[Vision2020] Sell-Outs: Senator Gary Schroeder and Moscow City Councilman Walter Steed

[Garrett Clevenger]

Donovan writes:

"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?... Moscow has no defense whatsoever to deny a shopping center water."


I don't claim to be a lawyer, but I would say that one legal reason is because Moscow does not have to sell water to Hawkins. There is no law saying Idaho cities must provide water out of state. Schroeder and Steed's law may make it easier for cities to sell water out of state, but that does not mean they are obligated to. That still needs approval from Idaho authorities.

One job of government is to protect its interests. I'd say our city or state would not be doing its job if it just let people do whatever they want, whenever they want, with any resource they want.

Washington did not pay to build Moscow's water infrastructure. They don't own it and cannot claim to have the right to the water that flows through those pipes. They can request that the city sell them water, but Moscow has the right to deny that.

Moscow is not obligated to provide water to any development that is built. There is a process that has to be met before Moscow will sell water.


Donovan asks:

"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?"


The answer is yes, if I'm applying for new water rights and you think it'll negatively affect your water, then you can petition and may be successful if you have evidence in your favor.

Part of the process is opening it up to the public, and people can petition to block transfer of water. If someone gaining access to water is going to negatively affect someone already in the system, that person has a right to prevent being affected. 

If Hawkins is going to affect other users, of course those users have a right to petition. Evidence is presented, and if it looks like the new user will affect the old user, water rights to the new user can be denied. That is the legal process.

Steed and the new council circumvented the legal process. They agreed to never petition transfer of water rights to Hawkins. They may have thought they had no case to block Hawkins, or they may just want to grow at any cost, but that does not mean there was no case. We won't ever know if they would have been successful in denying Hawkins their water rights because that case was never presented to Washington's Pollution Control Board.

The difference between you wanting Hawkins and thus not wanting anything to get in the way, and me not wanting Hawkins, and wanting to process to unfold in the way it was going before the new council signed a secret agreement with Hawkins, is that you think its acceptable to have things done in secret by people with obvious conflicts of interest, while I want transparency and people with conflicts of interest to recuse themselves from signing secret deals and from writing laws that will affect the rest of the state.

I want to make sure irresponsible developments don't occur, whereas you seem to think a free-for-all is acceptable.

Do you not understand that government has the right to prevent things that go against its interests, or do we agree that that right exists?

gclev