[Vision2020] Water Sale Bill

Sun Feb 8 21:08:05 PST 2009

Donovan Arnold wrote:

"Second, we have enough of this foul water to last 200-300 years."

What evidence do you have to back this up?

--- On Sun, 2/8/09, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Water Sale Bill
To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com, "roger hayes" <rhayes at turbonet.com>
Date: Sunday, February 8, 2009, 1:03 PM

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
=======================================================

=======================================================
  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/dca776c7/attachment-0001.html 