Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
mjensen
Is this you? Claim Profile »
10 months ago
in Use a lot of water? Your bill is about to go up on The New Mexico Independent
At their August 7th meeting, some members of the Customer Advisory Committee (CAC) of the ABCWUA asked WUA representatives about raising rates to deal with customers - like WUA member Tim Cummins - who use exorbitant amounts of water. The answer from the WUA was that they couldn't raise rates because they aren't allowed to make a profit. Which is fine, it's a statutory issue - but it isn't as though there is a lack of projects that could be funded by increased revenues. So attempting to be "revenue nuetral" still needs to be addressed.
Michael Jensen
Amigos Bravos
Albuquerque
Michael Jensen
Amigos Bravos
Albuquerque
10 months ago
in Use a lot of water? Your bill is about to go up on The New Mexico Independent
At their August 7th meeting, some members of the Customer Advisory Committee (CAC) of the ABCWUA asked WUA representatives about raising rates to deal with customers - like WUA member Tim Cummins - who use exorbitant amounts of water. The answer from the WUA was that they couldn't raise rates because they aren't allowed to make a profit. Which is fine, it's a statutory issue - but it isn't as though there is a lack of projects that could be funded by increased revenues. So attempting to be "revenue nuetral" still needs to be addressed.
Michael Jensen
Amigos Bravos
Albuquerque
Michael Jensen
Amigos Bravos
Albuquerque
11 months ago
in A very wet bargain on The New Mexico Independent
There are many hurdles to water conservation in the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County region. Thanks to Joel Gay for bringing some of these to our attention. There are others.
John Stomp of the ABCWUA has stated - in the public Town Hall last year: "Our Sustainable Water Future" - that using rates to get conservation doesn't work (!).
On several occasions at public meetings, Katherine Yuhas has said that the WUA has been meeting its current requirement of 165 gallons per day per person (gpd/capita) for the last year. But the WUA web site (under "Statistics" in the "Water Conservation" drop-down menu) says:
"Water usage to date in the Albuquerque area is 860 million gallons over the conservation goal, the Water Authority reported. Katherine Yuhas, conservation officer for the Water Authority, said 2008 usage to date was 15.63 billion gallons as of June 30, while the usage goal was just 14.77 billion. That goal was set based on our objective of reducing per-person usage to 165 gallons per day in 2008. It was 167 gallons per day in 2007."
Perhaps there is some accounting method that can square these two messages, but telling the public that we are meeting goals, when the statistics reveal overuse is not conducive to the kind of public education the WUA says is needed. (Disclosure: Amigos Bravos, for whom I work, is suing the WUA and the State Engineer over the permit for use of native Rio Grande water - as "conveyance water" - in an amount up to that included in Albuquerque's portion of the SJ-C project: 47,000 acre feet year)
Katherine Yuhas' concern (noted in the article) for low-income water users is commendable. Setting usage targets based on an average household size seems to be skewed against low-income households, which often have extended families sharing the household. On the other hand, lower income households often use less water per capita and it is quite possible to provide low-income offsets through the billing system. There really is no excuse for not establishing a system that goes after wasteful residential and commercial (and public) users.
Setting "conservation" water rates based on winter water usage - for which there is no penalty - is ludicrous on its face, as Joel Gay points out. Customers are smart. I'm sure Tim Cummins is well aware that he can game the system by pumping up his winter use so his summer use will never be penalized.
The WUA does not seem to be considering the impacts of climate change on its conservation deadlines. A number of recent reports, from the International Panel on Climate Chgange to a joint NMSU/UNM study have predicted substantially lower flows in the Rio Grande and across the Southwest, including the tributaires to the San Juan that supply San Juan-Chama water. less SJ-C water, less Rio Grande "conveyance" water, and higher rates of evaporation and transpiration (those outdoor "uses") should be encouraging the WUA to fast-track water conservation, especially conservation of outdoor use.
Finally - readers and writers at the Independent need to focus their attention on the water conservation "non-debate" now taking place.
Michael Cadigan proposed a good water conservation ordinance aimed primarily at reducing outdoor water usage for residential, commercial, and public users. Tim Cummins was an opponent of those measures, as was NAIOP (the organization representing industrial and office property owners). NAIOP (and APS and Parks & Recreation) have repeatedly been allowed to comment extensively on drafts of amended versions of Cadigan's proposed conservation ordinance. They are also represented on the Customer Advisory Committee (CAC).
Without advising Cadigan, the CAC, at its July 10 meeting, proposed an alternative to Cadigan's ordinance, based on research done by Katherine Yuhas of potential water "savings" from the alternative. This alternative is based on a point system that new single-family residential construction has to meet (the CAC said it would address multi-family residential later; and commerical use even later, apparently). 40 points have to be accrued, with a minimum of 20 from using indoor water measures and 10 points from outdoor measures. The points earned are based on the presumed water savings from that particular measure, such as installing low-flow showerheads.
As noted at the meeting, the 40 points can almost certainly be met by current practices of residential home builders. Therefore, it is difficult to see where water conservation will result from implementing this system, since it apparently is already in use.
I pointed out at the July CAC meeting that essentially all "consumptive" water use (that is, water lost to the system, mostly through evaporation; indoor water is captured and either reclaimed/reused or discharged to the river ... other topics for another time) comes from outdoor watering. Therefore, I noted, the point system doesn't seem designed to target the primary source of potential water conservation (as Cadigan's proposed ordinance did, since most of its provisions dealt with outdoor usage). Instead, the point system is skewed towards rewarding indoor water conservation ... which - as Joel's article notes - has plateaued as the toilet and low-flow rebate programs have reached saturation among residential owners and builders.
In fact, this alternative water conservation system seems to be a conservation analog of the issue of "paper" versus "wet" water that developers have to provide. The new system is providing "paper" conservation for the development community, not 'wet" conservation.
The CAC also decided at the July meeting that they needed to do some outreach to the building community to get their feedback. Oh, yeah, and let Cadigan know. And, oh yeah, maybe let "some of those anti-development groups like 1000 Friends of New Mexico know" (Gabe Nims, Executive Director of 1000 Friends, who is on the CAC, had a scheduling conflict and couldn't be there that meeting). Just so we all know which "customers" the CAC represents (remember, as Joel notes, that residential users - customers - have been more responsible about conservation than commercial users).
The CAC meets on the first Thursday of each month in the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Government Center, Room 5038, from 4-6pm. The next meeting is on August 7th and the CAC will further discuss the new alternative conservation plan and possibly set up dates for public outreach meetings on the plan (tentatively set for September some time at the July meeting).
CAC meetings have no public attendance. In May there was an effort to coordinate public comment in support of Cadigan's proposed ordinance. The CAC didn't know what to do about accomodating public comment, despite being notified ahead of time, and ended up giving each of us 90 seconds to comment. A NAIOP representative (not sitting on the CAC) was, of course, present that day and also spoke. There is no evidence that the CAC took these public comments - all but NAIOP's in favor of Cadigan's proposed ordinance - under advisement.
Regards,
Michael
John Stomp of the ABCWUA has stated - in the public Town Hall last year: "Our Sustainable Water Future" - that using rates to get conservation doesn't work (!).
On several occasions at public meetings, Katherine Yuhas has said that the WUA has been meeting its current requirement of 165 gallons per day per person (gpd/capita) for the last year. But the WUA web site (under "Statistics" in the "Water Conservation" drop-down menu) says:
"Water usage to date in the Albuquerque area is 860 million gallons over the conservation goal, the Water Authority reported. Katherine Yuhas, conservation officer for the Water Authority, said 2008 usage to date was 15.63 billion gallons as of June 30, while the usage goal was just 14.77 billion. That goal was set based on our objective of reducing per-person usage to 165 gallons per day in 2008. It was 167 gallons per day in 2007."
Perhaps there is some accounting method that can square these two messages, but telling the public that we are meeting goals, when the statistics reveal overuse is not conducive to the kind of public education the WUA says is needed. (Disclosure: Amigos Bravos, for whom I work, is suing the WUA and the State Engineer over the permit for use of native Rio Grande water - as "conveyance water" - in an amount up to that included in Albuquerque's portion of the SJ-C project: 47,000 acre feet year)
Katherine Yuhas' concern (noted in the article) for low-income water users is commendable. Setting usage targets based on an average household size seems to be skewed against low-income households, which often have extended families sharing the household. On the other hand, lower income households often use less water per capita and it is quite possible to provide low-income offsets through the billing system. There really is no excuse for not establishing a system that goes after wasteful residential and commercial (and public) users.
Setting "conservation" water rates based on winter water usage - for which there is no penalty - is ludicrous on its face, as Joel Gay points out. Customers are smart. I'm sure Tim Cummins is well aware that he can game the system by pumping up his winter use so his summer use will never be penalized.
The WUA does not seem to be considering the impacts of climate change on its conservation deadlines. A number of recent reports, from the International Panel on Climate Chgange to a joint NMSU/UNM study have predicted substantially lower flows in the Rio Grande and across the Southwest, including the tributaires to the San Juan that supply San Juan-Chama water. less SJ-C water, less Rio Grande "conveyance" water, and higher rates of evaporation and transpiration (those outdoor "uses") should be encouraging the WUA to fast-track water conservation, especially conservation of outdoor use.
Finally - readers and writers at the Independent need to focus their attention on the water conservation "non-debate" now taking place.
Michael Cadigan proposed a good water conservation ordinance aimed primarily at reducing outdoor water usage for residential, commercial, and public users. Tim Cummins was an opponent of those measures, as was NAIOP (the organization representing industrial and office property owners). NAIOP (and APS and Parks & Recreation) have repeatedly been allowed to comment extensively on drafts of amended versions of Cadigan's proposed conservation ordinance. They are also represented on the Customer Advisory Committee (CAC).
Without advising Cadigan, the CAC, at its July 10 meeting, proposed an alternative to Cadigan's ordinance, based on research done by Katherine Yuhas of potential water "savings" from the alternative. This alternative is based on a point system that new single-family residential construction has to meet (the CAC said it would address multi-family residential later; and commerical use even later, apparently). 40 points have to be accrued, with a minimum of 20 from using indoor water measures and 10 points from outdoor measures. The points earned are based on the presumed water savings from that particular measure, such as installing low-flow showerheads.
As noted at the meeting, the 40 points can almost certainly be met by current practices of residential home builders. Therefore, it is difficult to see where water conservation will result from implementing this system, since it apparently is already in use.
I pointed out at the July CAC meeting that essentially all "consumptive" water use (that is, water lost to the system, mostly through evaporation; indoor water is captured and either reclaimed/reused or discharged to the river ... other topics for another time) comes from outdoor watering. Therefore, I noted, the point system doesn't seem designed to target the primary source of potential water conservation (as Cadigan's proposed ordinance did, since most of its provisions dealt with outdoor usage). Instead, the point system is skewed towards rewarding indoor water conservation ... which - as Joel's article notes - has plateaued as the toilet and low-flow rebate programs have reached saturation among residential owners and builders.
In fact, this alternative water conservation system seems to be a conservation analog of the issue of "paper" versus "wet" water that developers have to provide. The new system is providing "paper" conservation for the development community, not 'wet" conservation.
The CAC also decided at the July meeting that they needed to do some outreach to the building community to get their feedback. Oh, yeah, and let Cadigan know. And, oh yeah, maybe let "some of those anti-development groups like 1000 Friends of New Mexico know" (Gabe Nims, Executive Director of 1000 Friends, who is on the CAC, had a scheduling conflict and couldn't be there that meeting). Just so we all know which "customers" the CAC represents (remember, as Joel notes, that residential users - customers - have been more responsible about conservation than commercial users).
The CAC meets on the first Thursday of each month in the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Government Center, Room 5038, from 4-6pm. The next meeting is on August 7th and the CAC will further discuss the new alternative conservation plan and possibly set up dates for public outreach meetings on the plan (tentatively set for September some time at the July meeting).
CAC meetings have no public attendance. In May there was an effort to coordinate public comment in support of Cadigan's proposed ordinance. The CAC didn't know what to do about accomodating public comment, despite being notified ahead of time, and ended up giving each of us 90 seconds to comment. A NAIOP representative (not sitting on the CAC) was, of course, present that day and also spoke. There is no evidence that the CAC took these public comments - all but NAIOP's in favor of Cadigan's proposed ordinance - under advisement.
Regards,
Michael
11 months ago
in A very wet bargain on The New Mexico Independent
There are many hurdles to water conservation in the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County region. Thanks to Joel Gay for bringing some of these to our attention. There are others.
John Stomp of the ABCWUA has stated - in the public Town Hall last year: "Our Sustainable Water Future" - that using rates to get conservation doesn't work (!).
On several occasions at public meetings, Katherine Yuhas has said that the WUA has been meeting its current requirement of 165 gallons per day per person (gpd/capita) for the last year. But the WUA web site (under "Statistics" in the "Water Conservation" drop-down menu) says:
"Water usage to date in the Albuquerque area is 860 million gallons over the conservation goal, the Water Authority reported. Katherine Yuhas, conservation officer for the Water Authority, said 2008 usage to date was 15.63 billion gallons as of June 30, while the usage goal was just 14.77 billion. That goal was set based on our objective of reducing per-person usage to 165 gallons per day in 2008. It was 167 gallons per day in 2007."
Perhaps there is some accounting method that can square these two messages, but telling the public that we are meeting goals, when the statistics reveal overuse is not conducive to the kind of public education the WUA says is needed. (Disclosure: Amigos Bravos, for whom I work, is suing the WUA and the State Engineer over the permit for use of native Rio Grande water - as "conveyance water" - in an amount up to that included in Albuquerque's portion of the SJ-C project: 47,000 acre feet year)
Katherine Yuhas' concern (noted in the article) for low-income water users is commendable. Setting usage targets based on an average household size seems to be skewed against low-income households, which often have extended families sharing the household. On the other hand, lower income households often use less water per capita and it is quite possible to provide low-income offsets through the billing system. There really is no excuse for not establishing a system that goes after wasteful residential and commercial (and public) users.
Setting "conservation" water rates based on winter water usage - for which there is no penalty - is ludicrous on its face, as Joel Gay points out. Customers are smart. I'm sure Tim Cummins is well aware that he can game the system by pumping up his winter use so his summer use will never be penalized.
The WUA does not seem to be considering the impacts of climate change on its conservation deadlines. A number of recent reports, from the International Panel on Climate Chgange to a joint NMSU/UNM study have predicted substantially lower flows in the Rio Grande and across the Southwest, including the tributaires to the San Juan that supply San Juan-Chama water. less SJ-C water, less Rio Grande "conveyance" water, and higher rates of evaporation and transpiration (those outdoor "uses") should be encouraging the WUA to fast-track water conservation, especially conservation of outdoor use.
Finally - readers and writers at the Independent need to focus their attention on the water conservation "non-debate" now taking place.
Michael Cadigan proposed a good water conservation ordinance aimed primarily at reducing outdoor water usage for residential, commercial, and public users. Tim Cummins was an opponent of those measures, as was NAIOP (the organization representing industrial and office property owners). NAIOP (and APS and Parks & Recreation) have repeatedly been allowed to comment extensively on drafts of amended versions of Cadigan's proposed conservation ordinance. They are also represented on the Customer Advisory Committee (CAC).
Without advising Cadigan, the CAC, at its July 10 meeting, proposed an alternative to Cadigan's ordinance, based on research done by Katherine Yuhas of potential water "savings" from the alternative. This alternative is based on a point system that new single-family residential construction has to meet (the CAC said it would address multi-family residential later; and commerical use even later, apparently). 40 points have to be accrued, with a minimum of 20 from using indoor water measures and 10 points from outdoor measures. The points earned are based on the presumed water savings from that particular measure, such as installing low-flow showerheads.
As noted at the meeting, the 40 points can almost certainly be met by current practices of residential home builders. Therefore, it is difficult to see where water conservation will result from implementing this system, since it apparently is already in use.
I pointed out at the July CAC meeting that essentially all "consumptive" water use (that is, water lost to the system, mostly through evaporation; indoor water is captured and either reclaimed/reused or discharged to the river ... other topics for another time) comes from outdoor watering. Therefore, I noted, the point system doesn't seem designed to target the primary source of potential water conservation (as Cadigan's proposed ordinance did, since most of its provisions dealt with outdoor usage). Instead, the point system is skewed towards rewarding indoor water conservation ... which - as Joel's article notes - has plateaued as the toilet and low-flow rebate programs have reached saturation among residential owners and builders.
In fact, this alternative water conservation system seems to be a conservation analog of the issue of "paper" versus "wet" water that developers have to provide. The new system is providing "paper" conservation for the development community, not 'wet" conservation.
The CAC also decided at the July meeting that they needed to do some outreach to the building community to get their feedback. Oh, yeah, and let Cadigan know. And, oh yeah, maybe let "some of those anti-development groups like 1000 Friends of New Mexico know" (Gabe Nims, Executive Director of 1000 Friends, who is on the CAC, had a scheduling conflict and couldn't be there that meeting). Just so we all know which "customers" the CAC represents (remember, as Joel notes, that residential users - customers - have been more responsible about conservation than commercial users).
The CAC meets on the first Thursday of each month in the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Government Center, Room 5038, from 4-6pm. The next meeting is on August 7th and the CAC will further discuss the new alternative conservation plan and possibly set up dates for public outreach meetings on the plan (tentatively set for September some time at the July meeting).
CAC meetings have no public attendance. In May there was an effort to coordinate public comment in support of Cadigan's proposed ordinance. The CAC didn't know what to do about accomodating public comment, despite being notified ahead of time, and ended up giving each of us 90 seconds to comment. A NAIOP representative (not sitting on the CAC) was, of course, present that day and also spoke. There is no evidence that the CAC took these public comments - all but NAIOP's in favor of Cadigan's proposed ordinance - under advisement.
Regards,
Michael
John Stomp of the ABCWUA has stated - in the public Town Hall last year: "Our Sustainable Water Future" - that using rates to get conservation doesn't work (!).
On several occasions at public meetings, Katherine Yuhas has said that the WUA has been meeting its current requirement of 165 gallons per day per person (gpd/capita) for the last year. But the WUA web site (under "Statistics" in the "Water Conservation" drop-down menu) says:
"Water usage to date in the Albuquerque area is 860 million gallons over the conservation goal, the Water Authority reported. Katherine Yuhas, conservation officer for the Water Authority, said 2008 usage to date was 15.63 billion gallons as of June 30, while the usage goal was just 14.77 billion. That goal was set based on our objective of reducing per-person usage to 165 gallons per day in 2008. It was 167 gallons per day in 2007."
Perhaps there is some accounting method that can square these two messages, but telling the public that we are meeting goals, when the statistics reveal overuse is not conducive to the kind of public education the WUA says is needed. (Disclosure: Amigos Bravos, for whom I work, is suing the WUA and the State Engineer over the permit for use of native Rio Grande water - as "conveyance water" - in an amount up to that included in Albuquerque's portion of the SJ-C project: 47,000 acre feet year)
Katherine Yuhas' concern (noted in the article) for low-income water users is commendable. Setting usage targets based on an average household size seems to be skewed against low-income households, which often have extended families sharing the household. On the other hand, lower income households often use less water per capita and it is quite possible to provide low-income offsets through the billing system. There really is no excuse for not establishing a system that goes after wasteful residential and commercial (and public) users.
Setting "conservation" water rates based on winter water usage - for which there is no penalty - is ludicrous on its face, as Joel Gay points out. Customers are smart. I'm sure Tim Cummins is well aware that he can game the system by pumping up his winter use so his summer use will never be penalized.
The WUA does not seem to be considering the impacts of climate change on its conservation deadlines. A number of recent reports, from the International Panel on Climate Chgange to a joint NMSU/UNM study have predicted substantially lower flows in the Rio Grande and across the Southwest, including the tributaires to the San Juan that supply San Juan-Chama water. less SJ-C water, less Rio Grande "conveyance" water, and higher rates of evaporation and transpiration (those outdoor "uses") should be encouraging the WUA to fast-track water conservation, especially conservation of outdoor use.
Finally - readers and writers at the Independent need to focus their attention on the water conservation "non-debate" now taking place.
Michael Cadigan proposed a good water conservation ordinance aimed primarily at reducing outdoor water usage for residential, commercial, and public users. Tim Cummins was an opponent of those measures, as was NAIOP (the organization representing industrial and office property owners). NAIOP (and APS and Parks & Recreation) have repeatedly been allowed to comment extensively on drafts of amended versions of Cadigan's proposed conservation ordinance. They are also represented on the Customer Advisory Committee (CAC).
Without advising Cadigan, the CAC, at its July 10 meeting, proposed an alternative to Cadigan's ordinance, based on research done by Katherine Yuhas of potential water "savings" from the alternative. This alternative is based on a point system that new single-family residential construction has to meet (the CAC said it would address multi-family residential later; and commerical use even later, apparently). 40 points have to be accrued, with a minimum of 20 from using indoor water measures and 10 points from outdoor measures. The points earned are based on the presumed water savings from that particular measure, such as installing low-flow showerheads.
As noted at the meeting, the 40 points can almost certainly be met by current practices of residential home builders. Therefore, it is difficult to see where water conservation will result from implementing this system, since it apparently is already in use.
I pointed out at the July CAC meeting that essentially all "consumptive" water use (that is, water lost to the system, mostly through evaporation; indoor water is captured and either reclaimed/reused or discharged to the river ... other topics for another time) comes from outdoor watering. Therefore, I noted, the point system doesn't seem designed to target the primary source of potential water conservation (as Cadigan's proposed ordinance did, since most of its provisions dealt with outdoor usage). Instead, the point system is skewed towards rewarding indoor water conservation ... which - as Joel's article notes - has plateaued as the toilet and low-flow rebate programs have reached saturation among residential owners and builders.
In fact, this alternative water conservation system seems to be a conservation analog of the issue of "paper" versus "wet" water that developers have to provide. The new system is providing "paper" conservation for the development community, not 'wet" conservation.
The CAC also decided at the July meeting that they needed to do some outreach to the building community to get their feedback. Oh, yeah, and let Cadigan know. And, oh yeah, maybe let "some of those anti-development groups like 1000 Friends of New Mexico know" (Gabe Nims, Executive Director of 1000 Friends, who is on the CAC, had a scheduling conflict and couldn't be there that meeting). Just so we all know which "customers" the CAC represents (remember, as Joel notes, that residential users - customers - have been more responsible about conservation than commercial users).
The CAC meets on the first Thursday of each month in the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Government Center, Room 5038, from 4-6pm. The next meeting is on August 7th and the CAC will further discuss the new alternative conservation plan and possibly set up dates for public outreach meetings on the plan (tentatively set for September some time at the July meeting).
CAC meetings have no public attendance. In May there was an effort to coordinate public comment in support of Cadigan's proposed ordinance. The CAC didn't know what to do about accomodating public comment, despite being notified ahead of time, and ended up giving each of us 90 seconds to comment. A NAIOP representative (not sitting on the CAC) was, of course, present that day and also spoke. There is no evidence that the CAC took these public comments - all but NAIOP's in favor of Cadigan's proposed ordinance - under advisement.
Regards,
Michael
