catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

Water crisis in New Mexico

Default

dddroog
Nov 04 2002
06:34 am

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 . . .