YOU REALLY THINK “THEY” ARE THE SOLUTION…?

economic-summitt-copyAs I read this article – HIGH STAKE FOR ECONOMIC SUMMIT – in the Arizona Republic, it is difficult for me to believe those whose actions brought about this current financial debacle are now the ones to whom we are turning for leadership out of the very situation their action created…?

As I read this I am mindful of words spoken and written by Albert Einstein … A problem can never really be solved using the same level of thinking with which the problem was originally created …

I can not for a minute believe that turning to this leadership will bring about the fundamental change needed to put not only our US economy but the world economy on a very different course.  

Can you…?

BAILOUT FOR WHOM

Perspective for your consideration … What does it look like when it’s fixed…?

When I first saw this headline in the Saturday issue of the Arizona Republic … GORDON REQUESTS BAILOUT MONEY … I was unsure if I was going to laugh or cry. This is the same elected official sworn “to serve & protect” who so generously gifted more than one hundred million dollars in tax breaks to the developer of City North which recently opened with great fanfare.

This is the same elected official who is choosing to balance his city budget by closing or reducing hours at public libraries…? And public swimming pools…? Hello, what exactly am I missing…?

We might begin to balance our City of Phoenix budget by first reducing your salary and those of the mental midgets comprising our City council who went along with your generosity and tax breaks to favor business enterprises. Then we might look at what we might save by not putting all the chrome stuff on the fire trucks, though it makes them pretty…? Then we might look at opening the “books” of the city completely for public scrutiny…? WOW, now that’s a scary thought, right Mayor Gordon…?

If “we” don’t ask, they aren’t going to tell. And in the final analysis it’s our tax money they are spending, but apparently you and I really don’t give a damn.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

… People should never be afraid of their government, government should always be afraid of the people …

“Fascism ought more properly be called corporatism because it is the perfect merger of power between the corporation and the state.” … Benito Mussolini

And let me be even a bit bolder, I am most willing to present and discuss any water issue before any audience in Arizona where open full disclosure and two way dialog is permitted.

ADEQ caught in web

Perspective for your consideration … What does it look like when it’s fixed…?

ADEQ CAUGHT IN CLIMATE DISPUTE AT STATE CAPITOL … noted the Arizona Republic in its 14 Nov 08 issue …

I find I am inclined to suggest the current “dispute” respecting ADEQ is a continuation of one initiated at its inception as a separate agency as established by the Arizona Legislature in 1986 reputedly in response to growing concerns about groundwater quality. Its mission statement according to the ADEQ website is … to administer a variety of programs to improve the health and welfare of our citizens and ensure the quality of Arizona’s air, land and water resources meet healthful, regulatory standards. In 1986, Bruce Babbitt was in his last year as Governor of Arizona and ADEQ in part, I believe was to establish his legacy respecting his implementation of “active management areas” (AMA) over certain aspects of water. Babbitt was to be succeeded by Evan Mechan during whose governorship was a most tumultuous time. Mechan’s action as Governor polarized our State over the federal MLK Day. His choice of words and descriptions such as “pickaninny” were daily headline fodder keeping all topics of public value off everyone’s radar.

ADEQ from the outset never enjoyed the full support of the state legislature as a number of members at the time saw this creation as nothing more than to placate the “pro-growth” constituents in our State. It has been since its creation a creature and the subject of “revolving” door philosophies, standards, rules and policies. Any Director who honestly chooses to be “pro” environment finds his/her tenure to be short. Review the philosophies, standards, rules and policies of ADEQ since its inception and one sees the hand of the lobbyists, attorneys of the public utilities, large water users (i.e. cities), corporate agriculture and the mines and last and not least – developers/subdividers. ADEQ philosophies, standards, rules and policies have had one aim and goal that is to promote unrestricted growth in all areas of our state – water – concerns be damned.

Part of me wants to stand and cheer and hope ADEQ meets its demise. Another more thoughtful part of me suggests such a stand could easily be an indelible blow to Arizona’s environmental concerns. Our individual and collective action, including moi, has since its inception left ADEQ twisting in the wind, subject to whomever and whatever was in the moment the loudest voice and produced the biggest lobbying effort.

Historically in Arizona, corporate agriculture, corporate mining, corporate developers/subdividers has had the ear of both the State Legislature as well as whoever was at the moment the Director of ADEQ. To understand ADEQ action, policy and enforcement one need look no further than to the maxim … $ money is the mother’s milk of politic$ … and if nothing else in Arizona our environment has always been the whim of political leaders from all political parties, persuasions and passions. Like all governmental agencies in Arizona – ADEQ – has felt that it was overworked, underfunded and understaffed. And perhaps given the vast scope of environmental concerns “we” chose to charge it with, they could be correct in their assessment.

In Arizona, with our overlay “western-cowboy” philosophy “we” hate taxes as much as we hate being told what “we” can and can not do on our own property. In this environment “we” create ADEQ requesting it to promulgate rules, regulations and enforcement policies for the benefit of our environment. Is this really doable …?

Water in particular in Arizona was one of those things which historically “we” are willing to fall on the sword for given its overwhelming significance in the desert in which we chose to live. The significance of water has since Arizona became a state in 1912 morphed from its once vaunted position of significance to one where today thanks to our quality education it’s considered merely a commodity and were one to choose to believe our State “leaders” – quite abundant…?

Given our collective understanding of water in Arizona which is conflicted at best, it is any wonder why then ADEQ rules, regulations and enforcement lack focus and direction…?

Allow me to put these issues on the table for our consideration…?

 Arizona is a desert with very limit rainfall
 Arizona has incredible diverse climates and elevations
 Arizona appears to have harnessed all sources of water in our state for the storage of water as well as the production of electric power
 The economic engine driving our state’s economy is homebuilding which entails the destruction our natural environment for roads, homes, schools, shopping centers, airports, railroads, sport arenas and parking lots.
 The once vaunted five “C” comprising the state’s motto – climate – cotton – citrus – cattle – copper – has morphed into – unrestricted growth.
 We are a state without a unified water policy respecting the “drought” conditions under which we have operated for many years.
 While many regions and communities in Arizona currently operate under restricted water use policies, “metro” Phoenix heeds no such policy or action.

Is it really doable that under this philosophy that ADEQ can honestly promulgate rules, regulations and enforcement actions which honestly protect our state’s environment…?

Should ADEQ meet its demise today…? Eliminating ADEQ does not solve any of the host of environmental issues facing our state. From my perspective it is possible, but only with a willingness on the part of Arizona citizens to choose to enact higher taxes those functions associated with individual homes, i.e. design, installation, operation and maintenance, re-sale inspections and certifications, of all residential on-site wastewater treatment and effluent disposal systems (commonly referred to as septic systems) can become the sole domain and providence of the individual 15 Arizona counties. As it is, those issues and topics in this individual homeowner realm are treated as the proverbial – bastard – child and sorely neglected by ADEQ. And quite frankly this should be expected as this segment of those affected by ADEQ actions are and always have been without representation. And without “mash-mouth-in-your-face” representation this segment does not get ADEQ attention and therefore its needs understandably go unheeded. Unlike other constituent groups affected by ADEQ this homeowner segment has been traditionally without any formal leadership and therefore lacks “standing” in ADEQ eyes. Given its diversity it is an unruly group by tradition not akin to being lead by anyone in any way, shape or form. Given its diverse structure it is fodder for ADEQ to easily divide and conquer which ADEQ has successfully done for years. And will continue to do.

With the ADEQ current leadership and direction it is not logical to assume it will suddenly take a turn and honestly take “environment’s” side on the host of issues which we face…? ADEQ, like all agencies is a political animal and will respond to those who support it and sustain its funding and to them ADEQ will be true.

In my opinion as currently constituted ADEQ needs our honest assessment, evaluation and appraisal to determine if its form requires restructuring or possibly elimination…? To enable you and me to make these assessments, evaluations and appraisals requires that government provide to us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth which is all part of full open disclosure and dialog.

From my perspective it’s a task worthy of our active participation.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

… People should never be afraid of their government, government should always be afraid of the people …

“Fascism ought more properly be called corporatism because it is the perfect merger of power between the corporation and the state.” … Benito Mussolini

And let me be even a bit bolder, I am most willing to present and discuss any water issue before any audience in Arizona where open full disclosure and two way dialog is permitted.

water assurance or smoke and mirrors

Perspective for your consideration … What does it look like when it’s fixed…?

Is not the question of water adequacy related to how many straws “we” will permit to be inserted into any one subsurface water aquifer…?

State seeks comments on informal draft water rule by Saturday…Tuesday, November 11, 2008…Prescott Daily Courier… The Arizona Department of Water Resources is giving people one last chance to comment on proposed water adequacy rules before moving to a more formal phase….The agency’s rulemaking process helps implement Senate Bill 1575, commonly called the water adequacy bill. The Legislature approved it in 2007….The bill made a significant change in Arizona water law by letting rural local governments reject new subdivisions that don’t prove they will have adequate water supplies for the next century….The latest proposed changes are available on the agency’s website at http://www.azwater.gov. The site also contains responses to public comments in the last round…Yavapai County Supervisor Chip Davis and local water consultant Ed McGavock were among those who recently registered comments and asked questions….County boards of supervisors must have unanimous votes to adopt the new rule, and Yavapai County Supervisor Carol Springer has stated she opposes the new rule….Municipalities can adopt the new adequacy rule even if counties don’t. If they adopt the rule, they also must decide if they will allow an exemption to the rule if subdividers want to haul water to customers. …Several Verde Valley communities have stated their interest in adopting the rule. Prescott-area communities operate under different rules associated with active management areas (AMAs)….The agency’s rules can be complex, especially where AMA and other boundaries cross. …One example is the Big Chino Sub-basin, where Prescott has the right to drill and export water to its citizens who live inside an AMA….State law could limit Prescott to a Big Chino well depth of 1,000 feet, while local developers might end up being able to drill deeper under the new adequacy rule. That concerns local municipal officials….Contact the reporter at jdodder@prescottaz.com

Our state position administered by our ADWR personnel does not appear to evaluate how many straws are permitted to be inserted into any one subsurface water aquifer, why is that…?

Then we compound this nonsense by issuing to the respective “subdivider” the vaunted 100 year water assurance certificate which he in turns passes to the real estate community who provide it to you and me. And without demanding verification we automatically accept is at being true.

If you really believe that, then I honestly have some ocean front property in Arizona I want to sell to you…?

Until we are provided with far more information and full disclosure this water assurance stuff is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

… People should never be afraid of their government, government should always be afraid of the people …

With my personal “thanks” to Michael C. Rupert …From the Wilderness… who closes his blog … “Fascism ought more properly be called corporatism because it is the perfect merger of power between the corporation and the state.” … Benito Mussolini

And let me be even a bit bolder, I am most willing to present and discuss any water issue before any audience in Arizona where open full disclosure and two way dialog is permitted.

honestly green…?

Perspective for your consideration … What does it look like when it’s fixed…?

The use of effluent water for irrigation could be a short-term solution to the water shortage in Lake Havasu City….By Tony Waggoner…Saturday, November 8, 2008 8:33 PM MST…excerpted … “We can conserve better with effluent water,” Water Resources Coordinator Doyle Wilson said. “But we have to make sure we don’t put all our eggs in one basket.” Effluent water is recovered from flushed toilets and drained bathtubs. The city’s switch from septic tanks to sewers should allow for a greater amount of effluent water to help compensate for its expanding population and allow the city to reduce the amount of water it takes from the Colorado River. The city is generating almost 3 million gallons of effluent water a day, among three-wastewater treatment plants, Wilson said. Most of that water comes from irrigation. In October 2008, the city generated 2.8 million gallons. From September 2007 to now, Wilson said the city has varying levels of between 243 to 294 acre-feet of water treated a month. Of that effluent or “gray water,” 40-79 percent is being reused for irrigation throughout the city. The rest empties into percolation ponds. You may contact the reporter at twaggoner@havasunews.com.

I rise to salute what at first blush appears to be honestly “green” thinking respecting the use our current mandated ADEQ rules permit one to utilize sewage effluent. Re-use in the manner suggested by folks in Lake Havasu are not without both short term and long term public health implications, but, they represent a far more progressive and thoughtful approach to the manner we currently utilize all forms of water.

I invite us to use caution as we mover forward in these areas as the scope of our current knowledge on the short and long term public health implications of the residuals in all forms of domestic sewage is essentially unknown. The testing protocols currently utilized to determine the relative – safety – of any sewage effluent is simply a matter of political expediency. This should not deter us from honestly evaluation every possible reuse aspect to water, but, we should, I believe temper our judgments in favor of public health.

There is laying in the weeds a 900 pound gorilla – “for-profit-corporate-water-purveyors” – who truly do not want these forms of public reuse to come to fruition as they will cut into their potentially very lucrative profit$.

For an overview I invite you to consider reading – BLUE GOLD – the fight to stop the corporate theft of the world’s water. One can choose to discount this view and perspective at your own peril.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

… People should never be afraid of their government, government should always be afraid of the people …

With my personal “thanks” to Michael C. Ruppert …From the Wilderness… who closes his blog … “Fascism ought more properly be called corporatism because it is the perfect merger of power between the corporation and the state.” … Benito Mussolini

And let me be even a bit bolder, I am most willing to present and discuss any water issue before any audience in Arizona where open full disclosure and two way dialog is permitted.

might there be something amiss when the fox is guarding the hen house…?

Perspective for your consideration … What does it look like when it’s fixed…?

When All Is Said and Dung…New EPA rules let factory farms police themselves on water pollution…Posted at 3:32 PM on 03 Nov 2008…Factory farms can skip getting a pollution permit if they don’t think they’ll be mucking up nearby waterways, according to new U.S. EPA requirements. Enviros are unimpressed; notes Eric Schaeffer of the Environmental Integrity Project, “It literally puts the foxes in charge of their gigantic henhouses.”

I do not believe it takes an Einstein to question the logic or the intelligence of implementing a rule as described above.

Let’s see if I understand the implications of this rule…? If I own and operate a henhouse which has say 500,000 laying hens which produces copious amounts of chicken shit each day, I can declare I don’t believe the chicken shit my chickens produce will muck up any nearby waterways and therefore I do not need any permit from any source to operate my business.

However, if I am a homeowner in Arizona who is building a home on property not currently served by a municipal or quasi-municipal sewer system, I am required to obtain a permit from the appropriate county environmental health dept to discharge the projected 450 gallons per day my 3 bedroom home is expected to produce…?

What am I missing…? I do not believe one needs to be a rocket scientist to question the relative value or strength of these two sources of wastes: chickens vs. humans. Most folks of aware that a little bit of chicken shit goes a long way and it doesn’t take too much to burn up or kill a lawn or a vegetable garden. As we don’t normally utilize human feces, at least in the USA, it is difficult for me to come up with a valid comparison. This analysis would not be remotely complete were we not to address the issue of vitamins, growth hormones, antibiotics and other pharmaceutical products introduced in copious amounts into the feed stock of laying hens. What impact do these residuals have on the waterways into which this sewage is released…?

This is NOT to minimize the release of residual cosmetics, pharmaceutical products, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc found in human waste. But on a comparison basis, I suspect an individual might conclude the relative quantity of waste delivered on a daily basis into our biosphere is appreciably greater for chicken shit than it is for those homes utilizing an onsite septic system…? The question at this juncture is not whether either one is preferable…as I would conclude neither one has positive implications on the health of man.

This is a shining example of a pronounced – externality – a cost passed forward to a totally unaware populous. In this instance this externality will be paid for by generations and generations yet to come. In the meantime in our state of individual and collective amnesia we obediently adhere to the education we have for these past 40 years been taught by dominating-for-profit–corporations.

Might there be something amiss in permitting the fox to guard our hen house…?
With my personal “thanks” to Michael C. Ruppert …From the Wilderness… who closes his blog … “Fascism ought more properly be called corporatism because it is the perfect merger of power between the corporation and the state.” … Benito Mussolini

… People should never be afraid of their government, government should always be afraid of the people …

And let me be even a bit bolder, I am most willing to present and discuss any water issue before any audience in Arizona where open full disclosure and two way dialog is permitted.

quagga mussel may be benign…?

The arrival of the quagga mussel which has been found thorough most of the Colorado River system into the “metro” Phoenix water system should not be viewed as a surprise.

What I find laughable is the Arizona Republic article referenced above which notes … pests (quagga) aren’t health risk … most likely is quite valid.

But guess what…? The methods “we” choose to permit utilities and water purveyor to utilize are health risks. To rid the pumping, treatment, filtration and water delivery systems of this “pest” these folks wash down portions of their system with CHLORINE and are now looking at utilizing a specific microbial toxin that would target quagga with a product know as a BIOPESTICIDE. Are “we” really being asked to believe that both of these products – chlorine and biopesticide are benign and probably good for human kind…?

The carcinogenic affects of chlorine have been clearly delineated and established for years. The fact there is to my knowledge absolutely no testing of this new biopesticide on any aspect of human health makes it highly suspect.

So while the quagga mussel itself may not be harmful to human kind the methods we choose to employ to rid ourselves of this pest … might kill us … but according to our political leadership we do not have any unresolved human health issues relating to water in Arizona …?

… People should never be afraid of their government, government should always be afraid of the people …

And let me be even a bit bolder, I am most willing to present and discuss any water issue before any audience in Arizona where open full disclosure and two way dialog is permitted.