[Vision2020] (no subject)

[Jeff Harkins]

Am I clear that you think that the folks on the west side of the 
border are all "muddy-headed" in their pursuit of their economic 
development plans?  That kind of rhetoric is very helpful in 
addressing the challenge we face.

Also, since both jurisdictions reside over the same reservoir of 
water, they both have the same rights - under federal law.  And from 
the water studies that have been provided by various professionals in 
hydrology, most of the reservoir lies under Whitman County.

Are you suggesting that you would like to refer this matter to the 
federal authorities and have them intervene to resolve our conflict over water?

Try again, please.

At 08:09 PM 2/14/2008, you wrote:
>And Washington was preventing a sovreign state (ID) from exercising
>its water rights -- a right to which, I might add, we are entitled to
>by federal law, as opposed to some muddy-headed concept of "economic
>development plans," to which Washington is not.
>
>-- ACS
>
>On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Sue - it was not only imminent litigation, it was actual litigation -
> > Moscow had already filed suit on the water transfer.  Fits perfectly!
> >
> >  And Moscow was impacting the ability of a sovereign state (WA) from
> > pursuing their economic development plans.  Again, fits perfectly.
> >
> >  Now, let's move on to something substantive - the actual agreement signed.
> > What are your problems with the accord reached?
> >
> >
> >
> >  At 01:14 PM 2/14/2008, you wrote:
> >
> > Well e involves competition with other public bodies and f 
> involves imminant
> > litigation, so how do those fit?  Certainly none of the other options do,
> > but even so, looks like a stretch to me.
> >
> >  Sue H
> >
> >
> >  ----- Original Message -----
> >  From: Jeff Harkins
> >  To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >  Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 7:13 PM
> >  Subject: [Vision2020] (no subject)
> >
> >  To those interested, it would appear that items e and f of the state
> > statute for executive sessions would be applicable.
> >
> >
> >  (e)  To consider preliminary negotiations involving matters of
> >  trade or commerce in which the governing body is in competition with
> >  governing bodies in other states or nations;
> >  (f)  To communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to
> >  discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending
> >  litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely
> > to be
> >  litigated. The mere presence of legal counsel at an executive
> >  session does not satisfy this requirement;
> >
> >  ________________________________
> >  =======================================================
> >   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
> >  =======================================================
> >
> > =======================================================
> >   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
> >  =======================================================
> >