Laserfiche WebLink
<br />John Wiener, Comments to SWSJ, September 2004 <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />Water has had no limrting effect on growth (Nicholsr et al., 20011 Water and Growth in Colorado) <br />Natural Resources Law Center, U. of Colorado).. <br /> <br />Third, professionals are employed to perform roles. for desi'9nated beneficiaries whose interests <br />are smaller than the genera! public, however defined. with the small exception of some agency <br />employees whose roles are also not self-directed. The representatIve from Local Watereo is <br />generally interested in regional and state outcomes. but is working to help Local get the best <br />purchases for its purposes, not to help persons or interests outside of Locars service area. The <br />job is make Local a wrnner. and where the demand is greater than supplY1 there will be losers. <br />The SWSI Round Tables included many professionals who in the Bnd were more or less <br />constrained by their roles. <br /> <br />The role of the State itself is unclear. Th'e state is not a guarantor of water supply) or surviving <br />wild fires, or for that matter. having good te.eth. But w'hen disaster strikes. there is a huge and <br />sometimes very exp.ensive response; the entire federal tax-payinig public supported responses to <br />the witdfires welve suffered (as it does inaH states, and in hurricanes and earthquakes, too). The <br />problem of insufficient water supply during dry years may be less apparent to ne\vcomers than a <br />problem such as wild fires. So far. there is no clear policy about individual exposure to firer but <br />towns are encouraged to have fire sa.fety efforts, at least for buildings, and the gray area is review <br />of subdivisions under different or absent standards, and the 'gigantic exemption from regulation <br />for 35 acres up. We do spend a great deaf of money and effort, and sometimes fire-fighter lives. <br />trying to protect people and their property from what .may be a more clearfy foreseeable hazard <br />than water failure. <br /> <br />Will drought be treated as a disaster? ClearlYt yesj in extrHme cases. But. as demand <br />overshoots supply) how otten will shortfall be accepted as a disaster? Economically. it is absurd <br />to prepare for the 500 year droughtt but bBing unpreparHd for the 10 year event is ne'gfigent. <br />Providers are making drfferent choices. Will those who econolmized in wet times later be able to <br />seek help from those who spent more? How often? W.hat about those who demand the right to <br />take their own chanGes - should there be a difference bHtween a family, firm or farm versus a <br />town or group water supply? Will there be State rescue for Q1roups over a ce-rtain size and not <br />under? Suburbs but not homesteads? <br /> <br />With 650/0 more growth in population i:mminent, it is time to take creating a State water standard <br />seriously, with or without some kind of l1opt-out" that would be pubHc knowledge. The growth rate <br />threatens to shift risk of water failure for a lot of people in some very large areas. onto taxpayers <br />in general. It may be negligence in management to al'low ignorance to increase those risks. <br />Maybe one question for the State is, "To what extent is everyone entitled to be informed about <br />the supply-demand wInners-losers situation?~ The SWSI effort was a response to that, but it was <br />critically limited by the directions for the study .itself and by the rules of the game in force. <br /> <br />We must affirm that we mean to play by rules that will create losers as wen as winnersr or we <br />must begin to seriousty consider whether the losers are pre.dictable, whether the places a.nd <br />people squeezed out can be foreseent and whBther we want to intervene. If poliey is to not <br />intervene, say so loud and clear. If policy is to rescue some from their fate, lers make some <br />plans and control the costs. If policy is to reduGe surprises, it will take more than asking for <br />admissions against interest. <br /> <br />It is the great success of the SWSI that is has taken important and difficult steps toward ending <br />some of the ignorance of the water supply situation. It is due to the rules themse.lves that SWSJ <br />could not resolve the uncertainties identiHed,inGluding whether the rules are adequately <br />understood and \'vhe.ther the inevitable outcomHS are those desired. Neverthe!esst it would be <br />wrong to undervalu'8 the progress made and the support for conti:nued efforts. Even with the <br />limits o.f current rules, we know more now" and can continue with a more-informed discourse. <br />Andt the role of government as referee or umpire is c"earer than it was; it must not be Olympic <br />judgini9, howeverl Transparency and credJbility are needed in a game with these stakes. <br />