[Vision2020] Sen Schroeder

[roger hayes]

> From: roger hayes <rhayes at turbonet.com>
> Date: Mon Feb 9, 2009  6:07:46 AM US/Pacific
>
I am very much disappointed that Sen Schroeder chose not to respond 
with a justification of why he so adamantly supported a bill allowing 
municipalities to sell water to out of state interests. His refusal to 
respond to constituent's concerns with an explanation demonstrates an 
arrogance typical of long term elected officials. We should keep his 
actions and interests in mind during election season. It certainly 
smacks of special interest legislation.
Additionally, we should remember this sort of legislation has been 
rejected before in both the Idaho Senate and House. The arguments 
against these sales found that selling water to out of state interests 
was not in Idaho's long term best economic interests. While we live in 
different times with different economic circumstances, we should be 
very judicious in defending both Idaho's economy and precious water 
supply. Selling water to a mega-mall development across the border in 
Washington will do neither.

Roger Hayes
Moscow

> To: gschroeder at senate.idaho.gov
> Subject: water sale legislation
>
> Senator Schroeder,
>
> I know that the legislation to allow water sales across state lines is
> a  current senate matter. I do believe that the issue has originated
> from last year's water dispute over selling Hawkins Moscow water 
> services.
>
> 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 these  
> difficult economic
> 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 sort of development is called
> replacement development. It is not economic enhancement.
> This legislation smacks of "special interest" gifting, and a large
> percentage of Latah county residents are beginning to turn their
> attention toward the supporters of this initiative.
>
> Thanks for listening,
> Roger Hayes
> Moscow