[Vision2020] Water Sale Bill

[Ted Moffett]

This debate has already been parsed in detail on Vision2020 during the
months following the Moscow City Council's deal about a year ago to sell
sewer services and water to the Hawkins development:

http://www.pwcn.org/index.cfm?fa=contentNews.newsDetails&newsID=56629&from=list&directoryId=21655
--------
During this discussion last year, I asked if there was available to the
public a professional independently conducted economic impact study of the
potential economic impact of the Hawkins development on Moscow's economy.  I
do not recall any such study being referenced.  If someone can reference
such a study, it would be useful.

In the absence of such a study, those who are not professional economists
who either insist that the Hawkins development will be a economic benefit,
or not, to the Moscow economy, without offering a detailed economic analysis
based on research, hard data and statistics, are not very convincing.

I'm not saying a person must be a professional economist to have an informed
opinion on the economic impact of the proposed Hawkins Mall, only that the
opinion to be convincing should be based on fact based research.  For
example, find other examples of major malls being built just across a state
and county line adjacent to a city of Moscow's size to determine if such a
mall helped or hurt that city's economy.

Regarding the "milkshake" example (which refers to the metaphor of using a
long straw to drink someone elses milkshake from a distance, from the film
"There Will Be Blood," i.e. horizontal drilling in the oil industry to
access oil under someone elses land) to justify supporting Moscow making
profit off Hawkins water consumption, given they will use the water from the
same aquifers that Moscow utilizes anyways, even if Moscow does not sell
them the water:  If it is scientifically valid that the aquifers are being
depleted to an extent that mandates conservation, the best long term
interests of the area are not served by making short term profits.  Rather
than changing laws to allow Moscow to sell Hawkins water, legal means should
be sought, if possible, to stop Hawkins from large scale use of aquifer
accessed water.

Accurate information regarding the depletion and potential recharge of the
aquifers in the Moscow area is necessary to evaluate this issue.  If a
definite scientific evaluation is not currently possible, conservation of
water is indicated till more science based information on the future of
water resources in our area can be obtained, and/or other sources of water
than pumping from the aquifer are realistic and being planned, such as a
reservoir.

The long term impacts on the economy of resource extraction will
become increasingly critical as population increases. The population of the
Moscow/Pullman area could easily (or not, perhaps) grow by tens of thousands
by 2100.  Imagine the Moscow/Pullman corridor becoming a seamless business
and residential development linking the two cities.  It seems inevitable
that the Hawkins Mall will encourage land in Whitman County near the mall to
be developed further for both business and residential use.  Long term
planning for wise resource use involves planning for the next generation's
access to these resources, which is often absent in the arguments for short
term economic gain based on resource extraction.  If the aquifers supplying
the area do become critically depleted, what will the costs be to supply
water, even if possible, by other means?

Ted Moffett

On 2/8/09, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I would agree with you 100% if it weren't for the "milkshake" problem
> (see the movie There Will Be Blood for the reference).  The aquifer
> knows nothing about State borders.  If we don't sell the water to them,
> they'll just suck it up out of the same reservoir that we currently use,
> which  means we'll be out of both the water and the money.  They will
> still build, which will rob us of tax dollars.  I'm not convinced that
> we wouldn't benefit overall from more traffic coming to our local area,
> even if we lose some sales to the mega-mall.  Not to mention that the
> construction sector of our economy is hurting, so I'm glad to see
> anything going up.
>
> If you're going to build a grocery store, where do you build it?  Do you
> build it next to other grocery stores, or do you stake out land that's
> farther away in an area that doesn't have coverage?  You would think
> that building in the area that doesn't have a grocery store would be
> better, but if you do it will more than likely go under because people
> are used to going to where the grocery stores currently are for their
> shopping needs.  So it's better to build it near the other grocery
> stores.  You'll get a percentage of the traffic coming into that area,
> which is likely higher in absolute numbers than what you would bring in
> in the other area.  So it's possible that this mega-mall will actually
> help out the Palouse Empire Mall and the businesses along the highway
> there.  It depends upon whether or not the added traffic will compensate
> for the lost percentages.
>
> Paul
>
> roger hayes wrote:
> > This issue is very divisive to our community. I come down on the side
> > which does not wish to encourage development outside of our ability to
> > tax  that development. Idaho water, and in particular Latah county
> > water is a very precious commodity. Why in heaven's name do we want to
> > sell it to out of state interests? Particularly during the difficult
> > times we should be looking to enhance our revenues, not ship them out
> > of state.
> >
> > Now, we already have lost James Toyota from the state, county and city
> > revenue stream. Can you imagine what a mega-mall just across the border
> > will do to our tax base if we encourage them to build there by handing
> > them water and other infrastructure?
> >
> > I tire of the argument "they are going to build it anyway, so we may as
> > well just sell them the water."
> > This legislation smacks of "special interest" gifting, and I do hope a
> > large percentage of Latah county residents will begin to turn their
> > attention toward the supporters of this initiative.
> >
> > Thanks for listening,
> > Roger Hayes
> > Moscow
> >
> > =======================================================
> >  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
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090208/829d09a2/attachment.html