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

[Garrett Clevenger]

Paul writes,

"I imagine we will sell a lot at first, until Pullman city council members start getting dollar signs in their eyes and decide to run the infrastructure out to the border."


Kit made the point that this bill applies along the whole border. It seems possible that sub-divisoins will spring up along the border in Whitman county, if there aren't zoning laws to prevent that. Anything that isn't prevented could possibly occur in that area, and Moscow may be able to supply them water.

I'm sure Whitman County would love that, and then Pullman would be even more likely to supply water at some point. Perhaps they'll sell water to people in Idaho someday. Perhaps those pipes will comingle so much, that nobody will remember where their water came from in 2050.

Seriously, though, if this bill passes, we could be seeing a lot more developments at the border in Washington. Just wait until those battles start!

gclev


--- On Mon, 3/9/09, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sell-Outs: Senator Gary Schroeder and Moscow City Councilman Walter Steed
> To: "Craine Kit" <kcraine at verizon.net>
> Cc: garrettmc at verizon.net, vision2020 at moscow.com, donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> Date: Monday, March 9, 2009, 7:14 PM
> Craine Kit wrote:
> > 1) It doesn't matter how much water is in the over
> all aquifer or how many straws are in it. What's
> important is the fact that Moscow has the right to pump a
> defined and limited amount of water. If the City contracts
> with Hawkins, we the residents will be legally obligated to
> reduce our share of a finite resource to outside interests.
> If we do not have that contract, the outside interests
> cannot dip into our bucket.
> 
> But it does matter how many straws are in the milkshake. 
> If the City contracts with Hawkins, they reduce our share
> and we make a small amount.  If we don't contract with
> them, then it's possible that they will reduce our share
> anyway and we'll get nothing.
> 
> > 
> > 2) Water rights are based on first come, first served
> (i.e. "Senior" vs. "Junior" rights).
> When water becomes scarce, the junior right holders must
> pull their straw so the seniors can retrieve their share. If
>  Moscow contracts with Hawkins, they join our senior right
> rather than being the most junior in Washington's
> scheme. How do we benefit from that?
> 
> This is the first I remember hearing about
> "Senior" vs. "Junior" rights.  If
> Hawkins is not contracted with us, then don't they
> essentially have "Senior" status, in that they can
> continue to pump water even when the juniors here in Moscow
> can't.  Again, that's if they can tap into the same
> water source.  Is it guaranteed that they become seniors if
> we contract with them?  Can we not put something in the
> contract to make them act as juniors?
> 
> > 
> > 3) The amendment does not specify "Hawkins".
> It applies to any development adjacent to our city limits.
> There's lots of land available for development just
> across the line, North, South, and West. How much of our
> allocation are we going to ultimately sell?
> 
> I imagine we  will sell a lot at first, until Pullman city
> council members start getting dollar signs in their eyes and
> decide to run the infrastructure out to the border.
> 
> So where can I find more information on the aquifer?  How
> far does it extend?  If Hawkins drills where they are, will
> they take water from the same source that we will be selling
> them?  If Pullman extends it's infrastructure, will they
> be selling water from the same source, too?  Garrett made a
> good point in his response to me - if it's possible that
> Hawkins would be getting water from a source other than the
> aquifer, or if the amount that can be pumped that way is
> limited by the geometry or geography of the situation, then
> my argument falls to pieces.  I'd rather like it to fall
> to pieces, because then we can guard "our" aquifer
> completely and make better choices. 
> Paul
> 
> > 
> > This is like selling your seed potatoes.
> > 
> > Kit Craine
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Mar 8, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Paul Rumelhart wrote:
> > 
> >> Garrett,
> >> 
> >> I sympathize with your argument, but what about
> the argument "the
> >> aquifer knows nothing about State
> boundaries"?  If we go ahead and sell
> >> to Hawkins, we at least get some control over use
> through global rate
> >> hikes and whatnot.  If we don't, then
> we'll have no control at all and
> >> incidentally no revenue from it.  If there was a
> concrete wall
> >> underground that covers the width of the aquifer
> along the Idaho border,
> >> and all the water was on our side of it, then
> I'd be on your side on
> >> this one.  As it is, I think we have to make the
> best of an unfavorable
> >> situation.
> >> 
> >> Paul
> >> 
> >> Garrett Clevenger wrote:
> >>> Donovan writes:
> >>> 
> >>> "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?... Moscow has no defense whatsoever to deny a
> shopping center water."
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> I don't claim to be a lawyer, but I would
> say that one legal reason is because Moscow does not have to
> sell water to Hawkins. There is no law saying Idaho cities
> must provide water out of state. Schroeder and Steed's
> law may make it easier for cities to sell water out of
> state, but that does not mean they are obligated to. That
> still needs approval from Idaho authorities.
> >>> 
> >>> One job of government is to protect its
> interests. I'd say our city or state would not be doing
> its job if it just let people do whatever they want,
> whenever they want, with any resource they want.
> >>> 
> >>> Washington did not pay to build Moscow's
> water infrastructure. They don't own it and cannot claim
> to have the right to the water that flows through those
> pipes. They can request that the city sell them water, but
> Moscow has the right to deny that.
> >>> 
> >>> Moscow is not obligated to provide water to
> any development that is built. There is a process that has
> to be met before Moscow will sell water.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Donovan asks:
> >>> 
> >>> "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?"
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> The answer is yes, if I'm applying for new
> water rights and you think it'll negatively affect your
> water, then you can petition and may be successful if you
> have evidence in your favor.
> >>> 
> >>> Part of the process is opening it up to the
> public, and people can petition to block transfer of water.
> If someone gaining access to water is going to negatively
> affect someone already in the system, that person has a
> right to prevent being affected.
> >>> 
> >>> If Hawkins is going to affect other users, of
> course those users have a right to petition. Evidence is
> presented, and if it looks like the new user will affect the
> old user, water rights to the new user can be denied. That
> is the legal process.
> >>> 
> >>> Steed and the new council circumvented the
> legal process. They agreed to never petition transfer of
> water rights to Hawkins. They may have thought they had no
> case to block Hawkins, or they may just want to grow at any
> cost, but that does not mean there was no case. We won't
> ever know if they would have been successful in denying
> Hawkins their water rights because that case was never
> presented to Washington's Pollution Control Board.
> >>> 
> >>> The difference between you wanting Hawkins and
> thus not wanting anything to get in the way, and me not
> wanting Hawkins, and wanting to process to unfold in the way
> it was going before the new council signed a secret
> agreement with Hawkins, is that you think its acceptable to
> have things done in secret by people with obvious conflicts
> of interest, while I want transparency and people with
> conflicts of interest to recuse themselves from signing
> secret deals and from writing laws that will affect the rest
> of the state.
> >>> 
> >>> I want to make sure irresponsible developments
> don't occur, whereas you seem to think a free-for-all is
> acceptable.
> >>> 
> >>> Do you not understand that government has the
> right to prevent things that go against its interests, or do
> we agree that that right exists?
> >>> 
> >>> 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
> >>
> =======================================================
> > 
> >