[Vision2020] Sell-Outs: Senator Gary Schroeder and Moscow City Councilman Walter Steed

[Donovan Arnold]

Garret,

You are aware that if Moscow refused to provide water across the state line, Moscow would be sued in Federal Court, would lose, and have to pay all the costs of the trial and provide the water for a much lower cost, right?

By doing it this way, we keep our costs low. 

You cannot block at county from getting water simply because you don't want the competition or don't like you neighbor. Could you imagine the government allowing one house in the neighborhood in which the water flows to refuse to provide service or access? It would not hold up in court. 

Understand as well, that jobs and industry just on the other side side of the boarder provides jobs to Moscow, not Pullman. 

Your lawmakers did you a favor by keeping the control in the hands of the city, not the federal government. 

Best Regards,
Donovan 

--- On Sat, 3/7/09, Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net> wrote:
From: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
Subject: [Vision2020] Sell-Outs: Senator Gary Schroeder and Moscow City Councilman Walter Steed
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 11:42 AM

I want to publicly state that Senator Gary Schroeder and Moscow City Councilman
Walter Steed are sell-outs. In their zeal to pander to out-of-state
developments, they not only sold out Moscow businesses, but the rest of Idaho.
They have taken the responsibility voters gave them, and abused that power to
financially benefit some at the expense of others.

Walter Steed and Gary Schroeder rewrote Idaho's water appropriation code:

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2009/S1002Bookmark.htm


Basically, they extended a city's water service area to include adjacent
out-of-state developments. They took the authority Idaho's Dept of Water
Resources (IDWR) has in determining if a city could sell water out of state, and
gave that power to cities. I imagine their reasoning is that it is the
city's water, not all of Idaho's, and therefore, the city should
determine if it wants to sell that water.

I think this bill, though intended to make money for Idaho government, may
potentially decrease revenue to government by facilitating out-of-state
developments, which will put competitive pressure on Idaho businesses. In
essence, the bill is bad for Idaho businesses and may help take away sales tax
revenue from Idaho, while using a limited precious resource that should be
prioritized for Idaho's use.

Why do we need this law, one that potentially will have serious negative
consequences for Idaho, when there already is a mechanism, IDWR, that can allow
cities to sell water out of state?

Do any of the adjoining states have a similar law, or will Idaho be the only
one making it easier for these other states to use another state's water?

How will this bill benefit Idaho in the long run, especially if Idaho will be
committed to supplying water out of state and the only way to break that
contract apparently is if the out-of-state recipient does not pay their bill?

Is it really fair to expect Idaho businesses to suffer from out-of-state
competition that is facilitated by city governments expecting to profit, though
ironically, will potentially have a decreased sales tax revenue due to decreased
purchases in those Idaho cities?


The problem with this bill is that cities often don't lack the expertise
regarding water, and are susceptible to conflicts of interest (corruption) and
therefore decisions they make about selling water out of state can be
detrimental to not only those cities, but the rest of Idaho.

IDWR, on the other hand, is accountable to the whole state. They can be more
unbiased in regards to seeing the bigger picture of selling water out of state.
They are trained to understand implications of opening the floodgates. They are
obligated to hold public hearings to weigh all the pros and cons before making
their decision. 

Water is too important to be treated as a common commodity. Misuse of water can
affect too many people to be treated as expendable. People are too susceptible
to corruption to not give selling water the utmost importance and safeguards to
prevent misusing it.

Senator Gary Schroeder wrote this bill at the urging of our city councilman
Walter Steed. They wrote the bill because Moscow is faced with the Hawkins
mega-mall. The city agreed to sell water to Hawkins but that sale would need to
be approved by IDWR. I believe Gary Schroeder and Walter Steed want to
circumvent IDWR's authority to be the deciding factor, perhaps because they
fear IDWR will not approve the sale because public pressure will be enormous for
IDWR not to approve the sale. Instead of letting the entity that historically
has been the ones responsible for managing Idaho's water, they want to give
that power to cities.

Walter Steed was elected with the help of the Greater Moscow Alliance, a group
representing developers in our region. The president of GMA, Steve Busch, owns
land across the road from the potential Hawkins mega-mall in Washington. I
believe Steve Busch's land value will increase if Hawkins is built. Thus,
Steve Busch has a financial interest in ensuring this development occurs. That
being the case, he has an interest in helping get people supportive of him into
office, and the people he helps elect, in this case Walter Steed, have an
interest in helping Steve Busch. Thus, Walter Steed encouraged Senator Gary
Schroeder to write S1002 to facilitate corridor development. Gary Schroeder, for
some reason, feels a need to encourage out-of-state developments and doesn't
think IDWR should be responsible for deciding if water should be sold out of
state.

Though Steve Busch and Walter Steed stand to gain from Hawkins being built,
Moscow businesses may suffer from this out-of-state competitor, thus Moscow tax
revenue may suffer, too, and thus these people have done a tremendous disservice
to Idaho, all while allowing out-of-state developments to use Idaho's
limited water.

I am a farmer and have a great appreciation for water, as we need it to grow
our crops. I am very concerned that by opening the floodgates by allowing cities
to sell this precious commodity out of state, without the proper oversight of
the rest of Idaho, we will see a misuse of this limited resource. Moscow is not
much different from the rest of Idaho. The concerns we have regarding
facilitating out-of-state development by selling them this limited resource
without the proper oversight should concern all Idahoans, as they potentially
will face a similar future at some point, which potentially can affect the rest
of Idaho.

These out-of-state developments can sell for a profit the water Idaho sells
them, as there doesn't seem to be any way to prevent them from doing so.
Hawkins, for example, may get 65 acre feet of water per year. They would be
responsible for selling it to the businesses in their mall. Potentially, they
may make a profit doing that.

If this bill is passed, the city may extend water services beyond Hawkins. In
other words, they are more likely going to sell more of Idaho's water to
more developments in the corridor, leading to even more competitive pressure on
Moscow businesses.

Walter Steed and Gary Schroeder should be ashamed of bending over to
developments in the Whitman County corridor. Instead of representing Idaho, its
businesses and its water, they obviously feel a need to serve out-of-state
interests instead. If they really wanted to stand up for Moscow businesses, they
would not be making it easier for corridor development. I assume its because
they want the corridor to be developed. I suggest they leave their Idaho posts,
and go to work in Washington, instead of continuing their disservice here.

This bill will be heard by the Idaho House Resources and Conservation Committee
on March 9. If Walter Steed and Gary Schroeder didn't have so much pride in
their bill, they would testify to the committee and ask them not pass it because
they have seen the light, and realized this bill is unneeded, and potentially
very harmful to Idaho.

I doubt they will, though, as Norm Semanko, the chairman of Idaho's
Republican Party, who also happens to be the Executive Director and General
Counsel of the "Idaho Water Users" Association (they are more like
water pushers), will testify in support of the bill, as they stand to
financially benefit from it.

In a double dose of corruption, to have the person who has a big influence over
Idaho Republican elected officials' future encouraging a yes vote seems
heavy handed. Are Republicans really going to stand up and question this bill,
and vote no, if Norm Semanko, who can make or break their political career, is
watching and expecting them to vote yes? This conflict of interest should be
questioned by all Idahoans, as it shows how deep this bill goes into the power
structure of the Republican party.

Our state representatives Tom Trail and Shirley Ringo are against this terrible
bill. I think they understand the implications of it, and have more of an ear
towards Moscow's businesses, so have questioned why we need this bill. So to
balance out my Sell-Out Award given to Walter Steed and Gary Schroeder, I give
my Most Valuable Elected Official Award to Tom Trail and Shirley Ringo.

Sincerely,

Garrett Clevenger



=======================================================
 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/20090307/535bda9e/attachment-0001.html