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

[Garrett Clevenger]

Donovan asks:

"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?"


I'm not sure how Donovan is so certain of his opinion, but from what I know, before the city agreed to sell Hawkins any water, the process hadn't gotten to the point where the city was obligated to provide any water. The city had a petition to prevent Hawkins from receiving water rights. The city gave up the attempt to block that when it signed the agreement. 

It was IDWR's job to decide if the city could indeed sell Hawkins water. IDWR never had the hearings to decide that. Hawkins decided to drill for it's own water, not waiting for the city. We don't even know if Hawkins will find water and have enough for it's operation.

Why would Moscow have to provide any water to Hawkins, before or after the agreement? What gives Hawkins the right to Idaho's water? What federal law would they sue under, and why would they be so sure to win?

The agreement says that if Moscow doesn't provide them water, Hawkins will receive their water rights, and the city can NEVER try to stop that. It doesn't say the city is legally mandated to give Hawkins water because the city does not have the authority to guarantee that.

Under this new bill, S1002, that will change. If a city agrees to sell water which will probably be an unlimited amount as there probably won't be a cap, they only can stop selling that water if Hawkins doesn't pay their bill. In other words, this new law makes it easier for Hawkins to sue if Moscow decides to stop selling them water!

We are not talking about neighbors in the same state. We are talking about an out of state entity. States fight for the right to maintain their water rights. They are not obligated to give them up to another state.

The feds had nothing to do with this. This is a state on state issue. Perhaps the feds may have intervened, but nobody knows that. They are more likely to intervene under the new law, though. 

If Hawkins was willing to take Moscow to court to build its predatory development, then it shows to what ends they'll go to get their way. 

Frankly, I trust our ability to shape our future by using the democratic chanel, rather than appease mega-developers, to make sure we are not squandering a precious limited resource, despite the seemingly corrupted way our elected officials handled this situation.

Perhaps some people think its ok to have obvious conflicts of interest shape not only local policy, but state policy, but I think it all looks suspicious, from the GMA getting its agenda met by city officials right from the start, to the Idaho Water Users Assoc getting their way by having its director, who is also chair of the Idaho repubs, using his influence to get their way.

People are mostly self-interested, and if the public isn't willing to look at the bigger picture, and make sure people in power don't abuse their office, then, as history has shown, the rest of us get left in the dust.

There are too many unknowns for Donovan to have a definitive answer as he states above. Unless he has a magic ball, I could just as easily say that Hawkins won't find enough water for its needs and therefore will be dependent on Moscow, who bent over backwards to make sure it gets it NO MATTER WHAT!

gclev