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

[Bill London]

There is no law that requires Moscow to sell water or anything else to private or public entities outside of its jurisdiction.  
Denying water to a private business inside of Moscow limits is illegal, but not if that business is in another state.
BL
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Donovan Arnold 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com ; garrettmc at verizon.net 
  Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 3:08 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sell-Outs: Senator Gary Schroeder and Moscow CityCouncilman Walter Steed


        Garrett,

        I can say the Hawkins would get water rights because Moscow has no basis to deny water. What possible LEGAL reason could Moscow say or claim not to give water?

        Your reasons please?

        That you don't want another mall, or don't believe in free and fair competition isn't a legal reason. 

        A petition doesn't mean anything. Can I write a petition for Moscow residents to deny you water rights, just because I don't want another farm in Moscow, or I THINK that your farm might use too much water and drain our limited supply? Sorry, that would not hold up in court. 

        In court there are two sides, the one with fairest and most logical side, is going to win. Moscow has no defense whatsoever to deny a shopping center water. 

        Best Regards,

        Donovan

        --- On Sat, 3/7/09, Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net> wrote:

          From: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
          Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sell-Outs: Senator Gary Schroeder and Moscow City Councilman Walter Steed
          To: vision2020 at moscow.com, donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
          Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 9:14 PM


Donovan asks:"You are aware that if Moscow refused to provide water across the stateline, Moscow would be sued in Federal Court, would lose, and have to pay all thecosts 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 Iknow, before the city agreed to sell Hawkins any water, the process hadn'tgotten to the point where the city was obligated to provide any water. The cityhad a petition to prevent Hawkins
 from receiving water rights. The city gave upthe 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 forit's own water, not waiting for the city. We don't even know if Hawkinswill find water and have enough for it's operation.Why would Moscow have to provide any water to Hawkins, before or after theagreement? What gives Hawkins the right to Idaho's water? What federal lawwould they sue under, and why would they be so sure to win?The agreement says that if Moscow doesn't provide them water, Hawkins willreceive their water rights, and the city can NEVER try to stop that. Itdoesn't say the city is legally mandated to give Hawkins water because thecity does not have the authority to guarantee that.Under this new bill, S1002, that will change. If a city
 agrees to sell waterwhich 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. Inother words, this new law makes it easier for Hawkins to sue if Moscow decidesto stop selling them water!We are not talking about neighbors in the same state. We are talking about anout 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. Perhapsthe feds may have intervened, but nobody knows that. They are more likely tointervene under the new law, though. If Hawkins was willing to take Moscow to court to build its predatorydevelopment, 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 democraticchanel,
 rather than appease mega-developers, to make sure we are not squanderinga precious limited resource, despite the seemingly corrupted way our electedofficials handled this situation.Perhaps some people think its ok to have obvious conflicts of interest shapenot 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, tothe Idaho Water Users Assoc getting their way by having its director, who isalso 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 lookat the bigger picture, and make sure people in power don't abuse theiroffice, 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 hestates above. Unless he has a magic ball, I could just as
 easily say thatHawkins won't find enough water for its needs and therefore will bedependent on Moscow, who bent over backwards to make sure it gets it NO MATTERWHAT!gclev======================================================= 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/20090308/d7902c3f/attachment-0001.html