Laserfiche WebLink
<br />John Wienert Comments to SWSlt September 2004 <br /> <br />Comments to SWSl Arkansas and South Platte Basin Final Round Table Meetings <br /> <br />From John Wiener. summarizing oral comments made 07 and 08 September <br />(John.Wiener@Colorado.edu)l writing solely as an individual. <br /> <br />I wish to state my sincere thanks to the Round Tablie members, who have made generous <br />contributions of lime and expert ise to the process, doubtless at person al sacrifice. The staff of <br />COM and the ewes have also made efforts "'above and beyond the calln, and surely the direct <br />rewards, as welL In all of my commenting, it fsmy intention to add to the record and the <br />information available, and to support the efforts madH. Thefol~owing are 5 more comments and <br />some figures, not superseding or duplicating comments from November 2003 and August 2004. <br /> <br />1. A personal and philosophical CQ'mment: Where Is th,e line betw,een ignorance and negligence? <br />What is the role of the State government here? What are the rules of this game? First, I reply to <br />several comments from others and to crIticism of the SWSI project. At the last meetings in the <br />South Platte. and to a lesser extent in the Arkansast thBre was serious discussion (not for the first <br />time) of how to handle the uncertainHes about what water providers reported to the SWSI effort <br />The mandates of the study amounted marS' or I',ess to taking a water provider.s claims at face <br />value. The legislature did not want the CW,CB and its contractor to be usecond-guessing14 or <br />exposing 'local plans. The SWSI team tried to acknowledge uncertainty in several ways. The <br />Basin Technical Round Table groups were invited to rate the certainty of reported plans, and <br />declined to do so, perhaps for the same reason that the eWeB was not invited to do so. The <br />Round Table groups were asked for an alternative, and failinlg one) the SWSI team assigned a <br />basin-wide 25-50010 Uuncertaintytl estimate intentionally not addressing any particular plans or <br />projects. no matter how firm or improbable. Only j:n one important case was there specific <br />adjustment by Round Table participants, though all were uncomfortable with the range and <br />approach. Why this was difficult is important. <br /> <br />The rufes make it possible to lose as well as win. Towns and parts of the economy have often <br />lost; some of the discussions have been held under th,e rubrics of lithe dying small towntl, and <br />t1mitigation of impacts"~ this has included about 1 B bills in this legislature so far. The South Park <br />hay industry is dead. The dry-ups out in farm country happ"ened. Towns without the expertise <br />and money to s,ecure water may already be Iimite-d forever; that's in the rules. Are the next <br />groups of losing peopJ,e (and parts of the world) going to be experiencing the cost of ignorance, or <br />negligence? Ort just the rules working? <br /> <br />The rules we use also create problems of potentiallymisundlerstanding the SWSI results <br />(magnified by SQ,me news coverage) and they warrant explicit statBment to the legislature and <br />those reviewing the SWSI study_ Judging by the comments and newspaper coverage, it is likely <br />that some of these are not apparent to thB public at large even jf some are weH-understood in <br />water management. <br /> <br />Foremost among factors that limited the SWSIJ the market system is competitive. There are <br />strong incentives to conceal information in ;m:any circumstances. Buyers commonly conceal <br />prices paidr and sellers are often private citizens whose financial transactjons are not public <br />record. 1I1nsiderSJ information and shiftIng coalitions} long-standing partnerships and rivaJries are <br />every-day stuff in comp-etitive markets. and cooperation or competition can be based on <br />geography and plumbing with no reference to any personal or philosophical issues. <br /> <br />Secondr the political system encQUrag'iSs optimism. where uncertainty could discourage <br />investment In Colorado now. tax and fiscal policy SBem designed to 8'ncourage competition for <br />retail sales tax, caJling for subdivision growth and p.opulation attraction. Growth location is <br />competitive. not apparently planned on the basis of capacjty~~ocal desire or economies of scale in <br />provision of services. Competitors for retail sares tax are unlik.ely to announce failure to planr or <br />inability to accomplish goals, or impending financial obstacles to provision of desired s.ervices. <br />