[Vision2020] Question: Hawkins Water Deal,

[pkraut at moscow.com]

Don't put words on my mail...I was talking about the same partner 
insurance not the water or sewer. 




> 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
> 
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
> 




---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/