Those BIAW Billboards: An Eastern Washington Perspective

KXLY reported last week that the Building Industry Association of Washington paid to have 61 billboards reading "Don't Let Seattle Steal This Election" put up all over Eastern Washington. Unfortunately, I have seen none up around Whitman County.

These billboards have been officially denounced by the Rossi campaign. But the intent of the BIAW is clear. Turnout in Eastern Washington could have made a difference in the 2004 election that was decided by 129 votes. Many voters on this side of the state stayed home because they felt Rossi didn't have a chance. The BIAW is trying to motivate people to vote this year by reminding them of what happened last time. Predictably, west side pundits are wringing their hands over this. Joel Connelly of the Seattle-PI wrote in a column earlier this week:

The "Cascade Curtain" is, at times, a frustrating fact of life for folks from Oroville to Asotin.

Washington went nearly a decade without a statewide officeholder from Eastern Washington. The drought was broken last December as Gregoire named Spokane-based Judge Debra Stevens to the state Supreme Court.

Our last governor from Eastern Washington, Clarence D. Martin, left office in 1941. We haven't had a U.S. senator from east of the Cascades since C.C. Dill, "Father of Grand Coulee Dam," left office more than 70 years ago.

Yet, the "Cascade Curtain" has shown holes of late, doubtless to the anger of demagogues and dividers.

Initiative 912, a bid to roll back the state's gas tax increase, was defeated in 2005, with Whitman and Walla Walla counties joining the "Wet Side" of the mountains in voting for transportation.

Huh? Connelly had a pretty good list of our greivances going until he mentioned I-912. Two counties, with strong Democratic contingents, voting to reject I-912 is no "hole in the curtain" (but it should be a lesson to Whitman County voters that we empower liberal Seattleites by voting against initiatives like I-912 and I-933.) In fact, I-912 is a perfect demonstration of our frustration with one-party Seattle rule. In 2005, the public was scared into voting against I-912 , the initiative to repeal the 9 1/2 cent gas tax hike, by images of Hurricane Katrina and the 1989 Loma Prieto earthquake intermingled with the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle. Three years later, after internecine squabbling between the Democratic governor and the Democratic mayor of Seattle, nothing has been done to fix the Viaduct and no plan for doing so has been put forth. And there is still no word on what the $1.6 billion earmarked from the "emergency" gas tax increase to replace the viaduct is going to be spent on.

The Queen showing up for a press conference in Spokane to declare a state of emergency because of the wildfires there and say we are "one Washington" does not bridge the "Cascade Curtain" either.

The greivances we have in Eastern Washington go far beyond the 2004 election. That is just the most well-publicized example of Seattle getting its way, no matter what, and thus a simple and politically expedient way to coalesce the many issues swirling around.

Here's a perfect example. The Queen's campaign called a press conference last week to denounce the billboards and trotted out the President of the Washington State Labor Council, the executive director of the Washington Conservation Voters, and the communications director for NARAL Pro-Choice Washington.

Are you kidding me? The three special interest groups (big labor, tree huggers, and abortion activists) that probably most offend conservative Eastern Washingtonians the most? This is her "One Washington" strategy?

The biggest greivance we have in Eastern Washington against the Queen at the moment is the certainty that she is completely in bed with radical environmentalists to ensure their continued finanical support and to avoid offending the King County granola vote. For instance:

The Queen's handling of the Areva deal that cost the Tri-Cities thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in revenue.

The Department of Ecology's new stormwater mandates that threaten to drive future SEL expansion out of Pullman and costing thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in revenue

Proposals by the Democratically-controlled legislature to heavily tax our vehicles and stifle growth in the name of fighting "global warming."

The ill-fated "Yukon to Yellowstone" legislation that would have amounted to a huge Eastern Washington land grab by environmentalists.

Joel Connelly wondered if the BIAW's campaign to "pour salt into old social wounds" will succeed.

I'll let State Senator Mark Schoesler answer that, in comments he made in the Lewiston Tribune back on February 14, 2008:

Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, often has to hear west-side legislators preach about what eastern Washingtonians need. This session is no different.

A bill to promote the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative in eastern Washington passed through the Senate Wednesday, though it received almost no support from eastern senators, Schoesler said.

"It concerns me that Seattle senators say they know what's best for eastern Washington," Schoesler said.

It's time for a change. It's time to re-elect Dino Rossi as Governor of Washington.

Is the Cold War Between Moscow and Whitman County Back On?

It appears that the short period of Détente enjoyed between Moscow and Whitman County since January is (temporarily?) over.

If you read Queen Nancy's rambling and paranoid missive concerning Hawkins, it's not surprising really.

Now, to quote April, Hawkins needs to drill here, drill now, and worry less about Moscow.

From today's Lewiston Tribune:

Progress stalls on shopping center

Disputes over water have set project back two years, Whitman County commissioner says

MOSCOW - Development of the Hawkins Companies shopping center just across the border into Washington has been delayed again, a Whitman County commissioner confirmed Monday.

"They've lost a construction season, that's what it boils down to," Commissioner Jerry Finch said. "They're going to get some work done this fall, but they're not going to have any construction until next year."

Jeff De Voe, spokesman for Hawkins on what's being called the "state line project," declined comment about when construction might begin.

"He's speaking of his own opinion, not mine," De Voe said of Finch. "A lot of things are happening. I don't have anything for you quite now. As of today, it's just quiet."

In April, De Voe estimated earth-moving equipment would start work at the site around June 1, weather permitting.

But Finch, one of the principal proponents of the development, said he talked with De Voe last week and received an update on delays. The proposal calls for a 714,000-square-foot shopping complex with a Lowe's home improvement center as its anchor.

Finch blamed the latest and previous construction delays mostly on Moscow elected officials who've stymied progress by questioning the development's impact on regional groundwater supplies.

"I think this is a stalling technique to kill the project," Finch said, referring to an initial Moscow appeal of Hawkins water rights transfers by Mayor Nancy Chaney, and subsequent slow progress toward reaching a possible agreement for Moscow to provide water services over the state line.

"That, quite frankly, has set this project back about two years," Finch said of the water issues.

His words come two weeks after members of the Moscow Public Works Committee agreed to forward a draft joint powers agreement to Finch and the other Whitman County commissioners. The agreement is necessary before officials at the Idaho Department of Water Resources will consider interstate transfer of a municipal groundwater supply.

"We've been reviewing it," Finch said of the eight-page draft, adding his cursory assessment has left him thinking more negotiation might be needed. He said the county's legal counsel must review the document before anything is sent back to Moscow. The agreement is necessary because IDWR, which has authority over groundwater, wants the water transfer agreement to be between two governmental entities, not between a city government and a private company.

In the meantime, Finch said, De Voe assured him Hawkins will move ahead with or without Moscow's participation. "I was assured by Mr. De Voe last week that drillers would be on site," Finch said of the company's intentions to drill for its own groundwater. "They're going to drill regardless. Hawkins is doing this on their own. They are not willing to gamble with Moscow."

Finch, who has worked closely with Hawkins on promotion of the shopping center, said the company would "cap" any wells it drills and retire its water rights if an agreement is eventually reached with Moscow. He said drilling could start in two weeks.

But the 204-acre construction site appeared to remain untouched Monday. This despite De Voe saying in April that a ribbon-cutting ceremony would likely be conducted to publicly announce the start of construction. A sign promising arrival of the shopping center remained standing Monday.

Finch and fellow commissioners Michael Largent and Greg Partch have heralded the Hawkins shopping center as the beginning of retail development in the Moscow-Pullman corridor. Likewise, Pullman officials have endorsed the project as a much-needed economic catalyst.

Critics, mostly in Moscow, have said it's the beginning of unnecessary retail sprawl. Pro-development candidates who were elected last November to the Moscow city council have couched their support in terms of the development being "inevitable" and Moscow needing to tap into profits by supplying water.

Hawkins completed its $5.45 million purchase of the development site in April. In addition to Lowe's, plans show room for at least two additional big box stores as well as a number of other retail outlets.

In the Third Year of the Palousitics Revolution

Three years ago today when I started this blog, I wanted two things: Dino Rossi in the Governor's Mansion in Olympia and a Wal-Mart Supercenter under construction in Pullman.

God willing, I'll see both of those things happen by next January.

From its humble beginning, I'd like to think Palousitics' now nearly two dozen contributors have played an important role in recent events on the Palouse, such as:

Taking the WSU College Republicans' fight to promote free speech and expose racism, intolerance, and lack of academic diversity at WSU to a local, regional, and national audience. Ed Weber,the director of WSU's Foley Institute recently apologized to conservatives for kow-towing to the "hegemony of the left-leaning liberal viewpoint" and promised more conservative speakers on campus.

Arguably the most pro-growth Pullman City Council and Whitman County Board of Commissioners in recent times.

According to PARD's latest screed in the Daily News "unfairly and personally attacking" the millions of Wal-Mart haters in Pullman and forcing them into anonymity and silence. In actuality, many of the silent majority of Wal-Mart supporters have found the courage to speak out, prompting Wal-Mart officials to comment that, other than the PARDners, they have been overwhelmed with the positive response they have received in Pullman.

Since I started Palousitics, I have been interviewed by the New York Times, been a guest on a Seattle radio talk show, co-hosted a Pullman talk radio show, met Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott, rubbed elbows with members of the international mainstream media, seen Palousitics ranked as one of Washington's most influential political blogs, and most importantly of all, spoken at a troop support rally for our local National Guard troops deploying to Iraq. I always tell people that I never know from day-to-day what new thing blogging will bring.

But April pointed something out to me recently that made me the proudest I have been yet of this blog. It was a long, rambling, self-pitying, paranoid history of the Hawkins development in the corridor written from Queen Nancy's perspective.

In it, she blames the foiling of her efforts to stop Hawkins, in part, on:

political will and the public’s patience waned in the face of a publicity campaign that unfairly and inaccurately depicted Moscow as meddlesome, unreasonable, anti-business, greedy, and mean-spirited.

As I am not aware of any other "publicity campaign" that depicted Moscow as "meddlesome, unreasonable, anti-business, greedy, and mean-spirited" other than what we waged here at Palousitics, I'm more than happy to take credit for it.

The little blog that took on an out-of-control city government to bring millions of sales tax dollars to Whitman County.

An Army of Davids indeed.....Happy Third Blogiversary to all you Palousitics contributors and readers.

The Queen is Dead! Long Live the Council!

One marvels at the sheer gall of Queen Nancy. She wanted to impose Moscow's business-killing big-box ordinance on Whitman County. But the Moscow City Council nixed that quicker than Sir Thomas More refused to endorse King Henry VIII's plan to divorce Katherine of Aragón (and Nancy can't even have them beheaded.) I told you those guys deserve our full support here in Whitman County.

Can you spell L-A-M-E D-U-C-K?

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Mayor, councilmen spar over LIFT letter; Public works/finance members take exception to Chaney's suggestions to Whitman County

Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney wanted to send a strong message to Whitman County commissioners.

Members of the City Council's Public Works/Finance Committee thought she overstepped her bounds.

Committee members met Monday and shot down all but one of Chaney's suggestions to Whitman County regarding a grant application to pay for infrastructure at the site of the Hawkins Companies' controversial development just across the state line from Moscow.

Whitman County is applying for up to $1 million a year for 25 years through the Washington state Local Infrastructure Financing Tool program. The money would help pay for $18.1 million of public infrastructure in a "Revenue Development Area" that includes the Hawkins Companies' retail development, as well as property south of Hawkins.

Chaney edited and approved a letter written by city Public Works Director Les MacDonald that included seven points of comment about the county's LIFT application.

"If we were applying for anything to that effect, I don't know that I would want Whitman County telling me, or telling us, what we should do about it or how we should approach it," Councilman Dan Carscallen said.

The lone point Public Works/Finance Committee members decided to let Chaney send asks Whitman County to use caution if it builds a wastewater treatment facility near Moscow drinking-water wells.

The original letter included information Chaney said needs to be pointed out to the state officials who review LIFT grant applications. For example, the original letter stated that water quality treatment and sanitary sewer booster stations will likely be needed to serve the development area, though they are not on the application's list of infrastructure improvements.

Chaney said Whitman County may have chosen not to include those items, but if they were forgotten it is "a serious oversight."

Chaney also questioned how Whitman County intends to provide water to the development areas outside the Hawkins project. Moscow has agreed to provide water to the county for Hawkins' development only.

The original letter further suggested that elements of Moscow's large scale retail ordinance, known as the big-box ordinance, could be used for projects within the development area.

Chaney said she doesn't demand that Whitman County adopt the whole ordinance. The point is meant to say, "Gee, Whitman County, take it or leave it, but you may not have to reinvent the wheel here."

Other points in the original letter praised parts of Whitman County's application, such as including a frontage road and improvements for bicycle/pedestrian trails.

Carscallen and Councilmen Walter Steed and John Weber said they felt the letter amounted to Moscow getting too involved with Whitman County's project.

Councilman Bill Lambert sent an e-mail to the Public Works/Finance Committee in agreement.

"I also feel strongly that we should not get our staff involved with doing research, writing letters and spending numerous hours on something that quite frankly isn't our business," Lambert wrote. "Our staff as well as our Mayor and Council needs to focus on what's happening here in Moscow."

Carscallen said Moscow shouldn't be offering up the big-box ordinance when "we haven't even gotten to try it yet to see how it's going to work."

Weber said parts of the letter seemed to be offering Whitman County free engineering advice.

MacDonald said it's normal for Palouse counties and cities to share such information. He declined to comment further on why he thinks the points the committee cut should be sent to Whitman County.

"Where I stand is immaterial," he said.

Chaney said Moscow is not stepping on Whitman County's toes because the city was invited to comment.

Whitman County Clerk of the Board Maribeth Becker said the county didn't not specifically solicit comment from Moscow, but sent out a notice of public hearing to many local communities, landowners and businesses asking for comments. The public hearing is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. Monday at the Whitman County Courthouse.

Chaney said she thinks the council members are being "gun shy" because the LIFT grant is related to the Hawkins project.

"I thought it was more about ideology and digging in the heels than it was the words on the page," she said.

"Paying a 'hidden cost'; Pullman residents lead effort to charge 20 cents per plastic bag"

Chuck "Mr. Civil Discourse" Pezeshki stated in a recent comment on Dnews.com that Pullman was the most "anti-intellectual" town he had ever seen.

Is Pullman sui generis? Or is the antipathy he observes the result of the meddling efforts by Chuck and his liberal academic chums to introduce envirofascist Nanny Statism into Pullman, such as a tax on plastic bags modeled after what Mayor Greg "Hugo Chavez" Nickels has attempted in Seattle?

I'll have much more on this later as I contemplate mounting a counter-effort to shoot this absurd proposal down.

From Friday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Liz Siler counted 22 discarded plastic shopping bags during a recent drive through College Hill in Pullman.

Some bags were caught in trees, while others were lying on lawns or blowing in the street.

"None of those bags were obtained with the idea that it was going to end up on the side of the road, but that's where they end up," Siler said.

Siler is among a group of Pullman residents who want to cut back on the use and distribution of plastic bags. Nearly 80 community members have endorsed a proposal that stores be required to charge 20 cents for each plastic bag dispensed inside city limits.

Plastic bags used for unpackaged items, such as produce, would be exempt from the fee.

The group recently submitted the proposal to the Pullman City Council for consideration, with the goal of having an ordinance go into effect Jan. 1.

Siler said in place of plastic bags, shoppers could get into the habit of keeping reusable bags tucked in their car.

"We're not trying to make things harder for people," she said. "We're trying to make things easier."

The proposal shouldn't be viewed as elitist, said Pullman resident Chuck Pezeshki. It will encourage change and show that residents respect and care for their community.

Though the commonly used bags are compact and currently free, Pezeshki said "there's a hidden cost for society" because many recycling facilities - such as WSU Recycling and Pullman Disposal Inc. - no longer accept the bags.

"If we can't recycle, we've got to reduce and reuse," he said, adding that lightweight bags can travel quickly through the wind or waterways.

The bags are made from petroleum and do not biodegrade, Pezeshki said. In fact, the plastic bags "photodegrade" in the presence of light, meaning they break into tiny pieces and can be eaten by animals. The bags also pose risks to animals that can become entangled in them.

"It's basically spreading petroleum all over the landscape," he said. "When you use a plastic bag, it's like an oil slick all over the land."

Siler said the idea to limit plastic bag use isn't new. She points to Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' recent proposal to charge a "green tax" on disposable shopping bags, and added that San Francisco and communities throughout Alaska have banned the bags entirely. Ireland and China recently took similar action.

The Pullman group points to statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency to justify its cause - 4,630 tons of plastic bags, wraps and sacks were generated in the United States in 2006, of which only 8 percent were reused. The EPA also reports that a family of four uses about 1,500 bags per year.

Siler said the group has met some opposition from a few community members who are concerned they would have no way to pick up their pet waste or line garbage cans without plastic bags.

"No one's saying you can't have plastic bags," Siler said. "You're just going to have to pay for it."

Trev McCuaig, manager of Dissmore's IGA in Pullman, said the store is making strides to reduce plastic waste. Customers who want plastic bags get them, but there are other options. Inexpensive cloth bags are sold at the register, and many customers are eager to pick one up.

"Since we brought those in ... I think we've sold 700 to 800," he said. "I think there are a lot more people that are conscientious."

The store also uses recycled bags when they're offered by the supplier, and all plastic waste generated at the store is baled and sent to a recycling company in Spokane. McCuaig said the store also plans to set up a plastic bag recycling bin.

"There are things that we do at store-level to try to help out," he said.

Siler said the profits from bag fees could go to the Pullman Food Bank, which relies on the bags to package foods for area families. She suggests the money could fund an alternative method for the food bank to distribute food, or go to community beautification efforts.

City Supervisor John Sherman said the city frequently gets proposals and suggestions for change. They are forwarded to the City Council which ultimately decides whether the issue is discussed further.

Sherman said Councilman Bill Paul recently expressed interest in discussing the plastic bag fee proposal publicly, and the topic is scheduled for the council's Aug. 26 meeting. The delay is intended to allow interested residents who may be out of town for the summer to participate in the conversation.

Quote of the Day, Part Two

[Whitman County Commissioner Jerry] Finch pointed out a lot of rancor was directed at environmental groups because of that [giant Palouse earthworm] lawsuit. He said much of the disconnect between farmers and environmentalists has been brought on by “outsiders” at the universities who tell residents of the Palouse how to best manage their land.

- "One percent left: Grad students seek to save Palouse prairie remnants," Whitman County Gazette, May 1, 2008

Amen, Jerry!!!

"P&Z commission worried about water"

Nice to see Moscow is finally looking at its own water usage issues instead of meddling in Whitman County. I've always said, once Moscow stops allowing new houses to be built, THEN we'll have a water crisis.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

The Moscow Planning and Zoning Commission will ask the City Council whether it can consider water issues when making land-use decisions.

Chairman Art Bettge said water concerns should be factored into the discussion for new subdivisions, rezones and the like.

"Every development that is approved and is built increases the overall use and depletion of the aquifer," Bettge said after Wednesday's commission meeting.

However, he said the commission risks infringing on private property rights if it bases decisions on water use without the go-ahead from the council.

Commissioners said they would at least like to draw developers' attention to how their proposed projects will use water resources.

"The water issue kind of slips through unrecognized at times," Commissioner Donald Crawford said.

For example, Commissioner Nils Peterson requested a study of how the Legacy Crossing Urban Renewal District would use and conserve water after a presentation on the proposed district during Wednesday's meeting.

"I don't see any concern on the part of this proposal for aligning itself with the extensive mentions of water consumption that are in the current comprehensive plan," Peterson said.

The other commissioners agreed, and voted unanimously for City Supervisor Gary Riedner to include language about water sustainability in the Legacy Crossing plan.

The discussion of making water a formal part of land-use decisions arose after the city's water conservation specialist, Nichole Baker, gave a presentation on city water-use trends.

Baker's data showed that Moscow met its Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee overall water-use goals in 2006 and 2007 and that per capita water usage is lower now than it was in the 1990s. The city has increased its water conservation efforts in recent years by offering free tools like water-saving shower heads. The city also has encouraged water conservation by imposing a tiered rate system that charges a higher rate for those who use large amounts of water.

Bettge said the data shows Moscow is doing something right.

"That says that despite development, a good many more subdivisions and things like that, we're using less than we were," he said.

He said the city must continue to manage its water use as it grows. He suggested further adjusting the tiered water rates to curb the few households using substantial amounts of water.

The commission also briefly discussed a city water budget. The City Council made developing a budget one of its goals for this year.

Crawford said the council needs to give the planning and zoning commission information about what actually will be done to develop that budget.

"We hear the city's going to develop a water budget and we hear that and we hear that and we hear that, and the issue's not going away," he said.

Bettge said he would prefer not to have a water budget until the city has more solid data on how quickly the Palouse's major aquifer, the Grand Ronde, is being depleted. A state study slated for 2011 could help provide that information.

"Unless you know how much is in the aquifer, you could establish a tight water budget and it still wouldn't mean anything," he said.

The council could approve a resolution allowing the commission to factor water use into its decisions in the meantime. Bettge said some form of direction is vital.

"We could get into an endless discussion of water in public hearings and other than having a nice discussion about water, we can't go any further than that," he said.

Moscow developer Rick Beebe said water should be part of land-use discussions.

"Water issues are something we consider in virtually everything we do right now," he said, adding that developers also should consider issues such as how their development addresses transportation and energy use.

Quote of the Day

Angela Congdon thinks the city of Pullman could have done better when planning Bishop Boulevard.

The 21-year-old Washington State University student said the boulevard's box stores (?) and strip malls add no quality to the Pullman community and detract from the well-planned, pedestrian-friendly downtown area.

"There's no cohesion," she said of recent construction along the boulevard. "Everything is random."

[...]

Congdon, who came to Pullman from the north Seattle area, said she likely wouldn't have initiated the protest without Rahmani's leadership. But she wanted to leave her mark on Pullman, since she soon will leave town to finish her degree at WSU-Spokane.

-"Students protest city's 'architorture'," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, March 28, 2008

Bye Angela. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Don't forget to e-mail Professor Ayad Rahmani at arahmani@wsu.edu and WSU President Elson Floyd at floyde@wsu.edu and let them how you feel about the taxpayer-funded insulting of Pullman during "Cougar Pride Days."

Urban Sprawl or Urban Decay?

So if WSU Professor Ayad Rahmani and his "volunteer" student protesters think these new developments on Bishop Blvd. represent "architorture" and "urban sprawl":







Then what do they think about this urban decay along Pullman's most traveled and visible road, Grand Avenue?:









Perhaps rather than advancing an elitist, liberal fascist political agenda, a better extra credit project would be volunteering the students' expertise/labor to refurbish/demolish these dilipidated structures, the true archictectural "eyesores" in Pullman. How about a carwash or bake sale to raise money for the Grand Avenue Greenway project?

"WSU class protests Pullman sprawl"

How unbelievably repugnant. An elitist professor bribes students who are not even from Pullman to go out and protest supposed "sprawl." They don't even know what "sprawl" really is. If those students are unhappy with the economic development that helps pay for the police, fire, streets, water, sewer, bus service, etc. that they enjoy, then they are more than welcome to run for City Council and effect a change. Perhaps they could actually even show up at a City Council meeting or Planning Commission meeting. But Bishop Blvd. is being developed in accordance with the city's Comprehensive Plan as determined by our democratically-elected representatives.

The good professor and his students are also more than welcome to purchase a lot on Bishop and build their own "sustainable" structure if they choose. Until then, they should just shut up and stop meddling in things they nothing about. These kinds if things only exacerbate tensions between the university and the town and build resentment towards students and professors.

I encourage you to register your disapproval of this agenda-advancing cheap stunt to Professor Rahmani at: arahmani@wsu.edu and WSU President Elson Floyd at floyde@wsu.edu. Let's clog their inboxes with our indignation at our town being used as some social engineering laboratory.

From Dnews.com:

A group of more than 100 Washington State University students protested building sprawl on Bishop Boulevard Thursday morning.

Enrolled in an Architecture 202 class taught by Ayad Rahmani, the students carried signs proclaiming “Stop Architorture in Pullman” and “The Show Starts on the Sidewalk.” The group’s purpose was to promote sustainable structures and growth, not haphazardly constructed strip malls and big box stores.

“There’s no cohesion,” said 21-year old WSU student Angela Congdon. “Everything is random.”

Participation in the protest was optional for the roughly 200 students enrolled in the class. Extra credit was given to students who protested, as well as those who didn’t — as long as they justified their position in writing.

"Legal arguments linger over Hawkins water sale; Lamar questions whether IDWR will approve extension"

I'm glad someone on the Moscow City Council realizes the hypocrisy that was involved with Moscow obtaining a water right to drill a new well while opposing the Hawkins Companies attempting to do the same thing.

From yesterday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Moscow City Councilman Tom Lamar suspects the Idaho Department of Water Resources may deny the city's application to extend its water service area into Whitman County.

Lamar was the lone council member to vote against accepting Public Works Director Les MacDonald's report about the application at Monday's City Council meeting. The city seeks to provide water for the Hawkins Companies' proposed retail development on the Pullman-Moscow Highway, just across the state line.

"I guess I still haven't acquired any additional comfort in doing that, so I just wanted to state my continued concern for this process," Lamar said.

The city agreed to make "prompt application" to IDWR in a settlement with Hawkins, reached during closed-door mediation in February. MacDonald will send a copy of the application to Hawkins for review before it is sent to IDWR.

City Supervisor Gary Riedner said the city will notify the public when the application is sent to IDWR.

The application requests a modification of the city's service area, which usually is the same as the city's corporate limits. The application states the water will be supplied to Whitman County for use by "a commercial development located immediately adjacent to but outside of the city's corporate limits."

MacDonald said the application would not modify Moscow's water rights in any way other than extending services. It does not ask for additional water rights, surrender any rights or make other changes to current services.

Lamar said after the meeting he has doubts there is room in Idaho law for selling water across state lines. He does not know of any example where it was allowed.

He also is concerned that the request could be seen as water mining, which is illegal in Idaho.

"We're taking water out faster than it's being recharged, and now we're going to sell it as a commodity," he said.

City Attorney Randy Fife said he sees no legal problem with Moscow's request "because the Idaho state code provides a mechanism to deliver water outside of the state, and because IDWR agrees that that is an appropriate mechanism."

Fife said IDWR officials want the city to enter a joint powers agreement with a Washington political entity, likely Whitman County, to extend the water service area.

He said he would prefer the city and county reach an agreement before the application is sent to IDWR.

Mayor Nancy Chaney, who does not support selling water to Hawkins, said there should be more communication between the parties involved in the settlement agreement "to ascertain whether being fast or being thorough is preferable" before the application is submitted.

Councilman Walter Steed reminded the council that Hawkins still would have access to 45 acre-feet of water rights should the application be denied.

"Once this is approved and we are able to physically supply water then they are to abandon those water rights and they will be given back to the state of Washington and not be used," he said.

In other business:

MacDonald reported on the city's preparations for Well No. 10, which is scheduled to be drilled on the west end of A Street in 2009.

The city will apply to IDWR to utilize Well No. 9's existing water right for the new well. The amount of water the city can pump will not be increased, but it will be able to pump from either Well No. 9 or Well No. 10. Riedner said the purpose of Well No. 10 is to provide backup in case Well No. 9 temporarily shuts down.

MacDonald said at an earlier meeting he would prefer to apply for a new water right. Councilman John Weber agreed, and voted against accepting the report on the application.

Weber said after the meeting it seems like a waste of time and money to drill a new well but not obtain a new water right.

Steed and Councilman Wayne Krauss said Moscow should not apply for a new right just after asking Hawkins Companies to relinquish its water rights in exchange for the water sale.

Pullman Enemy #1

KLEW TV has more on the Moscow Civic Association forum on the Hawkins water deal, and you won't believe what Tri-State owner Gerard Connelly had to say.

Connelly said he supports the "pro-business" makeup of the new council, but said there's a difference between economic expansion and retail displacement. He used the proposed Wal-Mart supercenter in Pullman as an example.

"Currently, in Pullman, they think that when Wal-Mart opens a 100,000 square-foot grocery store there that people are going to eat more food. They're not," he said. "Nationally, when Wal-Mart opens up a 100,000 square-foot grocery store, two grocery stores in that market go out of business. Nationally, for every two people that Wal-Mart employs when they open up, three people lose their jobs. That's not a matter of philosophy, it's a matter of record."

Bullshit. "That whole 2 stores closing for each Wal-Mart and 2 Wal-Mart employees for 3 losing their jobs" argument is a bunch of weak, unsupported lies right off the Wake-Up Wal-Mart website. If Safeway was so concerned about Wal-Mart closing them down, why in the hell did they just do a very expensive remodel of their Pullman store? And there are only two grocery stores in Pullman to begin with. Does anyone seriously believe that Wal-Mart would shut both of them down and leave only one grocery store in a city of 27,000 people? That's ridiculous.

Again, I know Connelly has been too successful in business to believe that we think that "when Wal-Mart opens a 100,000 square-foot grocery store there that people are going to eat more food." What we believe is that THOUSANDS OF PULLMAN RESIDENTS THAT CURRENTLY SHOP AT WAL-MART AND WINCO IN MOSCOW FOR BUDGET GOODS AND GROCERIES WILL START SHOPPING AT WAL-MART IN PULLMAN INSTEAD. Certainly all the Pullman developers believe that, as evidenced by new and planned construction in and around Bishop Blvd. Connelly knows that. That's why he is only against a Pullman Wal-Mart, not a Moscow one.

Then Connelly mentioned SEL:

Connelly said Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories in Pullman is a good example of economic development, because SEL continues to adds jobs without displacing any current businesses

HELLO, GERARD????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU'RE RIGHT. SEL HAS ADDED JOBS AND PEOPLE TO THE AREA. IT HAS BROUGHT SOME 1,100 JOBS TO THE PALOUSE. MANY OF THOSE EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE NEW TO THE PALOUSE, ABOUT HALF OF WHOM HAVE LOCATED IN PULLMAN, LIKE MYSELF. WE'RE NOT GOING TO EAT MORE FOOD. THERE ARE MORE MOUTHS TO FEED. DO YOU NOT GET THAT???? DID NO ONE PICKUP ON THIS PIECE OF ILLOGIC??? And SEL does cause business displacement, just not in Pullman. Every company that buys SEL relays costs some other relay maker a sale. Eventually, that might result in that other company having to lay off employees or even close. That is the nature of business. There are winners and there are losers. Unbelievable.

And WTF is Connelly doing going off on Pullman and Wal-Mart at a forum ostensibly about the Moscow City Council's decision to sell water to a developer in Whitman County. Neither Pullman and Wal-Mart fit into that equation at all.

I've always disagreed with attempts at boycotting local businesses to express dissatisfaction with the owner, but I'm starting to consider it.

"Forum on Hawkins deal brings questions, answers"

Let me sum up last night's Moscow Com, er, Civic Association forum on the Hawkins development.

Moscow will receive $170,000 a year for selling Hawkins the same water Hawkins could have been pumping themselves, versus nothing.

Leftists still view national chain retail as some sort of capitalistic murder-suicide plot versus an investment.

And Gerard Connelly is still against any retail development in Pullman.

Now, can everyone please shut up? It's a done deal.

From today's Lewiston Tribune:

MOSCOW - Secrecy in government and a hurried business deal became fodder here Tuesday night for a bevy of questions and answers, some lengthy explanations and at least one concession.

"Has the council learned a lesson? Absolutely," Councilor Wayne Krauss said during a public forum about the city's recent closed-door deal with Hawkins Companies developers. "Should there be more public process? Absolutely. I agree with that."

The city council voted 5-1 last month to provide water and sewer service across the state line to Hawkins' proposed 714,000-square-foot shopping center. The action came after 22 hours of secret mediation and no public input.

"We got bad results from a process that was dubious at best," said Dennis Baird, owner of the Wine Company of Moscow.

Krauss and Baird were joined on a panel by Councilor Tom Lamar and Tri-State business owner Gerard Connelly. The forum, attended by about 100 people at the 1912 Center, was co-sponsored by the Moscow Civic Association, the Moscow Chamber of Commerce, and the Palouse Water Conservation Network.

Lamar, the only council member who voted against the agreement, said while the city council was on firm legal ground, "morally I feel like we should have done a lot of things differently."

Connelly defended the intentions of all elected officials. "I believe that every single person on the old council and the new council, and the mayor, acted honorably. And don't question anybody's motives."

But he said retail development is not economic development. "Retail follows economic development," Connelly said, adding he couldn't think of a more important vote taken by a Moscow City Council than the rushed decision with Hawkins. And yet there was "woefully inadequate public comment."

Krauss pointed out the lack of public involvement and secrecy started when Mayor Nancy Chaney and members of the old city council went into executive session last year and apparently came to a consensus to appeal Hawkins Companies attempts to secure water rights for the development. Then the city, without public input, decided to enter into mediation, Krauss said.

"We suddenly found out, guess what, we're going to mediation next week," Krauss said of how the process was sprung on new council members. He, Chaney and Councilor Walter Steed attended the mediation session with Hawkins in Spokane. All had to sign a confidentiality agreement.

"We felt that the Hawkins development, it was coming no matter what Moscow did," Krauss said. If the city didn't supply sewer and water, Hawkins would drill its own well and sewer system. "So the next best thing was hammer out the best deal we can."

Krauss estimated Hawkins will pay the city upward of $170,000 annually for water and sewer service on top of thousands more for hookup fees.

Most of the written questions at the forum focused on details of the water and sewer deal, rather than the secrecy of the decision making.

Baird expressed his doubts about the development, saying local businesses will lose out. "And then the place will close ..., and the whole community will be stuck with less business and less tax revenue than we have right now. That's the scenario that I'm really afraid of, that the mall will succeed just long enough to sink a whole lot of ships in Moscow and Pullman ... and then fail."

Connelly predicted the shopping center would amount to the latest exercise in "economic displacement," not growth. Nonetheless, if the development is inevitable, he'd rather have it right next to Moscow than farther away. "The closer you can be to your competition, the better."

Concerns about the development using too much water, Krauss said, should be less under the proposed agreement because Moscow will be able to regulate the amount. He also said people who fear excessive water use by Hawkins need to be more concerned about residential developments that go in with little or no discussion about their drain on groundwater supply.

"Hawkins reactions reflect unneighborliness"

Another masterpiece from Michael O'Neal in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Two weeks ago, I offered some observations about the Moscow City Council's decision to peddle water to a proposed retail development over the state line. I took a tongue-in-cheek view of the kerfuffle based on frenzied reactions to the council's "betrayal" of Moscow and the preposterous notion that the five who voted for the sale should be booted from office.

This week, let me offer some less tongue-in-cheek observations, all admittedly based on utter ignorance of the intricacies of water law, though I suspect those intricacies perplex people who are smarter than I.

In the Bible, God gave humans dominion over the animals by giving us the power to name them. There's a class of amateur geologists in Moscow who seem to believe that if they can name the aquifer we sit on, it belongs to us.

But the water under our feet no more "belongs" to the city of Moscow than does the air surrounding us - as though, if a wind blows through, we have to go to the recorder's office and reassert our ownership rights to the new air. The aquifer, like the air, is an amorphous mass whose boundaries are difficult to define and whose contents alter over time. The water isn't Moscow's water, like a huge bottle of Evian. (Legally, it belongs to Idaho.) Rather, what Moscow owns is the right to pump the water out of the ground and deliver it. When we say we "buy water," that's a bit of a misnomer. We don't buy water, strictly speaking, as much as we buy a pumping and delivery service.

When you get down to it, it's no different from a brothel, where you buy a service, not a product (so I'm told). And as in a brothel, no matter how often you breathlessly pant a name, you don't own anything. Some people, though, think that by selling water over the state line, Moscow and its people are the ones getting screwed and the City Council members are the pimps.

But how so? Presumably, if the retail development goes in - and Moscow has no say in that matter - the developers will obtain the right to use water. They're going to get that water from either Moscow or Pullman. But it's the same aquifer. So what real difference does it make who sells the pumping and delivery service? The answer, I would argue, is simple. None.

What strikes me, though, is a kind of mean-spiritedness, a lack of neighborliness, about many of the reactions to the sale of the service, as though by driving over the state line, you enter an alien land populated by, I don't know, Romulans - or Republicans. But that's absurd. Moscow and Pullman are intimately connected. People who work in Pullman live in Moscow, and vice versa. Shoppers smuggle goods across the state line. The universities cooperate. The economic, social and cultural fortunes of Moscow and Pullman are symbiotically linked, and enhanced. But to read some of the feverish letters to the editor, we should be installing armed border guards.

Here's another way to look at it. Say my neighbor asks for an easement or a lot-line adjustment to access his property from mine. The only alternative for him is to cut in access from elsewhere, with tree cutting, blasting, and disruption to the landscape, all at huge expense. If I can provide that access, and indeed can sell it to my neighbor, it strikes me that refusing to do so is pure cussedness, a kind of me-first attitude that's indecent. At best, it leads to a misallocation of resources.

Similarly, if it would cost the developer piles of cash to dig in water lines from Pullman, but far less to pipe water - and not very much water - a hop, skip, and jump from Moscow, the neighborly thing to do is sell that service. Everyone benefits, including Moscow shoppers, who now maybe won't have to gas up to drive to Spokane or Lewiston, or even over to Bishop Boulevard.

But see, none of this is really about water. It's about development, which threatens the city's regressive "progressives." Development makes the pond bigger. And in a bigger pond, some of the fish start to look like sprats.

Sour Grapes Redux

Citizen Ament and his ponytail provided yet another angry and churlish reminder today of why he finished dead last in last November's Moscow City Council election.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

An economic assault on Moscow

When I took my seat on the Moscow City Council the Hawkins development was an inevitability.

By the end of my term [i.e., when the voters booted him out - tf] Hawkins was a possibility, nothing more. I took it for granted that it was my responsibility as an elected official to protect the natural resources and economic health of Moscow. [Obviously the voters disagreed - tf] The Hawkins development will be detrimental to both.

The possibility of the Hawkins project was so remote that without financial assistance the project would not move forward. Whitman County made the same bad decision that many other government entities have made - to offer financial incentives to lure new business. [That's why we're getting Hawkins and Home Depot ditched Moscow - tf] Then our Greater Moscow Alliance-dominated Moscow City Council went to work. I knew these guys had a business-first philosophy. I naively thought they meant Moscow business. Our GMA City Council made the Hawkins development a surety.

Moscow sits atop a resource that is in scarce supply worldwide - pure, clean, unpolluted water. We have yet to work out our own water issues. We need to carefully consider each new burden we place on our water supply. Our GMA City Council sees no need to conserve our water.

Our GMA City Council allocated our water to ensure growth in Whitman County. I am not opposed to growth in Whitman County. I believe we need a healthy region to have a healthy city. Placement by Whitman County of a "big-box village" right next to Moscow, miles from needed Whitman County utilities, is growth I can not support. The Hawkins development is nothing less than an economic assault on Moscow.

The GMA City Council voted against Moscow business and for squandering our resources. Thanks to our GMA City Council, Whitman County will be building infrastructure "in Moscow" that will ship our resources out, their waste in.

Aaron Ament, Moscow

WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH! You had your shot and voters overwhelmingly rejected your point of view. Get a life.

"Moscow meetings will face legal review"

As I predicted, an "onslaught of efforts" to overturn the Moscow-Hawkins water deal is underway. Dennis Baird, owner of the W(h)ine Company in Moscow, has asked for legal review of the council's executive sessions with regards to the deal. Five will get you ten, however, that Baird could really give whit about the secret exectutive sessions between Chaney and the previous council that led to the various Moscow appeals that stopped Hawkins.

From today's Lewiston Tribune:

MOSCOW - Downtown businessman Dennis Baird said Thursday he asked for a legal review of circumstances surrounding several city council executive sessions because government secrecy shouldn't be tolerated.

"The results of secrecy in government are almost always awful," said Baird, owner of the Wine Company of Moscow.

Latah County Prosecutor William Thompson Jr. accepted Baird's request and will be reviewing the matter next week. City Attorney Randy Fife, meanwhile, has said the city acted well within Idaho's open meeting law.

The debate swirls around the city council's recent 5-1 decision to provide water and sewer service across the state line for the proposed Hawkins Companies shopping mall. That action stemmed from an initial executive session last year after which the city appealed water rights transfers Hawkins had secured in neighboring Whitman County.

"The process was really terrible; making major substantive decisions on city resources in executive session is simply not a good way to run a government," Baird said.

There was no public discussion prior to the appeals being filed. Nor was there any public input prior to or after another executive session that resulted in a 180-degree turnaround to dismiss the appeals and ultimately offer water and sewer services to Hawkins. What's more, the deal with Hawkins was hammered out during a 22-hour secret mediation session in Spokane.

The city of Moscow issued a release Thursday stating the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board ordered the dismissal of all water rights challenges on Feb. 13 based on the negotiated settlement agreement.

And it's that process leading to the settlement Baird is challenging.

"It stayed awful from day one to day three," Baird said. "The problem is the process, the secrecy. The second part of the process problem was the rush to approve the secret deal. They could have waited another week."

The city had been taking heat since last summer from Whitman County officials who claimed Moscow overstepped its jurisdiction by filing the water rights appeals. The appeals, said the county's three commissioners, unjustifiably held up construction of the mall.

Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney, who signed the appeals, said they were filed out of concern for the region's groundwater resource. Critics across the border, however, said the legal maneuver was taken mostly to stymie retail development in the Moscow-Pullman corridor.

Baird said he doesn't like the city's decision to extend services across state lines. But he's most concerned about the action stemming from attempts to circumvent Idaho's open meeting law. "There's plenty of blame to pass around," Baird said about city officials who participated, including members of the past and current city councils.

Chaney, Fife and council members said they acted legally. The law allows for executive sessions to "discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated."

Baird said litigation usually refers to legal actions taken by others against the city, not actions initiated by the city. "Since the city had filed an administrative appeal in the state of Washington, I suppose that could be called litigation," he said. "But the things they discussed went way beyond anything that was subject to litigation, including committing the city's resources outside the state."

It Ain't Over 'Til The Hippie Lady Sings

As you may have noticed by letters and stories in the Daily News, the anti-growthniks in Moscow are not going gentle into that good night with regards to the Moscow-Hawkins water deal. Accusations of smoke-filled backroom deals, juicy quid pro quos for Greater Moscow Alliance members, and cries for a recall of city council members have been flying faster than a pair of stretched tights ripping at the Renaissance Festival.

But a more sinister threat is growing behind the scenes. King Solomon, ominously quiet during the drama these past few weeks, is working behind the scenes to thwart the evil plot of the running lap dogs of capitalism.

Exhibit 1: The following e-mail exchange between Solomon and the Deputy Attorney General for the Idaho Department of Water Resources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rassier, Phil
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:58 PM
To: 'Mark Solomon'
Cc: Haynes, Bob; 'rfife@ci.moscow.id.us'
Subject: RE: Moscow out of state sale of water

Mark,

This is a brief informal response to your request for my thoughts on your discussion set out below relating to the authorities under which the City of Moscow could seek authorization to provide water across the Washington state line. Many of the statutes and issues you discuss were addressed in the attached June 16, 2005 letter from Steve Strack of the Idaho Attorney General's Office to Randy Fife.

For the reasons stated in the Strack letter, the provisions of I.C. 50-324 do not provide usable authority for the City of Moscow in the present case. That statute provides authority for a city in Idaho to acquire and operate an out of state private water distribution system in order to supply water to the Idaho city from an out of state source.

The Strack letter also addresses the provisions of I.C. 42-401 governing applications for use of public waters outside the state. While this statute certainly governs applications by persons from outside the state it also governs applications from persons within Idaho who intend to "withdraw water from any surface or underground water source in the state of Idaho and transport it for use outside the state ..." To read the statute otherwise would mean the Legislature intended to withhold from Idaho citizens a benefit required under the Commerce Clause that is being provided to non-citizens. In my view, this would not be a plausable reading of the statute.

I appreciate your inquiry and hope you find this response helpful.

Sincerely,

Phil Rassier

________________________________

Phillip J. Rassier
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Department of Water Resources
322 East Front Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0098
Phone: (208) 287-4808
Fax: (208) 287-6700
Email: phil.rassier@idwr.idaho.gov

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mark Solomon [mailto:msolomon@uidaho.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 11:22 AM
To: Rassier, Phil
Subject: Moscow out of state sale of water

Dear Phil,

I am writing you today to seek your assistance in clarifying the statutory authorities under which the City of Moscow may seek IDWR permission to sell water across the Washington state line to a private entity. The city attorney, Randy Fife, and I have discussed this matter and come to diametrically held opinions. In the interest of resolving this issue as expeditiously as possible, informal guidance from IDWR, short of a court's determination, may serve all the interests at hand - especially if provided prior to an actual application from the City of Moscow to IDWR.

I understand from communications received by the City from IDWR that an application might be considered under 42-401 I.C. et seq. There is another statute within Title 50 (Municipal Corporations) that I believe may control in this instance as it is specific to the powers of a city regarding transfer of water across a state line.

50-324. CITIES AUTHORIZED TO JOINTLY PURCHASE OR LEASE, MAINTAIN OR OPERATE A JOINT WATER SYSTEM. All cities of this state are empowered by ordinance to negotiate for and purchase or lease, and to maintain and operate, in cooperation with adjoining cities of states bordering this state, the out of state water distribution system, plant and equipment of privately owned utilities used for the purpose of supplying water to the purchasing or leasing cities from an out of state source; provided, the legislature of the state in which such water distribution system, plant, equipment and supply are located, by enabling legislation, authorizes its cities to join in such purchase or lease, maintenance and operation. The city council of the cities acting jointly under this section shall have authority, by mutual agreement, to exercise jointly all powers granted to each individual city in the purchase or lease, maintenance and operation of a water supply system. (Emphasis added).

Here the state has spoken specifically to the conditions under which cities are authorized to distribute water across the state line. By my understanding of the rules of statutory interpretation, when a statute speaks specifically to a circumstance, it then excludes the extension of the power in question. In other words, by specifically granting cities the power to cooperate with adjoining cities in bordering states, the state excludes the cities' power to cooperate with other entities in the operation of a joint water system across state lines. If my interpretation is correct (and while I've read a lot of law, I am not a lawyer), then deciding how to proceed under 42-401 is a moot point.

If it is not mooted, then consideration of the other statutes is required. It is the City's position that 42-401 provides the authority and permitting process for its sale of water across the state line. A simple reading of the Chapter's title "APPROPRIATIONS FOR USE OUTSIDE STATE" would appear to support that position. However, a plain reading of the statute accompanied by its legislative history indicates that this statute speaks to a set of facts that do not fit the City's circumstances.

42-401 I.C. seems to be intended to address facts similar to those that gave rise to the U.S Supreme Court decision in Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 (1982) and the subsequent test of New Mexico's statute interpreting that decision in City of El Paso v. Reynolds (El Paso II), 597 F. Supp. 694 (D.N.M. 1984). 41-401 I.C. repeatedly refers to an applicant's use of water in an adjoining state as in Sporhase, not the provision of water by an entity in Idaho to a different entity in another state:(

2) Any person, firm or corporation or any other entity intending to withdraw water from any surface or underground water source in the state of Idaho and transport it for use outside the state or to change the place or purpose of use of a water right from a place in Idaho to a place outside the state shall file with the department of water resources an application for a permit to do so.

(3) In order to approve an application under this chapter, the director must find that the applicant's use of water outside the state.

(7) Upon submittal of the application, the applicant shall designate an agent in the state of Idaho for reception of service of processs.

Taken together the various sections of 42-401 seem to clearly imply that the applicant is an out-of-state entity with a water right in Idaho who intends to use the water outside the state. This interpretation would coincide well with the facts in Sporhase, but not with the intention of the City of Moscow to apply for a permit to sell water across the state line. Even if 42-401 could be read so broadly as to include such a sale, it appears the applicant could not be the City of Moscow but would have to be the out-of-state entity who intends to use the state's water. It is my reading that 42-401 et seq simply does not apply to the situation at hand no matter who is the applicant.

I understand that you would not want to comment on whether a legally viable application will or should be granted, but here, it appears that there is no legal means for the city to obtain the permit they have contracted to request. An informal opinion from you (perhaps to your director that could then be passed on to the city informally?) might save the city a lot of embarrassment, time, money, and public protest. If the City then chose not to file its application, the merits of the question "should the water use be allowed" would never need to be debated and protested in public hearings.

Your thoughts and guidance would be most welcome.

Sincerely,

Mark Solomon
Moscow, ID

Knowledgable observers believe this is just the beginning of an onslaught of efforts to bring pressure upon the Idaho Department of Water Resources and their upcoming decision to approve the water supply agreement.

The 2005 Moscow Water Transfer opinion by Deputy Attorney General Steven W. Strack attached to the e-mail is not promising. Click here to view a copy of this opinion. But that was a past IDWR director's interpretation of Idaho Code. The new IDWR director, Dave Tuthill, interprets the law somewhat more favorably for the extension of water services to occur across state lines. However, this will not stop the Aquinuts from trying to push this as far as they can. The Hawkins cause célèbre, as Gordon Forgey has called it, is still very far from over.

The pro-growth Moscow City Council members, or the "Hawkins 5" as they are being derisively dubbed, are being lambasted publicly in the most concentrated smear campaign we have seen on the Palouse since Jerry Weitz had the temerity to challenge the school levy.

I admit, it is tempting to sit this one out. A business-unfriendly Moscow is very business-friendly to Whitman County and Pullman. And Whitman County is covered with the infrastructure bond and Hawkins still has water rights it can pursue if IDWR doesn't allow Moscow to sell water. Hawkins can still build their mall. Many, including myself, would like to see Whitman County control the water for development in the corridor and not be dependent on Moscow.

BUT WE CANNOT LET THE LEFTISTS WIN THIS ONE!!!!!!! Thw Moscow City Council vote to drop the appeals and agree to sell water and sewer services was a HUGE kick in the teeth to the local socialists. The constant screeching and dramatic rhetoric is evidence of that. But if they manage to stop the water sale to Hawkins, they'll be emboldened to stop every new project by beating down everyone who supports it they way they have this time. And don't forget, there will be other developments in the corridor besides Hawkins. If they win this one, King Solomon and the Knights of the Water Table will oppose every one of them. The Moscow-Hawkins deal has thawed the Cold War between Whitman County and Moscow. It has reestablished relations between our two communities. And this is important. We are a regional economy sharing regional resources. We either work together or fail alone. Plus, as I have stated before, if you believe in preserving the aquifer, Moscow municipal water service will ultimately save more water than the original Hawkins plan for development of new wells.

Someone told me yesterday that, "I attended Mayor Chaney's State of the City address today. The elephant in the room (Hawkins) was never mentioned but many could smell the peanuts...."

What can you do? Consider writing a letter to the editor in support of common sense and the Hawkins-Moscow water deal, whether you are a resident of Pullman, Moscow, Whitman County, or Latah County.

Also, consider sending the Moscow City Council members an e-mail expressing your support:

Bill Lambert
Dan Carscallen
John Weber
Walter Steed
Wayne Krauss

You can also leave a phone message for the council members at (208) 883-7080.

"Time to throw the rotten so-and-so's out"

Another classic column from Michael O'Neal in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

It's hard to keep crybabies quiet.

The back story to this scrap of wisdom runs thus. An out-of-area developer, the Hawkins Companies, wants to put in a retail development just west of Moscow. Five Moscow councilmen, three of them recently elected after running on an openly pro-business platform, are now officially a nefarious cabal, the "Hawkins Five," dubbed so on this page because they voted to sell water to the developer after closed-door mediations.

Now the United States has this thing called representative government. Voters, expressing preferences at the polls, elect people to office, then turn over to those people decision-making authority. That way, everything doesn't become a referendum. Every time a decision has to be made, we don't have to run to the polls, or sit in hothouse meeting halls picking up the flu from the guy with the wet cough behind us.

But there's a class of people in Moscow who don't like representative government, for it gives misguided little people license to vote. Those voters in turn have the temerity to elect to office candidates who are not aging hippies whose notion of economic development is coffee stands (which use water) and tattoo parlors.

What's their problem? For starters, the developers are from Boise. That must mean they're curly-mustachioed, cigar-chomping carpetbaggers, in town to offer the rest of us 40 acres and a mule in exchange for our water. Reasonably, though, the developers believe that business owners might want to tidy up after us and that employees and shoppers should wash their hands after flushing.

But these are all salutary activities. People would presumably be doing them anyhow, somewhere (one hopes), thus using water from the same aquifer, unless of course they're really good at holding it so they can go use water from someone else's aquifer. But then they'd be burning gas, melting the polar ice caps, and drowning the giant Palouse earthworm - the point being that we all exist, so every single one of us uses resources no matter what we do and where we do it. And if we don't have to leave carbon footprints between here and Lewiston or Spokane to do it, something's been gained.

Further, these establishments might sell things people actually want, need, and can afford, without turning to the Internet, as many currently do, thus shipping away dollars and the tax revenues they generate. It's likely that most of the products they'd sell won't be made of hemp or bamboo - or made in co-ops redolent with patchouli. So that means they represent sprawl.

The usual gambit employed by people who don't like a decision is to grumble about process. Closed doors for them are always a bad sign, as they are for my cat. But as I've tried to explain to my cat, mediations are always closed. People are more inclined to mediate (another salutary activity) when they know that a card they show behind closed doors won't get trumped later in a lawsuit.

So the crybabies, who didn't get their way in the last City Council election, want to "recall" the newly elected councilmen. They intone solemnly that there should have been more "public discussion" and that the Hawkins Five (one quakes at the very name) has "betrayed the public trust" - by doing what the little people elected them to do. Of course, the process included no vigorous "public discussion" when the mayor unilaterally filed a petition to quash Hawkins, but this mote of hypocrisy escapes the notice of the hemp-and-bamboo crowd.

Meanwhile, the little people are cattle. We're told that the councilmen who voted in Hawkins' favor were "ushered into office by the Greater Moscow Alliance," more cigar-chompers bent on selling off the Palouse in pieces to the highest bidders. Many of us little people find smug, elitist comments like this a slap in the face. The council members were ushered into office not by the GMA but by the citizens who chose to vote for them. The GMA didn't even exist when two of the Hawkins lapdogs were elected.

But the voters, lobotomized by the GMA, were wrong. The people the voters voted for voted in favor of something some people don't like. So of course we must throw the sonsabitches out.

Get out the (organic) teething biscuits.

Say What? Special Edition

The wit and wisdom of Moscow City Councilman Tom "Last Liberal Standing" Lamar, as displayed in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

I am not convinced that it is legal for an Idaho city to sell water to a private entity in another state

That's funny. I'm not convinced that it's legal for an Idaho city to oppose a private development in another state.

Why should Moscow give up its precious resource to benefit another county and a private company?

Excuse, me, MOSCOW'S precious resource? The last time I checked, the Grande Ronde aquifer extended under Washington, Idaho, and Oregon, with the vast majority underneath Whitman County and Washington.

I have not seen a retail study showing that a retail development of this size - 714,000 square feet is needed or justified.

Here you go, Tom.

Locating a giant shopping center in an unincorporated area is poor community planning. It runs contrary to Moscow's comprehensive plan.

That would be great, if THE HAWKINS DEVELOPMENT WAS IN MOSCOW. But it isn't. It will be built in Whitman County and the concept FITS PERFECTLY WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Arrogant jerk. You plan your community, we'll plan ours.

It will be more difficult for Moscow residents to reach via walking, biking or bus than our current shopping choices.

Let's see. Most Moscow residents live on the other side of town from Winco, the Palouse Mall, Tri-State, Wal-Mart, etc. If they are willing to walk a mile or more to shop now, an extra few hundred yards to get to the Hawkins development shouldn't deter them. Of course, Lamar's premise is absurd. How many people do you see walking or biking to the mall or Winco? And I imagine Moscow city buses will go to the Hawkins mall. If not, I'm sure the Wheatland Express will.

Moscow residents who work in Pullman likely will face longer commute times.

That's too stupid to even address.

How will this long-term commitment of water affect the future ability of Moscow businesses to grow? Or our ability to attract new businesses?

Here's how, Tom. This whole agreement is a Win-Win-Win-Win. Hawkins wins by avoiding hundreds of thousands of dollars in further lengthy litigation. Those concerned about water and the environment win because Moscow's municipal water and sewer system will be far more effective at conserving water and preventing pollution than anything Hawkins would construct. Whitman County wins because the corridor is now open for business and all the millions of extra dollars in tax revenue that means as opposed to Hawkins pulling the plug and scaring off all future corridor development. And Moscow wins because they get a piece of the sales tax action by selling water and sewer at a premium, existing Moscow businesses will benefit greatly from the spillover from Hawkins, and the land behind Staples, Wal-Mart, and the Palouse Mall just got a lot more attractive to new businesses. In fact, I would argue Moscow made out the best inthe deal. By selling Hawkins water, Moscow has forestalled any county or City of Pullman water services in the corridor for now, which of course will forestall any further development in the corridor. Any new businesses attracted by the Hakwins development will go into Moscow.

Picking and Choosing

I agree with quite a few of the Moscow-Pullman Daily News editorials. They seem quite reasonable, anyway, compared with what comes from Tribune columnists Tom Henderson and Jim Fisher.

However, when Daily News editor Doug Bauer wrote this in an editorial last Saturday, it caught my eye:

We've already voiced our support for Hawkins' plans to build in the corridor that runs between Pullman and Moscow, and that hasn't wavered.

However, the decision to sell city services should not have been made until the public had a chance to voice its thoughts and concerns.

Understandably, some people are upset they were left out of the process, so much that some have uttered the word no elected official likes to hear - recall.

Uh, excuse me, Doug, but where was the similar editorial regarding Queen Nancy's decisions, after secret executive sessions, to first file a SEPA appeal and then water rights transfer appeals against Hawkins? Did the public not have a right to voice its thoughts and concerns on decisions that cost Moscow taxpayers tens of thousands in legal fees?

And what about the voice of Whitman County citizens, who cannot vote for or against Chaney or the Moscow City Council? Yet Chaney & Company's decisions to oppose Hawkins to the bitter end could have cost Whitman County millions and millions of dollars in tax revenue. Talk about disenfranchisement.

Sorry, this editorial was just pandering to a few loud-mouth Moscow malcontents. You can do better.