Mike Agar's New Mexican Column: State loses from one-way water dialogue

[Stephen Guerin-5]

It was back in March but I just saw it:

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/reader-view-state-loses-from-one-way-water-dialogue/article_4662cd14-b808-5cfb-b82d-f611b9895d9d.html

The New Mexico Water Dialogue held its annual gathering on Jan. 7 at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center in Albuquerque. I’ve been attending their meetings for several years as a student of New Mexico water governance. This year the presentations had a different tone, like a jilted lover in a telenovela. It takes two to dialogue, and I had the feeling that the group was exhausted after years of singing to a tone-deaf state.

Maybe it was the title, “Planning: How Can It Make a Difference?” The title warns of the bad mood to come. If it isn’t going to make a difference, why bother planning at all? Regional water planning is going on all over the state. At the rollout meeting in Albuquerque — I was there — planning seemed more like directions from on high to follow what had been pre-planned. The process looked top-down and underfunded. There was no promise that the recommendations by the regional groups would be taken seriously. And that, apparently, is how it’s turning out.

Consider two of the hottest water issues in the state right now — the Santolina development and the proposed Gila River diversion. Several speakers raised serious questions, as yet unanswered, about the assumptions about water on which those projects are based. And yet the approvals keep on keepin’ on.

Or consider the panel of New Mexican scientists appointed by the Legislature to report on climate change. Warmer on average is one well-supported conclusion. That means, over the long haul, more evapotranspiration, less snowmelt, and more groundwater use. Did this inspire any proposals for water governance reform? No. The Legislature did not renew the project.

It’s a cliché now, what with climate change and the Anthropocene, that both bottom-up and top-down have to be part of water management, with a continual conversation and shared power between the two. At the moment in New Mexico, judging from the day of presentations, the top is hermetically sealed so that the bottom has no way up.

The three main water policy authorities in the state are all filled by executive appointment. Legislation last year proposed that thought should be given to whom the appointees represent and what their qualifications are. Water policy, never mind climate change, requires long-term nonpartisan thinking, not authority that shifts with the political winds. That proposed bill never made it to the House floor.

I left the meeting mid-afternoon, desperately seeking a positive conclusion to the day. My feeling wasn’t that New Mexico water governance is an Edsel in a Tesla world. It was that more people are saying exactly that, loud and clear, in well-crafted arguments, based on solid evidence and good logic.

It would take a lengthy article to go down the list of presenters, detail their experience and qualifications, and summarize their criticisms and calls for action. You can see some of it for yourself if you go to the New Mexico Water Dialogue webpage (http://allaboutwatersheds.org/new-mexico-water-dialogue).

The good news was that so many distinguished water professionals agree on the bad news and have good ideas for how to address it. I remembered a quote, attributed to Gandhi, that goes something like this. “There go my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.” New Mexico water governance needs a pair of running shoes, or maybe water wings would be a better metaphor. It has a lot of catching up to do.

Mike Agar is still trying to figure out New Mexico water. He has written several pieces on the topic for the now dormant New Mexico mercury (www.newmexicomercury.com). More information on him and his work at www.ethknowworks.com.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Pamela McCorduck]

Thanks for sending on this discouraging report. The heart sinks.

On May 17, 2016, at 12:16 PM, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

It was back in March but I just saw it:

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/reader-view-state-loses-from-one-way-water-dialogue/article_4662cd14-b808-5cfb-b82d-f611b9895d9d.html

The New Mexico Water Dialogue held its annual gathering on Jan. 7 at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center in Albuquerque. I’ve been attending their meetings for several years as a student of New Mexico water governance. This year the presentations had a different tone, like a jilted lover in a telenovela. It takes two to dialogue, and I had the feeling that the group was exhausted after years of singing to a tone-deaf state.

Maybe it was the title, “Planning: How Can It Make a Difference?” The title warns of the bad mood to come. If it isn’t going to make a difference, why bother planning at all? Regional water planning is going on all over the state. At the rollout meeting in Albuquerque — I was there — planning seemed more like directions from on high to follow what had been pre-planned. The process looked top-down and underfunded. There was no promise that the recommendations by the regional groups would be taken seriously. And that, apparently, is how it’s turning out.

Consider two of the hottest water issues in the state right now — the Santolina development and the proposed Gila River diversion. Several speakers raised serious questions, as yet unanswered, about the assumptions about water on which those projects are based. And yet the approvals keep on keepin’ on.

Or consider the panel of New Mexican scientists appointed by the Legislature to report on climate change. Warmer on average is one well-supported conclusion. That means, over the long haul, more evapotranspiration, less snowmelt, and more groundwater use. Did this inspire any proposals for water governance reform? No. The Legislature did not renew the project.

It’s a cliché now, what with climate change and the Anthropocene, that both bottom-up and top-down have to be part of water management, with a continual conversation and shared power between the two. At the moment in New Mexico, judging from the day of presentations, the top is hermetically sealed so that the bottom has no way up.

The three main water policy authorities in the state are all filled by executive appointment. Legislation last year proposed that thought should be given to whom the appointees represent and what their qualifications are. Water policy, never mind climate change, requires long-term nonpartisan thinking, not authority that shifts with the political winds. That proposed bill never made it to the House floor.

I left the meeting mid-afternoon, desperately seeking a positive conclusion to the day. My feeling wasn’t that New Mexico water governance is an Edsel in a Tesla world. It was that more people are saying exactly that, loud and clear, in well-crafted arguments, based on solid evidence and good logic.

It would take a lengthy article to go down the list of presenters, detail their experience and qualifications, and summarize their criticisms and calls for action. You can see some of it for yourself if you go to the New Mexico Water Dialogue webpage (http://allaboutwatersheds.org/new-mexico-water-dialogue).

The good news was that so many distinguished water professionals agree on the bad news and have good ideas for how to address it. I remembered a quote, attributed to Gandhi, that goes something like this. “There go my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.” New Mexico water governance needs a pair of running shoes, or maybe water wings would be a better metaphor. It has a lot of catching up to do.

Mike Agar is still trying to figure out New Mexico water. He has written several pieces on the topic for the now dormant New Mexico mercury (www.newmexicomercury.com). More information on him and his work at www.ethknowworks.com.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Merle Lefkoff-2]

Right about everything else, Mike is wrong that "the top is hermetically sealed."  Solid evidence and good logic are no longer enough.  At the top of the call to action is the scaling up of grass-roots protest movements and resistance to the status quo.  Non-violent direct action puts wind under the sails of reluctant politicians--and it's happening all over the world.  To the ramparts, my friends!  Visit our new website:  www.ecosgathering.org to see a hopeful way forward taking place in Santa Fe next year.  Steve, we could use you if you're interested. (This is not a volunteer effort.)

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

It was back in March but I just saw it:

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/reader-view-state-loses-from-one-way-water-dialogue/article_4662cd14-b808-5cfb-b82d-f611b9895d9d.html

The New Mexico Water Dialogue held its annual gathering on Jan. 7 at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center in Albuquerque. I’ve been attending their meetings for several years as a student of New Mexico water governance. This year the presentations had a different tone, like a jilted lover in a telenovela. It takes two to dialogue, and I had the feeling that the group was exhausted after years of singing to a tone-deaf state.

Maybe it was the title, “Planning: How Can It Make a Difference?” The title warns of the bad mood to come. If it isn’t going to make a difference, why bother planning at all? Regional water planning is going on all over the state. At the rollout meeting in Albuquerque — I was there — planning seemed more like directions from on high to follow what had been pre-planned. The process looked top-down and underfunded. There was no promise that the recommendations by the regional groups would be taken seriously. And that, apparently, is how it’s turning out.

Consider two of the hottest water issues in the state right now — the Santolina development and the proposed Gila River diversion. Several speakers raised serious questions, as yet unanswered, about the assumptions about water on which those projects are based. And yet the approvals keep on keepin’ on.

Or consider the panel of New Mexican scientists appointed by the Legislature to report on climate change. Warmer on average is one well-supported conclusion. That means, over the long haul, more evapotranspiration, less snowmelt, and more groundwater use. Did this inspire any proposals for water governance reform? No. The Legislature did not renew the project.

It’s a cliché now, what with climate change and the Anthropocene, that both bottom-up and top-down have to be part of water management, with a continual conversation and shared power between the two. At the moment in New Mexico, judging from the day of presentations, the top is hermetically sealed so that the bottom has no way up.

The three main water policy authorities in the state are all filled by executive appointment. Legislation last year proposed that thought should be given to whom the appointees represent and what their qualifications are. Water policy, never mind climate change, requires long-term nonpartisan thinking, not authority that shifts with the political winds. That proposed bill never made it to the House floor.

I left the meeting mid-afternoon, desperately seeking a positive conclusion to the day. My feeling wasn’t that New Mexico water governance is an Edsel in a Tesla world. It was that more people are saying exactly that, loud and clear, in well-crafted arguments, based on solid evidence and good logic.

It would take a lengthy article to go down the list of presenters, detail their experience and qualifications, and summarize their criticisms and calls for action. You can see some of it for yourself if you go to the New Mexico Water Dialogue webpage (http://allaboutwatersheds.org/new-mexico-water-dialogue).

The good news was that so many distinguished water professionals agree on the bad news and have good ideas for how to address it. I remembered a quote, attributed to Gandhi, that goes something like this. “There go my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.” New Mexico water governance needs a pair of running shoes, or maybe water wings would be a better metaphor. It has a lot of catching up to do.

Mike Agar is still trying to figure out New Mexico water. He has written several pieces on the topic for the now dormant New Mexico mercury (www.newmexicomercury.com). More information on him and his work at www.ethknowworks.com.

_______________________________________________________________________
[hidden email]

CEO, Simtable  http://www.simtable.com

1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505

office: <a href="tel:%28505%29995-0206" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone] mobile: <a href="tel:%28505%29577-5828" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]

twitter: @simtable

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com