[Vision2020] 65 acre feet of water equals $2 million of food

[g. crabtree]

I don't see the problem with an end user reselling water provided by our 
city at a profit. It happens all the time. Were I to run my tap into some 
pretty light blue bottles and slap on a label that read "Aqua de Mosque" and 
retail it to the gullible at fashionable coop type stores, what would be the 
problem?

Beer producers take municipal water and add some barley and hops and people 
like me beat a path to their door.

Bartenders mix a little scotch or bourbon with water and sell it at a fairly 
exorbitant markup.

The guy that maintains my yard mixes fertilizer and pesticide with water and 
sprays it onto my yard a couple times a year and I gladly pay for the 
privilege.

I think that you are trying awfully hard to find reasons to be upset about a 
development that most folks in Latah and Whitman county are just fine with. 
It's good to have a hobby but the one you have chosen seems a trifle 
useless. Perhaps you could take up recycling string (not twine) into the 
worlds largest ball. The record for this feat seems to be up in the air and 
I just KNOW you could be a contender.

g

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
To: "vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:04 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] 65 acre feet of water equals $2 million of food


> Pat writes:
>
> "So you weren't at the meeting last night or heard any
> of the
> explainations for the vote?? Too bad you might have
> learned some things."
>
>
>
> I'm not sure why Pat writes this as my post had
> nothing to do with an explanation for the vote.
>
> However, I was at the meeting and learned that my
> suspicions about the deal are well founded.
>
> The questions I asked were:
>
> Since Hawkins is responsible for collecting fees from
> end-users of water in the mall, what's to prevent
> Hawkins from profiting from the water we sell them?
>
> According to Wayne Krauss, nothing will prevent them
> from profiting.  In fact, if I understood his answer,
> since Hawkins is a corporation, they are entitled to
> profit from the water.
>
> Yes, that was about his answer, as unbelievable as
> that seems. Krauss thinks it's ok for Hawkins to
> profit from the water we sell them, even though Moscow
> cannot profit from water it sells Hawkins.
>
> My second question was:
>
> Since Moscow can't profit on water it sells, is the
> council justified in saying we can charge Hawkins a
> premium for the water we sell them since we can only
> charge what it costs to deliver the water.
>
> Krauss's answer was basically we can charge them
> appreciation of infrastructure and went into the way
> fees will be charged to Hawkins for water.  He failed
> to answer the question, I thought, and only said what
> we already know.  The problem with his answer is that
> those fees are exactly what everybody else pays, so it
> isn't a premium.
>
> The rest of the forum pretty much said how Hawkins
> will not be beneficial to Moscow, but more than likely
> is bad for Moscow.
>
> I'm not sure what Pat got out of the meeting as she
> didn't go into detail about what she learned.  Perhaps
> she will enlighten us with what she learned?
>
> gclev
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>