|
<br />John Wiener, Comments to SWSI, September 2004
<br />
<br />2
<br />
<br />Water has had no limiting effect on growth (Nichols, e1 aI., 2001, Water and Growth in Colorado,
<br />Natural Resources Law Center, U. of Colorado).
<br />
<br />Third, professionals are employed to perform roles, for designated beneficiaries whose interests
<br />are smaller than the general public, however defined, with the small exception of some agency
<br />employees whose roles are also not self-directed. The representative from Local WaterCo 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 Local's service area. The
<br />job is make Local a winner, and where the demand is greater than supply, there will be losers.
<br />The SWSI Round Tables included many professionals who in the end were more or less
<br />constrained by their roles.
<br />
<br />The role of the State itself is unclear. The state is not a guarantor of water supply, or surviving
<br />wild fires, or for that matter, having good teeth. But when disaster strikes, there is a huge and
<br />sometimes very expensive response; the entire federal tax-paying public supported responses to
<br />the wildfires we've suffered (as it does in all states, and in hurricanes and earthquakes, too). The
<br />problem of insufficient water supply during dry years may be less apparent to newcomers than a
<br />problem such as wild fires. So far, there is no clear policy about individual exposure to fire, but
<br />towns are encouraged to have fire safety 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 deal of money and effort, and sometimes fire-fighter lives,
<br />trying to protect people and their property from what may be a more clearly foreseeable hazard
<br />than water failure.
<br />
<br />Will drought be treated as a disaster? Clearly, yes, in extreme cases. But, as demand
<br />overshoots supply, how often will shortfall be accepted as a disaster? Economically, it is absurd
<br />to prepare for the 500 year drought, but being unprepared for the 10 year event is negligent.
<br />Providers are making different choices. Will those who economized in wet times later be able to
<br />seek help from those who spent more? How often? What about those who demand the right to
<br />take their own chances - should there be a difference between a family, firm or farm versus a
<br />town or group water supply? Will there be State rescue for groups over a certain size and not
<br />under? Suburbs but not homesteads?
<br />
<br />With 65% more growth in population imminent, it is time to take creating a State water standard
<br />seriously, with or without some kind of "opt-out" that would be public 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 allow 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 well as winners, or we
<br />must begin to seriously consider whether the losers are predictable, whether the places and
<br />people squeezed out can be foreseen, and whether we want to intervene. If policy is to not
<br />intervene, say so loud and clear. If policy is to rescue some from their fate, let's make some
<br />plans and control the costs. If policy is to reduce 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 themselves that SWSI
<br />could not resolve the uncertainties identified, including whether the rules are adequately
<br />understood and whether the inevitable outcomes are those desired. Nevertheless, it would be
<br />wrong to undervalue the progress made and the support for continued efforts. Even with the
<br />limits of current rules, we know more now, and can continue with a more-informed discourse.
<br />And, the role of government as referee or umpire is clearer than it was; it must not be Olympic
<br />judging, however! Transparency and credibility are needed in a game with these stakes.
<br />
|