<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">Garrett,<br><br>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?<br><br>Your reasons please?<br><br>That you don't want another mall, or don't believe in free and fair competition isn't a legal reason. <br><br>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. <br><br>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. <br><br>Best Regards,<br><br>Donovan<br><br>--- On <b>Sat, 3/7/09, Garrett Clevenger
<i><garrettmc@verizon.net></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;">From: Garrett <span>Clevenger</span> <garrettmc@verizon.net><br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sell-Outs: Senator Gary Schroeder and Moscow City Councilman Walter Steed<br>To: vision2020@moscow.com, donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com<br>Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 9:14 PM<br><br><pre>Donovan asks:<br><br>"You are aware that if Moscow refused to provide water across the state<br>line, Moscow would be sued in Federal Court, would lose, and have to pay all the<br>costs of the trial and provide the water for a much lower cost, right?"<br><br><br>I'm not sure how Donovan is so certain of his opinion, but from what I<br>know, before the city agreed to sell Hawkins any water, the process hadn't<br>gotten to the point where the city was obligated to provide any water. The city<br>had a petition to prevent Hawkins
from receiving water rights. The city gave up<br>the attempt to block that when it signed the agreement. <br><br>It was IDWR's job to decide if the city could indeed sell Hawkins water.<br>IDWR never had the hearings to decide that. Hawkins decided to drill for<br>it's own water, not waiting for the city. We don't even know if Hawkins<br>will find water and have enough for it's operation.<br><br>Why would Moscow have to provide any water to Hawkins, before or after the<br>agreement? What gives Hawkins the right to Idaho's water? What federal law<br>would they sue under, and why would they be so sure to win?<br><br>The agreement says that if Moscow doesn't provide them water, Hawkins will<br>receive their water rights, and the city can NEVER try to stop that. It<br>doesn't say the city is legally mandated to give Hawkins water because the<br>city does not have the authority to guarantee that.<br><br>Under this new bill, S1002, that will change. If a city
agrees to sell water<br>which will probably be an unlimited amount as there probably won't be a cap,<br>they only can stop selling that water if Hawkins doesn't pay their bill. In<br>other words, this new law makes it easier for Hawkins to sue if Moscow decides<br>to stop selling them water!<br><br>We are not talking about neighbors in the same state. We are talking about an<br>out of state entity. States fight for the right to maintain their water rights.<br>They are not obligated to give them up to another state.<br><br>The feds had nothing to do with this. This is a state on state issue. Perhaps<br>the feds may have intervened, but nobody knows that. They are more likely to<br>intervene under the new law, though. <br><br>If Hawkins was willing to take Moscow to court to build its predatory<br>development, then it shows to what ends they'll go to get their way. <br><br>Frankly, I trust our ability to shape our future by using the democratic<br>chanel,
rather than appease mega-developers, to make sure we are not squandering<br>a precious limited resource, despite the seemingly corrupted way our elected<br>officials handled this situation.<br><br>Perhaps some people think its ok to have obvious conflicts of interest shape<br>not only local policy, but state policy, but I think it all looks suspicious,<br>from the GMA getting its agenda met by city officials right from the start, to<br>the Idaho Water Users Assoc getting their way by having its director, who is<br>also chair of the Idaho repubs, using his influence to get their way.<br><br>People are mostly self-interested, and if the public isn't willing to look<br>at the bigger picture, and make sure people in power don't abuse their<br>office, then, as history has shown, the rest of us get left in the dust.<br><br>There are too many unknowns for Donovan to have a definitive answer as he<br>states above. Unless he has a magic ball, I could just as
easily say that<br>Hawkins won't find enough water for its needs and therefore will be<br>dependent on Moscow, who bent over backwards to make sure it gets it NO MATTER<br>WHAT!<br><br>gclev<br><br>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br> http://www.fsr.net <br> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>=======================================================<br></pre></blockquote></td></tr></table><br>