[Vision2020] Tom Lamar's Editorial Re: Hawkins Water & Sewer Agreement

[Ted Moffett]

chasuk at gmail.com wrote:



>  We
> elected hopefully wise individuals to represent us, and that's what
> they did.  You ask whether I think there should have been "more open
> public discussion" first, and my truthful response is no, I don't.
> First, because I believe that there had already been ample opportunity
> for discussion for everyone who had anything viable to say.  Every
> nuance of opinion had already been expressed ad nauseum.

-------------------------------
After reading Tom Lamar's Moscow/Pullman Daily News editorial explaining his
no vote on the Hawkins deal with the city of Moscow, I am even more
convinced claiming that "every nuance of opinon had already been expressed
ad nauseum" is simply untrue, and expresses a dismissiveness towards the
critics of the Hawkins deal that appears an attempt to shut down debate and
discussion about an important set of issues that should have been placed
before the public for discussion, as Tom Lamar stated:
**
*(February 15, 2008) with thanks to Moscow Councilor tom
*Lamar -

------------------------------------------------------------

HIS VIEW: Why I oppose selling Moscow's water
By Tom Lamar

On Feb. 4, I was the only member of the Moscow City Council to vote
against the mediated settlement between the city and the Hawkins
Companies, a Boise developer that wants to build a shopping center in
rural Whitman County just west of Moscow. I owe Moscow residents an
explanation for my dissenting vote.

I first learned of the settlement the previous Thursday but was unable to
discuss it with anyone outside the council because of the confidentiality
agreement. But it was clear to me at first glance that this agreement was
not in Moscow's long-term best interests. The possible gains were too
small given the large policy changes that were about to be made with no
citizen input.

Moscow's appeals of the Washington Department of Ecology's water right
transfers to Hawkins were about protecting the groundwater resources of
the Palouse. In approving the settlement, the council majority not only
dropped the appeals, it created an unprecedented public policy of selling
water and sewer services across the state line. The city should not make
such a significant policy move without advance public discussion. This
reason alone should have stopped consideration of the agreement at the
Feb. 4 meeting.

In addition, I am not convinced that it is legal for an Idaho city to sell
water to a private entity in another state. The proponents provided no
evidence of any benefit to Moscow, other than the small amount of money in
water fees. We cannot collect taxes from the development, nor can we annex
it, yet this decision might save Whitman County and/or Hawkins millions of
dollars in utility development costs. Why should Moscow give up its
precious resource to benefit another county and a private company?

I have not seen a retail study showing that a retail development of this
size - 714,000 square feet is needed or justified. If it is, such a
development should be in Moscow - so our residents can control the
development to fit our community.

Instead, by subsidizing Hawkins' water and sewer costs, this agreement
gives the company an opportunity to undercut retail rents next door at the
Palouse Mall. This decision will subject existing Moscow businesses - many
of them locally owned - to unfair competition.

Locating a giant shopping center in an unincorporated area is poor
community planning. It runs contrary to Moscow's comprehensive plan. It
will likely promote additional sprawl, and increase the costs of services
that will be required by Whitman County. It will be more difficult for
Moscow residents to reach via walking, biking or bus than our current
shopping choices. Moscow residents who work in Pullman likely will face
longer commute times.

I am also greatly concerned by the amount of water that Moscow has agreed
to sell: 45 acre feet now (over 14.6 million gallons), plus an additional
20 acre feet of potable water for irrigation use, until some undetermined
future date when this water from the aquifer can be replaced with
reclaimed water. How will this long-term commitment of water affect the
future ability of Moscow businesses to grow? Or our ability to attract new
businesses?

Like many legal documents, the settlement agreement declares "time is of
the essence" but gives no justification for the rush. To me, the needs for
our residents to understand, digest and support such a large policy shift -
facilitating a shopping center in another county and state - is more
important than the impatience of one Boise developer. We were elected to
serve the people of Moscow, not residents of Whitman County or a private
developer 300 miles away.

For these reasons when this agreement came to the City Council, I moved to
delay a decision until we had the opportunity to discuss it publicly. My
motion died for lack of a second.

What happens next? The Idaho Department of Water Resources will consider a
request from the city of Moscow to allow the sale of this water. This
permit process is a public one. I urge residents to send comments to IDWR.

I'd like to thank the many residents who have contacted me since Feb. 4
thanking me for my opposing vote.

------------------------------------------------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080217/60de04e5/attachment-0001.html