Thanks for your comments. My point in raising the crossing of County/State
line is this:
The Whitman County P&Z is looking at a Corridor Plan that will dictate
development policy in the Pullman-Moscow Corridor, much like Moscow is
studying the "Area of Impact" on the Latah County side.
Their current draft plan allows for development to occur in Whitman County
adjacent to the City of Moscow/Idaho State line BECAUSE they believe that
Moscow MAY provide services across this line.
First, I strongly believe that growth in Whitman County should not be
encouraged to sprawl out away from Pullman (or other municipalities) for
the same reasons that I don't believe it should happen in other areas (eg.
it screws up transportation efficiency). Whitman County should be looking
at their existing municipalities for this kind of growth. They should also
be the ones footing the bill for their supporting services. (It would also
be very difficult for Pullman to annex this part of Whitman County).
Second, as a Moscow taxpayer, I am not excited by the prospect of paying
for development in Whitman County. There is no direct return back to the
Latah County or Moscow tax base. Do the children of *West Moscow,
Washington* get bused back to Pullman or do they cross the border into
Moscow, Idaho? Should Moscow provide services into an area that cannot
legally be annexed? Do Moscow taxpayers pay for the additional load on the
Moscow sewage plant? If not, how does Moscow, Idaho legally tax residents
of Washington?
I believe that our Area of Impact document should specifically and clearly
address this issue for our sake and for the sake of the Whitman County P&Z
trying to sort out where to plan for growth in rural Whitman County.
Tom
(((Very paranthetically...he he... You have sparked my fascination on the
topic of borders. Latah County is the only county in the US established by
an act of Congress, perhaps we could engourage the wild and fiesty 104th to
just create the State of Columbiana and really get people talking. We
could piggy back on the "State's Rights" movement and get another star
stuck on ole' glory.)))
Your comments:
>
>the comment regarding water and sewer service not crossing state or
>county lines conerns me as it can really impact infrastructure
>efficiencies. just as your electrical infrastructure crosses state and
>national lines, there are several circumstances readily apparent whereby
>it might be most efficient, and in the best interest of the community as a
>whole, to cross state and county lines with water and sewer
>infrastructures.
>
>already.... city of moscow and ui water systems are physically tied to
>each other, but separated with closed valves. one can back up the
>other if necessary. it is a terrific back-up capacity. to not make such
>ties at "arbitary" political lines is a lost opportunity.
>
>moscow and pullman share the same aquifer, so our water
>infrastructure is already "tied."
>
>other than the water the univeristy of idaho takes from the outfall of the
>city treatment plant to irrigate fields, etc, all of the downstream users of
>paradise creek are in washington. so our sewer infrastructure is
>already tied.
>
>IF some sort of development were to happen on the washington side of
>the state line, immediatley adjacent to the state line, (residential or
>otherwise) and it were of such a nature that it was positive for the area,
>would it not be better to provide protection to the aquifer by routing
>sewer to the moscow plant rather than having another septic system?
>(provided, of course, that the plant had capacity, etc)
>
>i guess my point is this: tom starts out his comments with a wholistic
>view questioning arbitrary "lines" vs "natural" systems, yet in this one
>comment regarding water and sewer systems, he seems to be
>supporting arbitary lines.
>