<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffcc" text="#000000">
<font size="+1"><font face="Comic Sans MS">Very well expressed, Kit!!!<br>
<br>
Thank you.<br>
<br>
Sam<br>
</font></font><br>
Craine Kit wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:156B435F-EC2E-4EA6-8C7F-8101CF9E70DF@verizon.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
Kit Craine
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>