Santolina and the Water Authority #NMLEG HB331- SB609

Ash Wednesday 2015 (This part's not fiction but I wish it was.)

Great testimony in favor of the ABCWUA elected board bill on Monday at the NMLEG (HB331.) And very telling opposition - like a hornet nest was poked. There were some stinging words. (I highly recommend attending legislative committee hearings for the entertainment value alone.)

This was freshman Representative Andre Romero's first bill. It would make the ABQ water authority an elected board. A bill has also been introduced on the Senate side by Jerry Ortiz y Pino. (SB609)

For context, the House Agriculture, Water, Wildlife  Committee is now chaired by Representative Candy Spence Ezzell (R) who I've listened to for years taking potshots at government and advocates of environmental interests. At this hearing, for only one example, she went off-tangent about how the Forest Service uses mulch and is going to "burn everything up."

Republican talking points, like how the federal government mismanages forests so states should take over public lands, are brought up frequently in the Republican majority House.  The tenor of their discussion is divisive and distressing. Especially apparent is mention of urban versus rural. And R bills seem punitive, full of increased fines and punishment.

Points about HB 331 were made very well by Representative Romero but the bill never had a chance. All you had to do was look around the room at who was there, like NAIOP, ACI, Chamber of Commerce, and the lobbyist for Santolina.

 

One of the City's lobbyists left the committee room when he saw the City Councillor there to testify in favor. Had the Councillor not been there, that lobbyist also would have also spoken against the bill - bringing up questions about the power of lobbyists  to shape state public policy without public input or even the knowledge of their employers.

Councillor Ike Benton was the expert witness for Representative Romero and set out the reasoning well. He was generous with praise for the present water authority administrator and board members. Which is likely why he was perturbed when one lobbyist suggested this was  "a personal issue with the Councillor."

Some general examples of opposition points and notes:

Lobbyist Dan Weaks brought up urban/rural divide, saying that creation of the board was because people were "not getting service to rural areas." Large swaths of the developed unincorporated county had water service years before formation of the water board. Extensions were contingent on annexation for many years, which slowed service availability. But that policy was changed, also long before the authority was formed.

A very real factor in board formation was the desire to remove the utility from the city's control. There were many reasons. But by far the most compelling was the desire on the part of interests in the undeveloped county for water service. Those were and still are: west side developers, their boosters and their apologists.

The worn adage: "If it ain't broke don't fix it," was repeated a couple of times. Apparently those who make this argument need things to completely fall apart first. That's a funny way to run government. Come back after you've got it screwed up. Wait until the tires fall off (the farms and the river are dry) -  then we'll look at it.  

This lobbyist also said there is a "symbiotic relationship" now on water issues. Maybe if you're a developer.

The lobbyist for NAIOP, Randy Traynor, implied that the present board makeup of city and county officials means coordinated land use and water decisions, "tied to everything."  "This bill separates the two."

Putting the same people on two different boards with different jurisdictional duties and responsibilities, different financing, and different enabling legislation does not coordinate land use and water policy. There is no evidence that it does and much evidence that it doesn't. Planning commissions don't decide water policy and water boards don't decide land use. State policy doesn't direct, enable, or even mention coordinating land and water planning.

One of the Representatives (Crowder) said he sat next to Mark Sanchez on the Interstate Stream Commission and, "he never said there was a problem."

The legislature is being told everything is fine, fine, fine with Albuquerque water in the Middle Rio Grande.