Dan, in response to your questions, I did not mean to sound so confident as to indicate that Santa Fe would be better off doing nothing than continuing with the toilet replacement program. Obviously, they are trying hard, which is good. Yet, I think the fundamental assumptions they are working from are flawed and therefore they will be less successful than they could be utilizing other policies. I have had experience with similar policies when we lived in California (in the Malibu Creek and Los Virgenes Watershed) and also in my work. The programs fail because developers can afford to replace the toilets so the growth continues unchecked and now you have old homes with new toilets using less water but also new homes with new toilets and the entire system is stressed.
The ideas I express are things I have been kicking around in my head and I am not sure about them. A couple of points.
I generally disagree with indirect regulatory schemes for two reasons. First, in regards to natural resources, the schemes make minimal changes when larger changes are required. Second, they fail to educate the ?public? on why we have chosen such a policy and what this means in terms of values and costs. For example, New Mexico faces a serious water shortage ? there is no reason to not give away low flow toilets and at the same time require the new homes to do more than simply provided 8 toilets. The new homes should be required to be built as low consumption building projects. I have no objection to new homes in Santa Fe costing more because of water issues but I think the current policy actually deters from the true cost of continued growth by exchanging a toilet replacement program for a comprehensive water plan. A new home in Santa Fe built by a developer who used creative environmental concepts would actually be better and cost less to the system than a home built in an out of date way by a developer who just had to replace a few shitters in order to get the permit.
You see, Santa Fe is ruining the market place by being indirect when direct regulation is needed? Does that make sense? What is the goal of Santa Fe? Likely, reduce water consumption while at the same time maintain or increase the quality of life of its citizens. You need to attack this directly and utilizes market forces (even if you do not like the market — i.e., the earlier posts about capitalism).
In regards to communities preventing growth. Growth prevention is such a hot topic and has so many areas that all I can say now is we ought to think carefully about these concepts. For example, if we accept that some growth is necessary (we may not want to accept this assumption) then we need to realize that certain areas will be good candidates for growth. By this I mean, why lock up all the land in Ventura County when some areas (like urban centers) are better suited to sustain growth and therefore growth there should be permitted (real life example)?
In regards to the prerogatives of those who arrived earlier in time. I agree that first in time = first in right (the most fundamental principle for certainty in terms of property law) but no one is allowed to waste resources because that usage is outside of their rights. So those who live in Santa Fe may close the door to newcomers but that does not mean they can continue to use the same amount of water if that amount could sustain them as while as additional members.
I know you have study these topics (and others who read these posting are also very interested in this area) so I would love to hear your ideas.
Have to run . . .
dddroog
Nov 06 2002
12:52 pm
Dan, in response to your questions, I did not mean to sound so confident as to indicate that Santa Fe would be better off doing nothing than continuing with the toilet replacement program. Obviously, they are trying hard, which is good. Yet, I think the fundamental assumptions they are working from are flawed and therefore they will be less successful than they could be utilizing other policies. I have had experience with similar policies when we lived in California (in the Malibu Creek and Los Virgenes Watershed) and also in my work. The programs fail because developers can afford to replace the toilets so the growth continues unchecked and now you have old homes with new toilets using less water but also new homes with new toilets and the entire system is stressed.
The ideas I express are things I have been kicking around in my head and I am not sure about them. A couple of points.
I generally disagree with indirect regulatory schemes for two reasons. First, in regards to natural resources, the schemes make minimal changes when larger changes are required. Second, they fail to educate the ?public? on why we have chosen such a policy and what this means in terms of values and costs. For example, New Mexico faces a serious water shortage ? there is no reason to not give away low flow toilets and at the same time require the new homes to do more than simply provided 8 toilets. The new homes should be required to be built as low consumption building projects. I have no objection to new homes in Santa Fe costing more because of water issues but I think the current policy actually deters from the true cost of continued growth by exchanging a toilet replacement program for a comprehensive water plan. A new home in Santa Fe built by a developer who used creative environmental concepts would actually be better and cost less to the system than a home built in an out of date way by a developer who just had to replace a few shitters in order to get the permit.
You see, Santa Fe is ruining the market place by being indirect when direct regulation is needed? Does that make sense? What is the goal of Santa Fe? Likely, reduce water consumption while at the same time maintain or increase the quality of life of its citizens. You need to attack this directly and utilizes market forces (even if you do not like the market — i.e., the earlier posts about capitalism).
In regards to communities preventing growth. Growth prevention is such a hot topic and has so many areas that all I can say now is we ought to think carefully about these concepts. For example, if we accept that some growth is necessary (we may not want to accept this assumption) then we need to realize that certain areas will be good candidates for growth. By this I mean, why lock up all the land in Ventura County when some areas (like urban centers) are better suited to sustain growth and therefore growth there should be permitted (real life example)?
In regards to the prerogatives of those who arrived earlier in time. I agree that first in time = first in right (the most fundamental principle for certainty in terms of property law) but no one is allowed to waste resources because that usage is outside of their rights. So those who live in Santa Fe may close the door to newcomers but that does not mean they can continue to use the same amount of water if that amount could sustain them as while as additional members.
I know you have study these topics (and others who read these posting are also very interested in this area) so I would love to hear your ideas.
Have to run . . .