[Vision2020] Question: Hawkins Water Deal,

[Garrett Clevenger]

Pat writes:

"I suspect the city should give it up!"


I believe they already did give it up:

1% of our water
sewer services
tax revenue
trust in an accountable city council 
and the most important, protecting Moscow businesses
from predatory developers

The current city council who voted to Give Moscow Away
have shown where their interest is, and it is not in
standing up for their constituents.

I agree with Ted on the interpretation of the the AG
statement regarding water and sewer.  I wonder if the
council was aware of this and understood what it
meant.

Though there is no "conclusion" section in that
statement as there is in the domestic partnership
statement, they write:

"We have found no authority in Idaho Code allowing a
city to provide water and sewer services to
out-of-state customers."

The statement goes on to say that the only codes
addressing this are when the distribution systems are
privately owned.

Perhaps "no authority" means a publicly owned
distribution system can provide out-of-state service,
but that seems illogical.

The statement also lists reasons why cities could be
prevented from selling water out-of-state.  Here are
some reasons that would prevent selling water
out-of-state:

"(f) that is is contrary to conservation of water
resources within the state of Idaho.

"(g) that it will adversely affect the local economy
of the watershed or local area within which the source
of water for the proposed use originates, in the case
where the place of use is outside of the watershed or
local area where the source of water originates"


"Local area" needs to be defined, but it seems
reasonable to assume a "local area" is a city, in this
case Moscow, and that Hawkins falls outside of that
"local area."  Hawkins, whose stated intent is to take
business from Moscow, will adversely affect our local
economy.

The statement is clear that Moscow needs to apply for
the ability to sell water to Hawkins.  It is
reasonable to assume from the statement that Moscow
will not be allowed to sell water to Hawkins.

Whether sewer services are challenged is something I
haven't heard much about.

However, if Moscow cannot sell water to Hawkins and
regardless if Hawkins is allowed to use our sewage
system or not, Moscow will not be able to appeal any
water rights Hawkins applies for.

So, I agree with Pat that our council gave it all up. 
They laid the foundation for Moscow's biggest
competitor.  Whether the council voted for the
agreement to thank Steve Busch, who owns land right
across the street from Hawkins' potential development,
for helping get them elected (Steve is chair of the
Greater Moscow Alliance, the group that endorsed 3 of
our council members) is open to speculation.

But, since most of the agreement is speculative to
begin with, it seems only reasonable to consider all
the facts.

Lastly, the council has misled the public by saying
they can sell the water for a "premium," (when
according to the water dept., water cannot be sold for
a profit, or at a "premium") I have little faith that
the council knows what it is talking about or took the
time to consider the consequences of what it is
agreeing to.

What's next, council?

Please, don't Give Moscow Away!

Garrett