor regarding the appeal, and
thus there would be no need for an "agreement."

Also, how does this jive with the potential litigation
if the city defends the noise ordinance in court? 
Since that law is highly potentially
unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, it seems the
city should be concerned about wasting our tax dollars
in a consistent fasion.


Dan writes:

"2.  We are going to be able to charge a premium rate
for the water."

>From the "agreement" it says costs to Hawkins, "shall
be fair and reasonable and consistent with rates and
charges set for similarly 
situated customers of the City."

Are you implying that since there are no similarly
situated customers, we can charge Hawkins what we want
(up to a limit)?  If we set a "premium" price that
Hawkins does not agree to pay, they can refuse
service.  What will be the process to determine that
cost to Hawkins?


Dan writes:

"3.  ... we will see a net *decrease* in water drawn
from the aquifer
if we have municipal control over it rather than
letting Hawkins drill
their wells as they wish."

"4. I would much rather ... have the control over it,
... instead of ... allowing Hawkins to drill a well
and have no commitment from them regarding
conservation."

I reply:

The agreement does not prevent Hawkins from drilling a
well, nor from applying for water rights in the
future.  Nor are those water rights they gave up
vanished.  From Hawkins agreement with Whitman County:

"4. Hawkins will transfer its interest in sufficient
water rights for use in the Development to the County
at no charge to the County.  Hawkins shall also
facilitate the regulatory transfer of the water
rights.  It is anticipated that the county will create
a water district to supply water for the development."

This agreement was passed the same day as Moscow's
agreement.

Do you know what happened to those water rights?  Did
Whitman County gain control of them?  If so, then not
only are we giving Whitman County our water, but they
get to keep the old water rights.  Someone else in the
corridor can apply for them, thus there will be an
increase in water use.

What kind of commitment did we get from them regarding
conservation?


Dan writes:

"5. The mayor and our attorney did a good job of
selling us the
idea of mediation"

I reply:

I thought the DOE mandates the parties working on
mediation before hearing the case.  Did Nancy have a
choice in not pursuing a settlement?


Dan writes:

"7.  I know item 7 is a "hard pill to swallow", but
there is always give
and take in mediation."

I reply:

The hardest part to swallow is that we gave, but
aren't getting much back in return.  Sure, we will
make some money selling water and sewer services.  But
we are giving that to an out-of-state entity who pays
no taxes to Moscow.  They, in fact, are building there
to compete with Moscow.  They will be reducing the
income of Moscow businesses and thus our taxes.

What did we Hawkins give?  They can still drill wells
and apply for water rights.  Plus, they are saving up
to $4 million due to not having to build their own
water and sewer system.

So, I would say, Moscow is helping subsidize our
competitors.  We are helping them build a mall twice
the size of the Palouse Empire Mall.

I also wonder, why was sewer part of the agreement?  I
thought this was about water rights.

My concern over the "agreement" besides the secrecy
involved in it is that it doesn't prevent Hawkins from
drilling wells, it doesn't vanquished the contested
water right (meaning others in the area can apply for
them), it allows Hawkins to sell our water to its
end-users (meaning Hawkins potentially will profit
from this water, since the agreement does not limit
the rates Hawkins can charge) and that 2 GMA
candidates negotiate this.  Since the chair of GMA,
Steve Busch, owns land right across the street from
Hawkins, he stands to profit from the actions of the
councilman he helped get elected.  That sounds like a
conflict of interest and should be subject to
scrutiny.

I hope you can understand why folks are extremely
concerned about this give away.

Sincerely,

Garrett