Cocoposts

Moving Water Uphill to Money

Cross-posted en El Grito

New Mexico’s farmers, ranchers and housing subdividers have probably been the first to understand what’s at stake with water.  They have skin in the game. They’re represented at the Roundhouse. So are the water speculators, those brave ‘visionaries’ inside the water sale, lease and transfer game.

Water transfers are considered a solution to water supply and demand challenges. Bills at the Legislature this session strongly support such a view. Whether you agree with the approach or not, there are interesting implications. For one thing, transferring paper water around by selling and leasing water rights to thirsty desperate entities has grown very profitable. But building pipelines, pumps, canals, and dams to actually move wet water is  a very expensive public cost.

Senator Cervantes has introduced SB440 to provide funding for lower Rio Grande water purchases, among other things. It begs the question of where the water would come from.  Coincidentally, I’m so sure, there are a couple of pipeline projects in the Capital Outlay List:

SOUTHERN NM WATER PIPELINE GILA-SAN FRANCISCO 25,000,000 to plan, design and construct a water conveyance pipeline from the Gila-San Francisco water basin to the Las Cruces metropolitan area…

SOUTHERN NM WATER PIPELINE SALT/TULAROSA/CARLSBAD 75,000,000 to plan, design and construct a water conveyance pipeline from the Salt, Tularosa, Carlsbad and other water basins in Dona Ana, Otero and Eddy counties.

The Interstate Stream Commission (ISC) has done a lot planning involving a lot of people with interest in the future of the Gila River.  A pipeline was not part of that planning.  Is the Office of the State Engineer and the ISC ignoring the extensive and expensive process they established to spend money and use this water? Is the Legislature?

The Watchdog’s coverage of SB440 noted the Office of the State Engineer and ISC statement: “As more time passes, and water problems increase in magnitude statewide, existing regional water plans are outdated and useless in addressing emerging water crises.” So updating the plans instead of ignoring them should be a top priority. Or you might think so.

SB13, another Cervantes bill, would give $400,000 to the ISC for planning in the lower Rio Grande. Nice and timely for any transferring but it doesn’t appear to fit with a coordinated process to update all 16 regional plans. The Legislature hasn’t funded water planning in five years. But that hasn’t slowed infrastructure project requests – requests that are supposed to be prioritized through water plans – begging the question of how priorities are being set now.

Details, details.

The State Engineer has the sole power to make transfer decisions and he is supposed to take  ‘public welfare’ into account. That’s a sticky wicket since the stalled water planning process was intended to define what that means, along with how much water there might be to transfer in the first place. The State Engineer said water administration involves ‘multiple cans of worms.’ Better go fishing soon while the river is still there.

Stifling Drivers

Provocatively entitled piece in the New York Times addresses how Europe "Stifles Drivers."  My new job*  prevents depthful debate.  But know that questioning the primacy of the automobile does not mean an actual socialist European will put a pillow over your face while you're trying to drive. 

Some commenters apparently feel so threatened.  And then there is this good ol' planner hatred and distrust. 

"... public transit here will always be revoltingly filthy and agonizingly slow, more so after "planners" have their way with it. NYC is not Geneva and will never have its level ethics, civility or order.   Seems to me that "planner" types here secretly delight in making people miserable, period.

I printed and burned this comment in a delightful little secret ceremony that should give him miserable heartburn!

Thankfully, cooler heads prevail. 

It's quite telling that these articles appear, then disappear, then reappear a few years later as some sort of revelation. The oil, auto and road construction industry barons own our government, and their doublespeak defines 'freedom' as the right to drive. Even if we accept the logic of mass transit vs the private car, we are so heavily invested in this illusion and presently is such economic shambles , thanks to those same pigs, that changing the system is presented as close to impossible....

Back to slacking.

* Chief Executive Slacker Extraordinaire, Whitelodge, Inc.

Twenty-Five Years in One Survey Comment

My former profession, city planning, has a professional organization that purports to represent the field.  When I retired I let my membership lapse and have since been subject to a barrage of renewal notices. Finally I got an email survey that asked why I hadn't renewed. 

Most of it was innocuous - ratings of programs and publications and typical tedium. Multiple choices among  dull dumb answers.  Then, at the end at last, space to write comments.  Speaking for all of us, I figured, I'd let the silly suits behind the survey know what I really thought. 

After completing the survey I read other respondents' comments.  I grew flushed and pink - like I'd just tweeted on the size of a legislator's ass or hat.

The vast majority of fallen former members wrote of onerous dues and continuing education requirements.  They complained about the stupidity of the survey questions, invoicing errors, lousy coffee at the national conference and how that membership pin put a big hole in my blouse.

I wrote this:

I've retired and don't intend to work in the planning profession again until hell freezes over or this corporate hegemony abates.  Whichever comes first.  It was a great ride.  Loved the politics - a real scream, especially the last few years.  Our profession has been, and will continue to be, dominated by the building industry.  And by the private property obsessed, greed fueled, endless growth paradigm that has screwed this country.

This sentiment was expressed by another.

You have ignored the recession and what it means to our profession. 

Wal-Mart Decade

 A post by Paul Krugman attributes a data bump to Wal-Mart and muses about why Europe didn't have a similar bump.  Thereafter ensued rather off-topic Wal-Mart bump envy, fear and loathing in comments.  Like this:

walmart has been unsuccessful in europe--it's not about land use. it's about culture. europeans want higher quality goods and a pleasant store in which to shop. europeans also like to patronize local shops where the service is personal.

No it isn't, you snob.  Our poor taste is not why we have Wal-Mart.  It's about cheap energy, US transportation networks, car dependency, and hugely scaled transfer facilities, stores and parking lots on cheap land. 

In part Krugman says:
 

Van Ark’s data point to a huge surge between 1995 and 2004 in US productivity, not so much in producing goods as in distributing them. And we know what that’s about: Wal-Mart and other big box stores.

I’m not denigrating these productivity gains. What’s interesting, though, is that if you’re looking for a story about the relative American revival from 1995 until recently, it’s not so much a broad, generic economy thing as it is a story of one particular innovation that for whatever reason — land use regulations? — Europe was slow to imitate.

The major question is how an economist can call distribution "production."  But since he mentioned  land use regulation I got all hot under the collar and had to be the first to comment.  It didn't go well.

cocolaboca
Santa Fe NM
January 29th, 2011
10:16 am
The reason is less about land use regulations than land use. The sprawl paradigm enables Wal-Mart scale. Such land use's relationship with regulation is far more complicated, (ie attempts to curtail sprawl or argument that regulations encourage it in the first place.)

Whaa?  I promise I wasn't drunk but it makes no sense to me now either.   And that near nonsense was read by Paul Krugman.  I could have said it much much more clearly, like Bart did at the very same time.

Bart

NY

January 29th, 2011

10:16 am

Suburbia + housing bubble = Wal-Mart

Boom Scars

"The furious rush to build — and profit — has forever altered Vegas environs"  A thoughtful restrained look at Las Vegas development in the Las Vegas Sun by architects - which may explain the restraint. But still, the big point is right there:

Those with land felt the need to build, and build now, and build with the highest possible density.  They built with the assumption that growth in the valley — of residents, tourists, consumers — would lead to profitability. But the building continued even after the growth stopped and everyone ran out of money...

Train Brain

Some are worried about the fate of high speed rail with the new R's in Congress.  Light rail is unpopular with R's as well, like in Tampa, Florida where a route in Hillsborough County is being cussed and discussed. 

I love Portland's light rail for cheap, simple, clean and pretty-fast travel.  People say they'll "take Max" like it's one of their cars they've named (like, say, "Sven" the Volvo and "Sensei" the Subaru).

Max comes in four different colors which is nice for the number challenged like me. I liked the Blue line that runs to Hillsboro and also took the Red to the airport. The lines intersect at two main stations but they don't make other colors, like purple.  

I was also on Amtrak to LA and enjoyed the sleeper amenities - like the sleeping.  The roomette and the dining service was good and the view of the moonlit desert out the cozy private window was incomparable. 

Senator John McCain is evidently not a fan of the train.  From wiki:

Before a congressional hearing, Gunn answered a demand by leading Amtrak critic Arizona Senator John McCain to eliminate all operating subsidies by asking the Senator if he would also demand the same of the commuter airlines, upon which the citizens of Arizona are dependent. McCain, usually not at a loss for words when debating Amtrak funding, did not reply.

 

 

 

 

Mulroy Small Change

Pat Mulroy, Las Vegas, Nevada's Water Empress*, is featured in the NYTimes Green Blog. 

The Southern Nevada Water Authority is in the news a lot lately - putting on a full court press for positive public opinion on the pipeline.

Experts from the Congressional, nonprofit and regulatory arenas see Ms. Mulroy, 57, whose back has been to the wall for most of the past two decades — first because of the area’s rapid growth, then because of the water’s disappearance — as a clear-eyed, practical leader for the new world of scarcity. Others in the world of western water seem impressed yet a bit unnerved by her.

Count me as unnerved. 

Her closing quote about the need to alter priority rights is revealing.

“Nevada’s problem has become everyone’s problem,” she said. “The last thing that everyone needs is for a city that relies 90 percent on that water to not meet its needs.”

“If this is the new normal,” she said of the drought, “we’ve got to change a lot of things on the Colorado River.”

Change what?   Change the law and the river and the consumption patterns and the intake values and the landscape of northern Nevada.  Change everything but the assumption of growth.  Altering Vegas sprawl is not on Mulroy's list. 

* The Times author calls her a Czar, but I prefer the Empress title bestowed years ago by High Country Times News (yikes.) 

Jumping off Accountability Point

Reading any Albuquerque Journal editorial about ethics leaves me with an unsettled feeling - as if I was getting speech lessons from a two year old.  With an agenda.

The one about the Santa Fe County Commission melodramatically  stomps around about the public works "scandal" and is called, Commissioner Misses Point of Accountability.  So do they.  The baby-talk ethical lesson is about anti-donation.  (Never take candy from her!)

Did I miss the memo where we all agree on what accountability means - what it looks like?  Will we know when we see it?  Will it be wearing a red tie?

Or maybe this is the Point of Accountability where bad things you've caused in the past catch up with you at a great freaky-dream-tall karmic cliff of justice.  You wobble there full of vertigo while the fates review your resume.  A fatal tumble awaits the most wicked!  And the poorly balanced.  Or you sometimes get a reprieve and a pay raise. But someday you'll face that accountability point. 

In my dreams.

The Accountability problem in local government is about defining roles and goals.  There is nothing to be accountable for, only to.  Like, to your boss or to your family.  You can say to the taxpayer but that  is meaningless in the big jumble of vaguely defined and competing "taxpayer" projects.  Decisions involve whims of leadership or heat of crisis.  The Accountability Point there is a curb stone to drive the county truck over to get at that private driveway your boss said to fix.  

How can anyone be held accountable for the chaotic jungle of local New Mexico politics?

The plan -  capital plan.  This unglamorous answer has downsides.  Beyond boring and not about cliff-falls, Public lists, priorities and plans reduce the discretion of leaders.  They don't like it.  (Unpopular and boring!)  Politicos can't play as many games with projects if there are plans.  

I'll bet there is a capital plan for Santa Fe County.  All counties do them but they lack big teeth (and balls) that decent State planning law would give New Mexico counties.   Planning can reduce the strong-arm and deep wallet tactics used to get a road paved or a water line extended.

 In the self-fulfilling prophesy of government is the problem we've forgotten this, or thought we could "downsize" by tearing up the lists.

Sparce Parse

UPDATE:  YES, I SPELLED IT WRONG! 

Trust that my dealings with events of late* are only slightly more engaging than witnessing  Albuquerque's impact fees, along with planning and civics, get flushed down the toilet like so much poop-rich wastewater into the Rio. 

Unattributed Impact Fee Rant

Councilor Lewis must be too young to remember the years of public hearings and city council meetings that created the council-approved "Planned Growth Strategy" (PGS) for Albuquerque. He probably doesn't remember the city's projections that public neighborhood parks in some westside neighborhoods could not be built for the next 25 years due to lack of money, aka funding. Then there were the dozens of public hearings and meetings about the council-approved "Centers and Corridors Plan" that might complement the PGS. Mr. Lewis just hasn't paid attention to local history.  Perhaps the councilor intuitively believes that "public" planning and "public" hearings are "Socialistic."