Gazette Editorial Page Editor Wayne Laugesen must be a very alert reader. One would have to be in order to pick out this paragraph, buried near the end of a long Pueblo Chieftain story, for special attention:
"Collins explained that federal laws give Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar broad concessions to set rates, and did not attempt to argue the basis with the Colorado Springs team."
The passage jumped out at me, too, because it at least hinted, if not strongly suggested, that Inferior Secretary Ken Salazar had some direct involvement in the exorbitant, some might say extortive, rates the Bureau of Reclamation wants to charge Colorado Springs for storing water in Pueblo Reservoir, which is part of a water project local taxpayers heavily bankroll. I appreciate Laugesen's effort to drill a little deeper (so to speak) into this potentially-troubling possibility.
Having a Coloradan as inferior secretary should be a help, not a hindrance, to the folks back home. If Salazar is trying to soak Colorado Springs for using the reservoir, while other users, like Pueblo, enjoy discount rates, we need to know about it.
Salazar's muppet denies the secretary is so intimately involved in such decisions, and denies, as well, that Salazar has any anti-Colorado Springs bias . . .
“The secretary has had no involvement in the development of the rate proposal,” Interior spokesman Daniel DuBray wrote in an e-mail. “The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Bureau of Reclamation. The federal negotiating team, led by Mr. Michael Collins of the Bureau of Reclamation, developed the proposed rates for storage, conveyance, and exchange of non-federal water within the federally-owned facilities of the US Bureau of Reclamation’s Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.”
DuBray denied that his boss sides with Pueblo to spite Colorado Springs.
“It has been Secretary Salazar, more than any other elected or public official in recent memory, who has tried over the years to bring Pueblo and Colorado Springs together to work cooperatively on water issues,” DuBray wrote.
. . . but I find it extremely hard to believe that the bureau is making such significant decisions in the secretary's home state without implicit or explicit approval from Salazar. And the fact is that Salazar sometimes has been a divider, not a uniter, in the Pueblo-Colorado Springs water feud. As senator, Salazar did seem to walk a middle ground, at least publicly. But before that, while serving as attorney general, he played a much more divisive role. It was AG Salazar who urged Pueblo County and other SDS obstructionists down south to use so-called 1041 regulations to delay or derail the project. And Pueblo County made the most of such advice.
Obstructionists have used this and whatever other levers they have to shakedown Colorado Springs for various "concessions" (it's Colorado Springs' water, for instance, that helps keep a kayaking course in downtown Pueblo frothy), driving up the price tag on an already-costly project. So this would be the latest, but perhaps most outrageous, of numerous shakedowns Colorado Springs has endured while simply trying to run a pipe north from Pueblo Reservoir. We have tried to be good neighbors. But some of our "neighbors," in Pueblo and points south, aren't content to borrow a cup of sugar, but seem to want a pound of flesh. At some point we need to fight back.
That's all water over the dam, perhaps, but it's important to remember that Ken Salazar and his brother, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, have always been more closely aligned with Democrat-leaning Pueblo than with Republican-voting Colorado Springs. The anti-Springs bias of brother John (who serves on the House Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, which puts him in a strong position to influence bureau decisions) is overt. But Ken, when he was senator, needed to appear more even-handed.
Michael Collins could have said that federal law gives the bureau broad latitude to set such rates, but he specifically used Salazar's name, which raises suspicions that the inferior secretary is more deeply involved than his muppet lets on. That suspicion grows when the bureau can offer no clear and coherent explanation for how it determined that this city should pay $50 per acre foot of stored water, when Pueblo pays about $22 per acre foot. The missing methodology makes the charge appear arbitrary and capricious -- almost as if the number were pulled from a hat, by someone very high up the federal food chain.
This particular food chain, if you follow it to the top, stops with Ken Salazar.
Showing posts with label Water Wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Water Wars. Show all posts
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Calling All Water Warriors
Just what Colorado needs: another invitation to fight over water.
State Rep. Sal Pace, a Democrat from Pueblo, apparently doesn't believe there's enough water-related conflict in Colorado. That's why he'll introduce a bill in the 2010 session that seems designed to ratchet tensions to new highs. The measure will prohibit district-to-district water transfers unless the recipient can negotiate a "mitigation agreement" with the originating district addressing ecological and economic impacts. It invites one water district to shakedown the other, in short -- which may explain the appeal in Pueblo -- despite the fact that these are private transactions between willing buyers and willing sellers.
Measuring the alleged ecological or economic impacts of water transfers can be a tricky business, since this often confuses chicken with egg. Most rural areas are economically depressed not because residents are selling water rights; residents are selling water rights because rural areas are economically depressed. Cash transfers from urban areas to rural areas -- which is what this is all about -- may make rural folk feel less like victims, temporarily. But it won't revive the agricultural sector or address its root economic problems. Like many other forms of government intervention -- farm subsidies, price supports, ethanol mandates, milk quotas -- this will be a temporary crutch, not a long-term answer.
Pace's bill will erect new barriers to a statewide water market, drive up costs for water users, gum-up water transfers in red tape and create more conflict -- while doing little to enhance the long-term viability of rural economies. It penalizes water sellers as well as water buyers, since sales could be delayed or derailed if mitigation agreements can't be agreed upon, or if they end up in court.
The freedom of people to sell or buy water will be impaired, which amounts to an impairment of their water rights -- which are really property rights. And we all suffer when these rights get watered down. So let's hope Sal Pace's bill goes gurgling down the drain.
State Rep. Sal Pace, a Democrat from Pueblo, apparently doesn't believe there's enough water-related conflict in Colorado. That's why he'll introduce a bill in the 2010 session that seems designed to ratchet tensions to new highs. The measure will prohibit district-to-district water transfers unless the recipient can negotiate a "mitigation agreement" with the originating district addressing ecological and economic impacts. It invites one water district to shakedown the other, in short -- which may explain the appeal in Pueblo -- despite the fact that these are private transactions between willing buyers and willing sellers.
Measuring the alleged ecological or economic impacts of water transfers can be a tricky business, since this often confuses chicken with egg. Most rural areas are economically depressed not because residents are selling water rights; residents are selling water rights because rural areas are economically depressed. Cash transfers from urban areas to rural areas -- which is what this is all about -- may make rural folk feel less like victims, temporarily. But it won't revive the agricultural sector or address its root economic problems. Like many other forms of government intervention -- farm subsidies, price supports, ethanol mandates, milk quotas -- this will be a temporary crutch, not a long-term answer.
Pace's bill will erect new barriers to a statewide water market, drive up costs for water users, gum-up water transfers in red tape and create more conflict -- while doing little to enhance the long-term viability of rural economies. It penalizes water sellers as well as water buyers, since sales could be delayed or derailed if mitigation agreements can't be agreed upon, or if they end up in court.
The freedom of people to sell or buy water will be impaired, which amounts to an impairment of their water rights -- which are really property rights. And we all suffer when these rights get watered down. So let's hope Sal Pace's bill goes gurgling down the drain.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Muddying the Waters
Good news, everyone. Pueblo, Colorado, can now officially be certified as a crime-free city. There are no robberies, no rapes, no spousal abuse or purse-snatching or petty crimes to prosecute. That leaves Pueblo DA Bill Thiebaut with so much time on his hands that he can focus his prodigious crime-fighting skills on another culprit -- Colorado Springs -- by interjecting himself into the Colorado Springs-Pueblo water feud.
For the second time in his tenure, Thiebaut is acting as if he exercised authority over water quality and management issues in Fountain Creek; this time, by submitting a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers designed to toss a monkey-wrench into the Southern Delivery System pipeline project. But his views on the matter are irrelevant, as his earlier attempt to intervene proved.
Thiebaut a few years back dragged Pueblo into a federal lawsuit, claiming that Colorado Springs waste water spills were violating federal Clean Water Act regulations. It was grandstanding of the worst kind. He was unceremoniously dumped from the suit by a federal judge who ruled that this exceeded his authority.
How much taxpayer money Thiebaut wasted on this lark is unknown. One can't help believing those resources could have been put to better use, since Pueblo is not, contrary to my lead, a crime-free city. But this has nothing to do with the law, or with water quality, or with Thiebaut's sincere desire to serve as eco-enforcer on Fountain Creek. It's about politics, plain and simple -- about Thiebaut's desire to curry favor with a few crusty old water warriors in Pueblo (and possibly distract public attention from some major housekeeping problems in his office).
Thiebaut must have gotten a call from Bob Rawlings, publisher of the Chieftain, who has long played the role of puppet master on such issues, suggesting that a letter from Thiebaut might help slow the recent progress Colorado Springs has made on clearing away hurdles to SDS. The ploy probably won't do much in that regard, because Thiebaut's opinions on Fountain Creek are as legally and morally relevant as the tooth fairy's. He has no expertise. He has no legal standing. He has no jurisdiction, unless a body is found floating down the creek south of the Pueblo County line.
But it plays well as propaganda with Springs-bashers in Pueblo. And it wins Thiebaut another merit badge with Rawlings, whose editorial page can come in very handy when re-election time comes around.
For the second time in his tenure, Thiebaut is acting as if he exercised authority over water quality and management issues in Fountain Creek; this time, by submitting a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers designed to toss a monkey-wrench into the Southern Delivery System pipeline project. But his views on the matter are irrelevant, as his earlier attempt to intervene proved.
Thiebaut a few years back dragged Pueblo into a federal lawsuit, claiming that Colorado Springs waste water spills were violating federal Clean Water Act regulations. It was grandstanding of the worst kind. He was unceremoniously dumped from the suit by a federal judge who ruled that this exceeded his authority.
How much taxpayer money Thiebaut wasted on this lark is unknown. One can't help believing those resources could have been put to better use, since Pueblo is not, contrary to my lead, a crime-free city. But this has nothing to do with the law, or with water quality, or with Thiebaut's sincere desire to serve as eco-enforcer on Fountain Creek. It's about politics, plain and simple -- about Thiebaut's desire to curry favor with a few crusty old water warriors in Pueblo (and possibly distract public attention from some major housekeeping problems in his office).
Thiebaut must have gotten a call from Bob Rawlings, publisher of the Chieftain, who has long played the role of puppet master on such issues, suggesting that a letter from Thiebaut might help slow the recent progress Colorado Springs has made on clearing away hurdles to SDS. The ploy probably won't do much in that regard, because Thiebaut's opinions on Fountain Creek are as legally and morally relevant as the tooth fairy's. He has no expertise. He has no legal standing. He has no jurisdiction, unless a body is found floating down the creek south of the Pueblo County line.
But it plays well as propaganda with Springs-bashers in Pueblo. And it wins Thiebaut another merit badge with Rawlings, whose editorial page can come in very handy when re-election time comes around.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Something's Come Between Us
It's official. There's a new governing body with taxing and regulating authority along the Fountain Creek watershed between Colorado Springs and Pueblo. Gov. Bill Ritter signed a bill yesterday creating the Fountain Creek Watershed, Flood Control and Greenway District. It's being hailed, at birth, as the herald of a new era of cooperation and comity between the famously feuding cities -- as something that will turn the Fountain into an "amenity" which both cities can share pride in. We'll sing camp fire songs together along the banks of the bucolic Fountain -- and hope that an errant turd doesn't float by to spoil the moment.
The best laid plans of mice and men.
Here's what the new district can do, and spend, according to today's Pueblo Chieftain:
"The 60-page measure would establish a nine-member board that would oversee the flood plain from Fountain to Pueblo.Under it, four district boundaries would be created with varying degrees of authority. While the full boundary of the district would include all of Pueblo and El Paso counties, any fees imposed by it would apply only to a smaller area encompassing the watershed.
The panel also would have some land-use authority, but only on a small tract right along the river.
Under the bill, the district would have the ability to impose fees, and place before voters in both counties a new tax to help pay for improvements. It is, however, limited to asking voters for no more than 5 mills, which could raise about $30 million a year.
The district also is to get about $50 million from a Southern Delivery System mitigation fund, which is to be used to get a matching federal grant that could bring in another $150 million."
If the power of a governing body is measured at least in part by its bankroll, this one is beginning with a bang, with $200 million in the pipeline -- so to speak -- and the ability to levy up to $30 million more a year. Its regulatory clout seems modest enough, according to this description. But for people who own land in that "small tract right along the river" -- which may be the most valuable tract they own -- having this new entity looming over them might in time become a major headache, and significant property rights threat, making them nostalgic for the days before the district was formed.
Unmentioned in the story is whether the new district will have any regulatory of legal power over the waters flowing through it -- which would effectively give it regulatory power over every drop of water the city of Colorado Springs releases into the Fountain. What it will have is a bully-pulpit on which to stand and brow-beat El Paso County and Colorado Springs any time a stormwater event or sewage spill occurs (a bully pulpit paid for, in part, by Colorado Springs ratepayers). And these will occur, in spite of whatever precautions we take or infrastructure improvements we make.
Nothing in the story indicates whether the new district will have the ability to sue the city of Colorado Springs or El Paso County for actions it deems harmful to Fountain Creek. Just imagine the wag-the-dog situations we'll see if that comes to pass.
All new government entities are created with noble intentions and modest missions. But the nature of all governments, even ones initially limited in scope, is to grow, increase in power, demand more resources and, in time, become a tool of coercion, higher taxation and oppression. That means that, in time, the FCWFCGD (it really needs a shorter acronym) could become a battle zone rather than a buffer zone; a curse rather than a blessing to land owners along the creek; and yet another bone of contention between the cities -- defeating the purpose for which it was conceived.
Cynical thoughts, pouring cold water on what should be a happy occasion? Perhaps. But there is no "Law of Unintended Consequences" -- only the law of unanticipated ones. And anyone who spends any time watching governments might well worry that the seeds of such a scenario were planted yesterday.
Whether they will bear bitter fruit, or just sweet-smelling flowers, only time will tell.
The best laid plans of mice and men.
Here's what the new district can do, and spend, according to today's Pueblo Chieftain:
"The 60-page measure would establish a nine-member board that would oversee the flood plain from Fountain to Pueblo.Under it, four district boundaries would be created with varying degrees of authority. While the full boundary of the district would include all of Pueblo and El Paso counties, any fees imposed by it would apply only to a smaller area encompassing the watershed.
The panel also would have some land-use authority, but only on a small tract right along the river.
Under the bill, the district would have the ability to impose fees, and place before voters in both counties a new tax to help pay for improvements. It is, however, limited to asking voters for no more than 5 mills, which could raise about $30 million a year.
The district also is to get about $50 million from a Southern Delivery System mitigation fund, which is to be used to get a matching federal grant that could bring in another $150 million."
If the power of a governing body is measured at least in part by its bankroll, this one is beginning with a bang, with $200 million in the pipeline -- so to speak -- and the ability to levy up to $30 million more a year. Its regulatory clout seems modest enough, according to this description. But for people who own land in that "small tract right along the river" -- which may be the most valuable tract they own -- having this new entity looming over them might in time become a major headache, and significant property rights threat, making them nostalgic for the days before the district was formed.
Unmentioned in the story is whether the new district will have any regulatory of legal power over the waters flowing through it -- which would effectively give it regulatory power over every drop of water the city of Colorado Springs releases into the Fountain. What it will have is a bully-pulpit on which to stand and brow-beat El Paso County and Colorado Springs any time a stormwater event or sewage spill occurs (a bully pulpit paid for, in part, by Colorado Springs ratepayers). And these will occur, in spite of whatever precautions we take or infrastructure improvements we make.
Nothing in the story indicates whether the new district will have the ability to sue the city of Colorado Springs or El Paso County for actions it deems harmful to Fountain Creek. Just imagine the wag-the-dog situations we'll see if that comes to pass.
All new government entities are created with noble intentions and modest missions. But the nature of all governments, even ones initially limited in scope, is to grow, increase in power, demand more resources and, in time, become a tool of coercion, higher taxation and oppression. That means that, in time, the FCWFCGD (it really needs a shorter acronym) could become a battle zone rather than a buffer zone; a curse rather than a blessing to land owners along the creek; and yet another bone of contention between the cities -- defeating the purpose for which it was conceived.
Cynical thoughts, pouring cold water on what should be a happy occasion? Perhaps. But there is no "Law of Unintended Consequences" -- only the law of unanticipated ones. And anyone who spends any time watching governments might well worry that the seeds of such a scenario were planted yesterday.
Whether they will bear bitter fruit, or just sweet-smelling flowers, only time will tell.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Playing Water Politics a Hard Habit to Kick
The water war between Pueblo and Colorado Springs has for years been a reliable vote-getter for Democrats, so some of them actually seem a little disappointed that the hostilities might be coming to an end. While the two cities finally seem on the verge of working things out, on the Southern Delivery System pipeline project and related issues, certain politicians seem inclined to keep stirring the pot, perhaps for fear of losing an issue they've exploited for votes.
What has SDS to do with partisan politics? Could politicians really be so cynical and self-serving? Answering the first question requires a bit of context. The answer to the second question would seem self evident.
Here's the context.
Pueblo has a lot of registered Democrats, and a powerhouse little newspaper, The Chieftain, that's done everything in its power to delay and derail the pipeline, by portraying Colorado Springs as an 800-pound gorilla taking advantage of the rest of the Arkansas Valley. And because Colorado Springs and El Paso County are heavily Republican in their voting habits, Democrats -- from Ken Salazar to John Salazar to Mark Udall -- have learned that they have little to lose and much to gain (including the endorsement of The Pueblo Chieftain) by playing to Pueblo's sense of victimization.
Some readers may recall that it was former Attorney General Ken Salazar, a Democrat -- and the current Secretary of Interior -- who first encouraged Pueblo County to use regulatory mechanisms (including so-called 1041 rules) to impede the pipeline. His brother, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, has incorporated Springs-bashing themes in the mailers he sends to Arkansas Valley constituents. And freshman Sen. Mark Udall also has played the issue for votes, by posing as the protector of Pueblo and the lower Ark against big, bad Colorado Springs.
All three men understood that they could secure the political support of The Chieftain, and gain whatever additional Pueblo votes that might bring, by playing one community off against the other. Instead of helping mend fences, they used their positions to help build them higher. And now, when a series of recent developments suggest that an end to the water war might be near, John Salazar and Mark Udall seem reluctant to embrace the good news and move ahead.
They don't call it "water politics" for nothing.
What has SDS to do with partisan politics? Could politicians really be so cynical and self-serving? Answering the first question requires a bit of context. The answer to the second question would seem self evident.
Here's the context.
Pueblo has a lot of registered Democrats, and a powerhouse little newspaper, The Chieftain, that's done everything in its power to delay and derail the pipeline, by portraying Colorado Springs as an 800-pound gorilla taking advantage of the rest of the Arkansas Valley. And because Colorado Springs and El Paso County are heavily Republican in their voting habits, Democrats -- from Ken Salazar to John Salazar to Mark Udall -- have learned that they have little to lose and much to gain (including the endorsement of The Pueblo Chieftain) by playing to Pueblo's sense of victimization.
Some readers may recall that it was former Attorney General Ken Salazar, a Democrat -- and the current Secretary of Interior -- who first encouraged Pueblo County to use regulatory mechanisms (including so-called 1041 rules) to impede the pipeline. His brother, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, has incorporated Springs-bashing themes in the mailers he sends to Arkansas Valley constituents. And freshman Sen. Mark Udall also has played the issue for votes, by posing as the protector of Pueblo and the lower Ark against big, bad Colorado Springs.
All three men understood that they could secure the political support of The Chieftain, and gain whatever additional Pueblo votes that might bring, by playing one community off against the other. Instead of helping mend fences, they used their positions to help build them higher. And now, when a series of recent developments suggest that an end to the water war might be near, John Salazar and Mark Udall seem reluctant to embrace the good news and move ahead.
They don't call it "water politics" for nothing.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Peace is at hand! Peace is at hand!
After years of hearing that a breakthrough was imminent in the seemingly endless water war between Colorado Springs and Pueblo over the SDS pipeline project, only to be disappointed, I now believe it's possible.
Why? Because the Pueblo Chieftain is bitter: editorial.
The paper's editorial page has been a tenacious -- and that might be an understatement -- critic of both the pipeline project and Colorado Springs, serving as a major obstacle to mutual understanding, fair negotiations and cooperation on the ground. And the fact that it seems to be conceding defeat, at least on permitting for the pipeline, is the strongest evidence I've seen that a bona fide breakthrough is at hand.
More study is needed before we can know for certain how much in "concessions" Colorado Springs gave up in order to gain (or is it "buy") the support of Pueblo city, county and water board officials. My suspicion, based on the stories I've seen in the Chieftain -- and the reference in today's editorial to having "squeezed about as many concessions as possible from Colorado Springs Utilities" -- is that Pueblo's cooperation isn't coming cheap. Maybe this will be the subject of a later blog post.
But Colorado Springs Utilities nonetheless deserves credit for persevering in the face of so many obstacles -- many of which were erected by The Chieftain's pit bull-like editorial page.
That a paper's prerogative, of course. There's something admirable about tenacity in defending one's position. And I always had a grudging respect for the way the Chieftain held its ground, even when I believed it was slowing the project, costing CSU ratepayers a lot of money and poisoning relations between cities that should be better partners. But perhaps we'll see a tempering of tone if the permitting is approved and the project moves forward.
The Chieftain will continue to watchdog the project, no doubt. That's as it should be. But maybe with a little less of its biting and snarling, the two cities can heal their divisions and move forward on some mutually-beneficial endeavors.
Peace between Pueblo and Colorado Springs? It now seems possible. Maybe there's hope yet for settling that Arab-Israeli thing.
Why? Because the Pueblo Chieftain is bitter: editorial.
The paper's editorial page has been a tenacious -- and that might be an understatement -- critic of both the pipeline project and Colorado Springs, serving as a major obstacle to mutual understanding, fair negotiations and cooperation on the ground. And the fact that it seems to be conceding defeat, at least on permitting for the pipeline, is the strongest evidence I've seen that a bona fide breakthrough is at hand.
More study is needed before we can know for certain how much in "concessions" Colorado Springs gave up in order to gain (or is it "buy") the support of Pueblo city, county and water board officials. My suspicion, based on the stories I've seen in the Chieftain -- and the reference in today's editorial to having "squeezed about as many concessions as possible from Colorado Springs Utilities" -- is that Pueblo's cooperation isn't coming cheap. Maybe this will be the subject of a later blog post.
But Colorado Springs Utilities nonetheless deserves credit for persevering in the face of so many obstacles -- many of which were erected by The Chieftain's pit bull-like editorial page.
That a paper's prerogative, of course. There's something admirable about tenacity in defending one's position. And I always had a grudging respect for the way the Chieftain held its ground, even when I believed it was slowing the project, costing CSU ratepayers a lot of money and poisoning relations between cities that should be better partners. But perhaps we'll see a tempering of tone if the permitting is approved and the project moves forward.
The Chieftain will continue to watchdog the project, no doubt. That's as it should be. But maybe with a little less of its biting and snarling, the two cities can heal their divisions and move forward on some mutually-beneficial endeavors.
Peace between Pueblo and Colorado Springs? It now seems possible. Maybe there's hope yet for settling that Arab-Israeli thing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)