catapult magazine

A good article about an interesting approach being used by the city of Santa Fe to reduce water consumption: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/03/national/03WATE.html

This is an interesting article on an important issue. These articles are rare in the national news media which is very ?east coast? in focus (which always amazes me because the entertainment industry has a large ?west coast? contingent, but not the news division of the entertainment industry). Plus the national news entertainment media understands these issues about as well as they understand religion.

Any way, the point of my first posting is not to berate the news media but rather to share with you some thoughts on this topic.

Water issues (i.e., water quality, supply, usage, rights) are a major concern in the western United States and the world. I think water quality issues are a major concern everywhere but in the arid west it is life or death (the American West is a desert that we have turned into farmland, golf courses, suburbs, and resorts ? the Central Valley of California receives less rain than most of North Africa but yet is the most ?productive? land in the world). Furthermore, as servant of Christ, these issue involve conservation, poverty, justice and fundamental legal and economic principles. Sometimes, it is not easy to see the good solution and if you think there is one, persuading the others is a constant struggle. I my life, which includes my work, I am striving to make some of these principles go together – and I think they can but only by working for the common good. In this case, Sant Fe?s program is not a good solution and here is why:

My disagreement with Santa Fe is basically those who are backing the toilet replacement effort are saying we want something but we are not willing to pay for it so lets make the ?bad guys? pay (bad guys = the most recent builders/developers). This approach is not an environmental policy based on good research but rather a ?we got here first? mentality. This is an indirect policy and therefore an ineffective way to make changes. Why should those who arrived in Santa Fe last year not have to bear the burden of water conservation (or for that matter, why should those who have lived there a 100 years be allowed to waste water?). The ?no growth? movement has some excellent ideas but is also riddled with bad ecology and unjust ideas.

Wouldn?t it be more just to require new buildings to have new toilets and then charge more for water but design a system that ensures a level of sustainment for all (e.g., a water credit system that provides water per person at a estimated need amount per period at a low rate and then charges an enormous amount for use beyond that level (golf courses in Arizona would actually have to pay to keep it green)). Or, if Santa Fe was serious about the low flow toilets they would give them away (i.e., Los Angeles gives them away and gives charities who collect old toilets $25). The savings would pay for the cost ? I have studied the numbers several times, I know this is true.

I think the approach taken by Sante Fe is misguided and will ultimately be unsuccessful. You cannot make long term changes in water conservation by not truly addressing those who use beyond what the system can take. And if that means everyone needs to change, then everyone should bear the burden. I, however, do agree that Sante Fe?s best hope is in water conservation and not in securing more supply (e.g. Denver was forced to conserve after losing several legal battles in the 1980’s and they are the better for it today) and Sante Fe ought to pursue conservation.

Okay, I have several other thoughts but I need to go. I do believe conservation is necessary and required. There are many things that can be done like eliminating the use of garbage disposals in homes . . . but I think programs like Santa Fe?s are misdirected and should not be support by those of us who care deeply about our world and our neighbors. Before, I go I want to make it clear that I do not think the developers should be allowed to simply build on every inch of land but that is a different, although related, issue. My point is indirect programs like Sante Fe?s often times use good intentions to accomplish something that could be done in a more just way through other programs.

If you are interested in water issues there is a four part documentary called Cadillac Desert. It is based on a book by the same title and the book The Last Oasis. The books are worth reading but the documentary is also great and presents the same information in a more stimulating way. It does a nice job of presenting issues while at the same time outlining the historic development of the American West (if you live west of the Missouri Valley you most watch this to really know your people and your land). Additionally, the October 7, 2002, issue of Newsweek had a short article about the potential removal of Glen Canyon Dam which raised some good points about lessons learned on environmental and development issues.

Sorry for the long post. I have been reading the postings for about two weeks now trying to get a sense of the conversation and I fear my first attempt is way tooooo long . . .

By the way, if you do not have a low flow toilet you should get one and also do not use your garbage disposal.

later . . .

I’m sorry I couldn’t find the article for some reason so I don’t know what exactly you’re responding to. It seems that you are suggesting setting up legal structures to coax cities to be more environmentally conscious or to insure a more effective use of resources. How do these environmental issues come into the courts or become legislative issues?

Dan thanks for the critique. My apologies to Grant and anyone else who couldn’t find the article. It requires registering with the New York Times website which is free. And they haven’t spammed me yet! So all you people glooping leftovers down your garbage disposal, don’t do it. Get yourself some composting worms who will enjoy the leftovers much more than your sink does.

Dan, you seem pretty sure about your opposition to this initiative. Have you seen similar laws fail? Do you think it’s unjust because it raises the price of a new home in Santa Fe a bit? I can see how it burdens the newcomers, but isn’t the perogative of those who were there first? Most towns want to do all they can to get people to move there. What’s wrong with a city discouraging it?

Hi guys. I wanted to say, it is great to talk to you again. This is a very impressive web community. Having read through the mission statement and most of the content, I can tell there has been tremendous efforts expended in a thoughtful and obedient way.

I want to reply to Grant?s questions and Dan?s questions. I need to do some work (if I want to get paid and ultimately eat) this morning but I will try to post over lunch or sometime tonight.

In response to Grant?s question about setting up legal structures to coax cities to be more environmentally conscious or to insure a more effective use of resources and how these issues come into the courts or become legislative issues. This is one of the areas that I work in (not presently because I am clerking for a Judge but I will go back to practicing Energy, Environmental, and Natural Resources Law after this stint). The following thoughts are my observations and not a list of policies that I think are right or wrong.

First, I have been convinced that the best way to effectively make environmental changes, in regards to residential, urban concerns, and even agriculture, is through city and county planning. Zoning laws and county ordinances are tremendously powerful and often can withstand legal challenges. Plus, in my experience people care about environmental concerns in their neighborhood or that effect them and it is easier to persuade them to take action. Plus large interest groups are less effective at the local level because money is less of a concern. We NEED to think and act LOCALLY (I know that some of my environmentally minded friends vehemently disagree with me and you may as well). For example, an international conference on the environment that produces an agreement is all fine and nice (it has value and should be pursued) but at the end of the day a city policy to eliminate the installation of garbage disposals in new homes is where the real action is. Now, if that city policy was motivated by an effort to comply with the international agreement then we are talking about a different thing, but more than likely that city policy was motivated by the efforts of citizens who studied the issue and determined the water supply was being contaminated by the disposals. On this note, most western states have progressive water codes that are fairly environmentally friendly (after years of battles) however the environmental movement has focused on the national level when it comes to water policy, helping the federal government secure rights to water believing then the environmentalist could control the water. This has completely back fired because federal water is not subject to the progressive state systems and often times is more subject to the will of powerful special interest groups, such as large corporations who want to use the water.

Second, I believe if we stopped subsidizing environmentally harmful activity on a national and state level then cities would have every reason to by more conscious because it would effect their bottom line and the quality of life of the citizens. This is what I mean when I propose legal structures for distributing resources such as water at on a true cost basis that charges for over uses but provides a basic level to all. For example, federal funding of highways and roads compared to funding mass transportation systems is an example of an indirect subsidy that allows more well off people to behave in a way (commute alone in a SUV) without truly internalizing the costs of such behavior (the true cost in terms of emissions, resources that could have been directed elsewhere, time etc . . .). There already is tremendous economic motivation in the American West for cities to conserve water but this exists even though the federal government and most western state governments give water away at a fraction of its true cost. Who benefits? Big users, not the average people who use only what they need, in fact, the average users pay because they subsidize the big users. See my next posting (forthcoming) about using direct policies and not the Santa Fe policy.

Third, not enough efforts are made to persuade people at a local level that environmental policies increase the quality of life and do not cost us but rather save us. We need to challenge the idea of value (i.e., challenge the assumption that non-developed land constitutes worthless property). For example, we currently live in the city center and save time, money, and do not burden the system by commuting ? these things make our life better (in Houston the system has its problems but that is another posting about urban planning).

Finally, environmental issues get to the legislature in the usual ways: concerned citizens and special interest. But again, these things can be accomplished locally in a more effective way. Environmental issues reach the courts through enforcement of laws and the MOST significant change in the American landscape has been the creation of laws (since the 1960’s) that allow private individuals to enforce environmental policy. If you have some connection to Mono Lake in California (you live there or visit) you can sue the City of L.A. to prevent them from draining the lake and endangering the entire ecosystem which is against federal and state environmental policy (this is a true example of a case).

Okay, sorry about the first, second, third structure of the posting ? what can I say, I am a lawyer!

Yeah, it’s kind of backwards that we don’t know the names of our local government people whose work has the most to do with our day to day lives, yet we know about Bill Clinton’s sexual habits or George Bush’s eating mishaps.

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 . . .

Thanks for those comments. I understand your perspective now. Perhaps a program like the one in Santa Fe is a compromise made by a government afraid of the implications of imprementing the kind of legislation you’re talking about. Better than nothing, but not nearly enough.

Talk of city growth also leads to talk of population growth in general, don’t you think? Most of us will agree that populations can’t grow forever. So when does it stop?

I attended a lecture today by the former director of the McGill School of the Environment in which he addressed this issue indirectly. He said when he was born (probably 50 yrs ago) the US population was 140 million. Today it is 290 million. It is expected to be 500 million before the end of the century. I know this situation is not unique to the USA, but on a national level it raises the same questions as on a city level.

Shouldn’t there be national policy on how many people we want in our countries? How long can we go on recklessly growing? Many environmentalists (I’m among them) would contend that the USA is already overpopulated. This doesn’t mean that we can’t fit more people in, or even that living standards can’t continue to go up as populations increase. What environmentalists mean is that the current population size (and consumption patters) cause so much damage that it cannot be sustained over long periods of time.

Imagine the US capped its population at 300 million people. Assuming a slightly negative growth rate among the domestic population (this isn’t unreasonable to expect as it occurs in numerious industrialized countries around the world), there would still be room for immigration in order to maintain a stable population. But can our economic system function without continual population increases? Does anyone out there know more about economics than I do? I would say our economic approach would need a bit of tweaking in order to make this work, but that it could work.

I guess I’m comparing population control to the Kyoto Protocol, which is a hot political issue in Canada at the moment. The goal of the protocol is for countries to get their greenhouse emissions back down to 1990 levels. This is accomplished not only through regulation, but mostly by incentive programs aimed at making industry, commerce, and individuals more responsible. The federal government is admitting that it will slow economic growth but is determined to go through with it anyway. Maybe it’s the same with slowing population growth — it might slow growth, but what are our options?

Well, I can understand the justifications for lowering consumption levels and encouraging good stewardship but I have never been able to understand/confirm/accept any of the justifications for population control. In fact, when I studied the issue (which has been over 2 years ago now so I may have lost touch with Kyoto and etc. . .) population control seemed to be based on a survival of the fittest worldview or an accidental evolutionary theory. Some of my brothers and sisters in Christ were very disappointed with me for not outright rejecting any population control measures. I walked away from the debate confused but with the general belief that if the purpose of man is to glorify God and make His name known, I could not, without more understanding, support population control measures.

It is a difficult issue. All of my work is on the micro level of urban planning, land use, and natural resource control so I do not deal with this issue even though, as you rightly note, it always looms as the backdrop and affects the micro level. Very Very hard one to tackle.

Anyway, in the NY Times today is a good article about water issues in regards to irrigation. I was going to mention last week in our discussion that residential water use in the U.S. accounts for less than 10% of our annual consumption, so agricultural issues like this are really significant:

NATIONAL | November 11, 2002
Remedy Stirs Debate
By DOUGLAS JEHL (NYT)
A plan to spend more than $200 million in federal money to provide irrigation water has prompted a debate on farm policy and water responsibilities.