Springs Utilities sells us down the river
| By Dave Gardner - Aug 4th, 2007 at 4:04 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: COSprings Progress |
Comments |
Mail to a Friend
Categories: Economic Fairness & Security, Environment / Conservation, Smart Energy Policy, Public Infrastructure / Transportation, Budget Priorities
Categories: Economic Fairness & Security, Environment / Conservation, Smart Energy Policy, Public Infrastructure / Transportation, Budget Priorities
Should Colorado Springs be investing over $2 billion in a water diversion project that promises poorer water quality to farmers in the Lower Arkansas Valley, worsens environmental problems in Fountain Creek, and with a primary purpose of enabling and subsidizing suburban sprawl on the eastern fringes of Colorado Springs?
Our citizen-owned utility is playing it fast and loose with logic and facts in its attempts to persuade us this is the right thing to do.
Our community-owned utility is showing its pro-growth stripes. The July issue of the utility newsletter, Connections, shows them, and today they appear in The Gazette under "Other Voices" in an op ed by utilities CEO Jerry Forte.
Enough, already! There are a few messages CSU is trying to pound home that beg for correction. I like Jerry Forte. He's a hometown boy and he seems most of the time to be committed to honest, open communication with the public. That apparently doesn't apply in the case of the Southern Delivery System. My advice to Jerry regarding attempts by our utility to "sell" SDS to the citizens is to move our utility away from its long-standing pro-growth culture and toward more neutrality in its communication with the public. Give us unbiased facts, pros and cons, and then let us decide. If CSU-supported projects like the Southern Delivery System are such a good idea, then you shouldn't have to distort the facts to convince the public they're the right thing to do.
From Mr. Forte's column in today's paper (metro, page 7, "Pipe to Pueblo Reservoir still the best option"):
Spin #1:
Forte writes: "Just as prior citizens built and paid for the system we now use to deliver water, we must continue to invest in our community's future." He is implying that a happy, healthy future for our community requires we build and pay for a water system needed primarily for the 75,000 families projected to occupy Banning Lewis Ranch, plus a few other new developments. He cloaks yet another growth subsidy as "investing in our community's future." He's entitled to his opinion, but...
The Facts:
It's only a "must" because this multi-billion dollar gift to developers is being rammed down our throats with no opportunity for a citizen vote on the biggest debt and expenditure ever undertaken by our city. Using this tired intergenerational debt ploy to guilt us into repeating old behavior is insulting. Should we not learn from mistakes and/or adapt to new conditions and knowledge as we go forward? At some point our local population will exceed the reliable capacity of our water resources (we've likely already done so!), and the intergenerational debt would be a foolish and suicidal basis for going even further out on a limb with regard to water supply.
Besides, previous generations did not build and pay for previous water projects as Mr. Forte implies. They committed to the projects and borrowed the money so that the next generation could pay for them. Are we doing future generations a favor to borrow a staggering amount and commit them to pay for an ill-advised pipeline?
There are much better "investments" we can make in our future with 2 to 3 billion dollars (the price tag could be even higher; I'm including the bond interest in this number). With that money we could actually use the existing restrooms in our parks instead of porta-potties. We could actually rehabilitate City Auditorium. We could hire a new urbanism expert to help design a University Village across from UCCS that actually attracts students, tourists and entrepreneurs (instead of subsidizing a strip-mall developer to transplant Powers Blvd. to N. Nevada). We could actually have a real, sustainable arts community and arts district in SODO. We could better educate our children. We could have free wireless internet throughout the city. We could have recycling containers on downtown street corners and at the airport. We could equip our municipal fleets with hybrid and all-electric vehicles. We could build a wind farm, encourage rooftop solar installations and more energy-efficient building, and begin to reduce our carbon footprint. We could invest in a mass transit system. The list goes on. Instead Mr. Forte feels we should mindlessly invest 2 to 3 billion dollars in a pipeline that may not even fill with water if climate change predictions about future snowpack are accurate.
Spin #2:
Forte writes: " In the next 20 years, more than half the population growth in Colorado Springs will come from our children and grandchildren."
The Facts:
An analysis of the most recent, freely available Census and IRS migration data for our metro area revealed that births averaged 15% of our annual population increase while in-migration accounted for 85%. Mr. Forte used data that growth profiteers like to promote, which ignores the fact that many born in our city eventually move away (an inordinately large number, actually, since many local births are to young military families on a short tour of duty in the Springs).
Keep in mind this time next year Mr. Forte may be trying to convince us we owe it to future generations to build a third coal-fired power plant (a $1 billion+ gift to Banning Lewis Ranch developers).
Spin #3:
Forte also mentions our aging water delivery system. "Redundancy" has been trotted out by the utility whenever someone questions the wisdom of this growth subsidy. "We need another pipeline so we'll still have water while we repair existing pipelines," our utility tells us.
The Facts:
Well, we have three pipelines today. How much redundancy do we need? And would we spend a couple billion dollars to back up existing systems? I don't think so.
Suffice it to say, our utility is spinning the facts in order to sell us on the SDS idea. We'd be better served by impartial, and therefore credible and much more valuable, information from the utility we own.
Our citizen-owned utility is playing it fast and loose with logic and facts in its attempts to persuade us this is the right thing to do.
Our community-owned utility is showing its pro-growth stripes. The July issue of the utility newsletter, Connections, shows them, and today they appear in The Gazette under "Other Voices" in an op ed by utilities CEO Jerry Forte.
Enough, already! There are a few messages CSU is trying to pound home that beg for correction. I like Jerry Forte. He's a hometown boy and he seems most of the time to be committed to honest, open communication with the public. That apparently doesn't apply in the case of the Southern Delivery System. My advice to Jerry regarding attempts by our utility to "sell" SDS to the citizens is to move our utility away from its long-standing pro-growth culture and toward more neutrality in its communication with the public. Give us unbiased facts, pros and cons, and then let us decide. If CSU-supported projects like the Southern Delivery System are such a good idea, then you shouldn't have to distort the facts to convince the public they're the right thing to do.
From Mr. Forte's column in today's paper (metro, page 7, "Pipe to Pueblo Reservoir still the best option"):
Spin #1:
Forte writes: "Just as prior citizens built and paid for the system we now use to deliver water, we must continue to invest in our community's future." He is implying that a happy, healthy future for our community requires we build and pay for a water system needed primarily for the 75,000 families projected to occupy Banning Lewis Ranch, plus a few other new developments. He cloaks yet another growth subsidy as "investing in our community's future." He's entitled to his opinion, but...
The Facts:
It's only a "must" because this multi-billion dollar gift to developers is being rammed down our throats with no opportunity for a citizen vote on the biggest debt and expenditure ever undertaken by our city. Using this tired intergenerational debt ploy to guilt us into repeating old behavior is insulting. Should we not learn from mistakes and/or adapt to new conditions and knowledge as we go forward? At some point our local population will exceed the reliable capacity of our water resources (we've likely already done so!), and the intergenerational debt would be a foolish and suicidal basis for going even further out on a limb with regard to water supply.
Besides, previous generations did not build and pay for previous water projects as Mr. Forte implies. They committed to the projects and borrowed the money so that the next generation could pay for them. Are we doing future generations a favor to borrow a staggering amount and commit them to pay for an ill-advised pipeline?
There are much better "investments" we can make in our future with 2 to 3 billion dollars (the price tag could be even higher; I'm including the bond interest in this number). With that money we could actually use the existing restrooms in our parks instead of porta-potties. We could actually rehabilitate City Auditorium. We could hire a new urbanism expert to help design a University Village across from UCCS that actually attracts students, tourists and entrepreneurs (instead of subsidizing a strip-mall developer to transplant Powers Blvd. to N. Nevada). We could actually have a real, sustainable arts community and arts district in SODO. We could better educate our children. We could have free wireless internet throughout the city. We could have recycling containers on downtown street corners and at the airport. We could equip our municipal fleets with hybrid and all-electric vehicles. We could build a wind farm, encourage rooftop solar installations and more energy-efficient building, and begin to reduce our carbon footprint. We could invest in a mass transit system. The list goes on. Instead Mr. Forte feels we should mindlessly invest 2 to 3 billion dollars in a pipeline that may not even fill with water if climate change predictions about future snowpack are accurate.
Spin #2:
Forte writes: " In the next 20 years, more than half the population growth in Colorado Springs will come from our children and grandchildren."
The Facts:
An analysis of the most recent, freely available Census and IRS migration data for our metro area revealed that births averaged 15% of our annual population increase while in-migration accounted for 85%. Mr. Forte used data that growth profiteers like to promote, which ignores the fact that many born in our city eventually move away (an inordinately large number, actually, since many local births are to young military families on a short tour of duty in the Springs).
Keep in mind this time next year Mr. Forte may be trying to convince us we owe it to future generations to build a third coal-fired power plant (a $1 billion+ gift to Banning Lewis Ranch developers).
Spin #3:
Forte also mentions our aging water delivery system. "Redundancy" has been trotted out by the utility whenever someone questions the wisdom of this growth subsidy. "We need another pipeline so we'll still have water while we repair existing pipelines," our utility tells us.
The Facts:
Well, we have three pipelines today. How much redundancy do we need? And would we spend a couple billion dollars to back up existing systems? I don't think so.
Suffice it to say, our utility is spinning the facts in order to sell us on the SDS idea. We'd be better served by impartial, and therefore credible and much more valuable, information from the utility we own.
Comments are closed for this post.