[Vision2020] Potential Opportunity from Perceived Necessity

[Tom Hansen]

Ken -

I believe that the Snake River pipeline concept was approached a number of 
years back, but was determined to be, coupled with a variety of other 
obstacles, far too expensive to realize.

The idea was "tabled" here on the Viz a couple years ago, but quickly died 
out whan a member of the city council (for the life of me I can't remember 
who) chimed in detailing those aforementioned obstacles.

Nah.  Instead of selling our locally available water to out-of-state 
interests, and hunting for other water sources to fill the void created by 
the sale of our water, . . . I think we ought to hold on to what we know 
we have.

Seeya at the Intolerista Wingding, Moscow.

http://www.MoscowCares.com/Wingding
  
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
 
> 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

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/