[Vision2020] Communication Breakdown and Unreasonable Expectations Dooms Hawkins Agreement

[Garrett Clevenger]

Moscow councilman Walter Steed is attempting to change Idaho water laws (S1002) to make the Hawkins agreement workable.

According to Steed in emails to me:

"when we applied to IDWR to allow the purveyance of water out of state, the Attorney General's office said their reading of state law was that we had to do a Joint Powers Agreement with another government entity in Washington before we could even expect IDWR to rule.  Even tho Randy Fife disagreed, their word governed.  We approached Whitman County and, in my belief, because they want the use of the two wells Hawkins has drilled on properties besides Hawkins', refused to even meet to discuss an agreement.

"During mediation, contact was made with an Idaho Attorney General who indicated the agreement would work and did not bring up the later found need to involve Whitman County."

"Therefore the only option to attempt to do as the Hawkins agreement requires us to "prosecute said Application with diligence and all reasonable efforts," we are attempting to change state law to allow municipalities to purvey water directly to adjacent users."


An article written in the MP Daily News last October 4 quotes a Whitman County commissioner regarding why they declined to talk with Moscow about signing the Hawkins agreement. 

It reads:

"{Whitman} County Commissioner Greg Partch said the move is a byproduct of the county's decision not to accept the city of Moscow's mid-September proposal to charge Whitman County two-and-a-half times the rate it charges in-town commercial customers for water.

"Moscow "wanted such a high price that getting water from them would have made the project cost-prohibitive.

"That's what killed it," Partch added. "We'd rather put that money into our system and own it. It's the difference between owning and renting.""


Moscow's city council probably wasn't willing to be reasonable in what they charge Hawkins (is 2.5 times the going rate fair?) because they told the public, in their reasoning for signing the agreement, that they could charge a premium price for water to Hawkins. There is dispute over whether the city can make a profit selling water (which it would be making if it sold water for 2.5 times the going rate).

If the city is not able to charge 2.5 times according to Idaho law or the Hawkins agreement, then that rate charge to Hawkins would not happen, thus if that was why Whitman County declined to talk with Moscow, it seems like the real deal breaker was Moscow's city council unreasonable expectations.

Moscow's city council then decided to pursue "all reasonable efforts" to execute the agreement by trying to rewrite Idaho's water to allow Idaho municipalities to negotiate directly with out-of-state services areas without that government's need to sign an agreement.

One thing I'm curious to know is if Washington's laws even make it legal to ship water into their state without their consent. Would it be legal for Washington to ship water to Idaho without Idaho government's consent? It seems like it would be in the government's interest to regulate something like that, at least to make sure there isn't some sort of contamination, disposal, or other issue happening.


There were major breakdowns surrounding the Hawkins agreement. First, a communication breakdown leaving Moscow unaware they even needed Whitman County to sign. Second, Moscow trying to sell water for a price it possibly can't charge leaving their agreement unworkable as is, resulting in S1002.


If the city would have known they needed Whitman County's approval at the beginning, there probably wouldn't be a need to change Idaho's water law. I wonder if their meeting was even legit since all the parties that needed to sign the agreement were not present at the meeting. Would a meeting like this even be legal?. 

If the city was willing to charge a more reasonable rate to Hawkins, they may have been able to get Whitman County to at least talk about the agreement, perhaps even sign it, thus no need to change Idaho's water law.



It seems the city was unreasonable in its attempts to find a way to make the agreement work without having to involve Idaho's legislature. A more reasonable approach would have been to charge Hawkins the going rate for water, as is stated in the Hawkins agreement.

If S1002 passes and the city is finally able to sell Hawkins water, they will probably challenge paying 2.5 times the going rate for water. If the city ends up having to lower its water rate to Hawkins, then there probably wasn't a need to change the water law in the first place.


I have a feeling the House will decline to vote in support of S1002 because they won't see the need for changing Idaho's water law to make it easier to sell water out of state to benefit competitors, especially considering the communication breakdown and unreasonable expectations surrounding the bill. Thus, the Hawkins agreement is probably doomed as it is seen now.


The full DNews article is found at:

http://Latah_County_Water_Resources_Problems.googlegroups.com/web/Hawkins+Drills+Own+Wells.pdf?gda=PGBRl04AAADqOCe_Y2_Ix3F7mdV37XLNeUe1LKB2BQtWiRJn9d6eYRNMahuqZWlB_XOxsktwRFYgIlRFD9XJ_DMlrwafEk6M47Cl1bPl-23V2XOW7kn5sQ


gclev