[Vision2020] Potential Opportunity from Perceived Necessity

[Kenneth Marcy]

On Monday 09 March 2009 10:04:10 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> This is like selling your seed potatoes.

Perhaps that's just the perception we would like to market. Seed potatoes are 
scarce, are rare, and therefore are more valuable, and more expensive. Moscow 
a purveyor of cheap water, whether or not forced into the business? Certainly 
not.

Moscow water, which is conveniently available now, is all the dearer to 
whomever would chose to turn on a spigot, especially if that spigot is not 
attached to higher priority uses such as residential sustenance. Lower 
priority uses, such as newer commercial properties, are incrementally more 
expensive to provide with water, so their rates should be correspondingly 
higher.

If Moscow is being maneuvered into a position of supplying water to whomever 
whether or not a majority of municipal voters would choose to do so, perhaps 
the more prudent course of thought is toward sources of water to meet at 
least the more reasonable water demand requirements.

I am wondering whether it may be in Moscow's better interest to investigate 
whether large quantities of water may be obtained from sources other than the 
aquifers to meet what appear to be inevitable development requirements. 
Specifically, I am wondering whether the time has arrived for Moscow to 
consider at least the planning and preliminary engineering design phases of 
pipeline project to bring water from the Snake River northward to Moscow, to 
be distributed first to Moscow and Latah County customers and uses, and then 
to out-of-state customers as their development needs require.

Should such a project to build, for example, a 30 or 36 inch diameter pipeline 
for a distance of at least as many miles, with associated pumping stations 
and distribution lines, be shown to be feasible from an engineering vantage 
point, then consideration of the legal rights, financing options, and the 
public and commercial uses of such a resource could proceed with more 
specificity and determination.

Such a public works project would be expensive, probably on the order of 
magnitude of $50 to $100 million dollars. On the other hand, it would be an 
infrastructure investment that could yield larger known quantities of water 
that could be contracted over the project life to obligated payees, with the 
residual benefits accruing to the residents of Moscow and its environs.


Ken