Laserfiche WebLink
<br />John Wiener, Comments to SWSI, September 2004 <br /> <br />Comments to SWSI Arkansas and South Platte Basin Final Round Table Meetings <br /> <br />From John Wiener, summarizing oral comments made 07 and 08 September <br />(JohnWiener@Colorado.edu), writing solely as an individual. <br /> <br />I wish to state my sincere thanks to the Round Table members, who have made generous <br />contributions of time and expertise to the process, doubtless at personal sacrifice. The staff of <br />CDM and the CWCB have also made efforts "above and beyond the call", and surely the direct <br />rewards, as well. In all of my commenting, it is my intention to add to the record and the <br />information available, and to support the efforts made. The following 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 comment: Where is the line between 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 Arkansas, there was serious discussion (not for the first <br />time) of how to handle the uncertainties about what water providers reported to the SWSI effort. <br />The mandates of the study amounted more or less to taking a water provider's claims at face <br />value. The legislature did not want the CWCB and its contractor to be "second-guessing" 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 CWCB was not invited to do so. The <br />Round Table groups were asked for an alternative, and failing one, the SWSI team assigned a <br />basin-wide 25-50% "uncertainty" estimate intentionally not addressing any particular plans or <br />projects, no matter how firm or improbable. Only in 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 rules 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 the rubrics of "the dying small town", and <br />"mitigation of impacts"; this has included about 18 bills in the Legislature so far. The South Park <br />hay industry is dead. The dry-ups out in farm country happened. Towns without the expertise <br />and money to secure water may already be limited forever; that's in the rules. Are the next <br />groups of losing people (and parts of the world) going to be experiencing the cost of ignorance, or <br />negligence? Or, just the rules working? <br /> <br />The rules we use also create problems of potentially misunderstanding the SWSI results <br />(magnified by some news coverage) and they warrant explicit statement 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 the public at large even if some are well-understood in <br />water management. <br /> <br />Foremost among factors that limited the SWSI, the market system is competitive. There are <br />strong incentives to conceal information in many circumstances. Buyers commonly conceal <br />prices paid, and sellers are often private citizens whose financial transactions are not public <br />record. "Insider" information and shifting coalitions, long-standing partnerships and rivalries are <br />every-day stuff in competitive markets, and cooperation or competition can be based on <br />geography and plumbing with no reference to any personal or philosophical issues. <br /> <br />Second, the pofitical system encourages optimism, where uncertainty could discourage <br />investment. In Colorado now, tax and fiscal policy seem designed to encourage competition for <br />retail sales tax, calling for subdivision growth and population attraction. Growth location is <br />competitive, not apparently planned on the basis of capacity, local desire or economies of scale in <br />provision of services. Competitors for retail sales tax are unlikely to announce failure to plan, or <br />inability to accomplish goals, or impending financial obstacles to provision of desired services. <br />