Kansas City voters won’t get a chance to vote on light rail despite the fact that proponents gathered enough signatures to put it on the ballot. The court that rejected the measure said that the plan was unworkable because it didn’t provide enough money to build the mandated rail lines.
A light-rail fanatic named Clay Chastain had petitioned for light rail in Kansas City six times and lost. Then, in 2006, he put a crazy proposal on the ballot to built both light rail and an aerial tramway–this was right after Portland opened its aerial tramway–and managed to win, mainly because the people who normally opposed him figured the measure would lose and so they didn’t bother to campaign against it.
The 2006 measure didn’t include enough funding for the project because Chastain figured the federal government would pay for half. But the Federal Transit Administration looked at the numbers and realized that Kansas City would be forced to drastically cut its bus service if it built light rail, so it rejected the plan. Kansas City leaders put another measure on the ballot that voters mercifully rejected.
Ironically, by this time Chastain had moved to (and still lives in) Virginia in frustration. But he kept at it anyway, and in 2012 gathered enough signatures for a new plan calling for light rail, commuter rail, and–the latest planning fad–streetcars. Opponents charged that the sales tax increase included in the measure wouldn’t come close to paying for it, and Chastain admitted that it would only cover about 40 percent of the cost. So the Kansas City council asked the court if it could not put it on the ballot, and the court agreed.
This ruling leaves the Antiplanner in a dilemma. Normally, I support the initiative process, but is it responsible to allow people to put multi-billion dollar measures on the ballot that provide only a fraction of the funds necessary to complete them?
The 2008 California high-speed rail program was just such a ballot measure. It authorizing the state to sell around $9 billion worth of bonds–with no way to repay the bonds–even though the best estimates at the time were that the line would cost more than four times that much. Under California law, if the measure had raised taxes, it would have required a two-thirds supermajority, but since it merely required an increase in spending with no increase in taxes, only a simple majority was needed. I have no hesitation to say that this measure (which was referred by the legislature, not through an initiative petition) should never have been put on the ballot.
Similarly, in 2000, Florida voters were asked to approve a measure mandating the construction of a statewide high-speed rail system. The measure did not include any method of funding the rail lines, but it did write it into the state constitution, forcing the legislature to find the funds somewhere. This was an initiative petition. Fortunately, when the environmental impact statement for the proposed line found that the environmental costs were greater than the benefits, voters decided in 2004 to remove the requirement from the constitution.
It is too easy for voters to agree to expensive measures that seem to be cheap because they don’t include enough taxes to pay for them. Writers of initiatives that will cost money should be responsible for finding the source of funds to pay for those initiatives. Otherwise, we are likely to vote ourselves into bankruptcy far sooner than we will reach that state by relying solely on Congress and the state legislatures.
Cue light rail fanatics in three…two…one…
We are wrangling with the very same thing here on the Front Range, except that it is a very large development, and the infrastructure is water.
That’s right: the development may not go forward because they can’t show where their water will come from.
Maybe soon we’ll start looking at development maintenance too – that is: where will the money to maintain infra X, Y, and Z come from??
DS
This ruling leaves the Antiplanner in a dilemma. Normally, I support the initiative process, but is it responsible to allow people to put multi-billion dollar measures on the ballot that provide only a fraction of the funds necessary to complete them?
No. I think it is very wrong for people to use the initiative process to mandate things that government has no money to pay for. If advocates for something want it built, then the burden needs to be on them to identify funding sources.
Dan wrote:
We are wrangling with the very same thing here on the Front Range, except that it is a very large development, and the infrastructure is water.
I recall reading that at least some Front Range jurisdictions get a lot of drinking water from the upper parts of the Colorado River watershed, and then pipe it through the mountains. Is that source used up or otherwise no longer available?
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, boosted its supply of potable drinking water by building a massive desalination plant (which was recently completed), but the Front Range is pretty far from the ocean coasts of the United States, so that is probably not an option.
Another Colorado water absurdity is that apparently capture rights do not exist in that state. I don’t believe in silver bullets, but decentralized privately funded rain water collection is the closest thing to a CO water silver bullet ever imagined. But if you try you’ll get sued.
CPZ said: “Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, boosted its supply of potable drinking water by building a massive desalination plant (which was recently completed), but the Front Range is pretty far from the ocean coasts of the United States, so that is probably not an option.”
Water utilities are some of the largest electricity consumers because they have to pump water uphill. This is a huge cost often overlooked in the desalinization discussion. Pumping water from the gulf or over the continental divide to the front range would consume massive amounts of electricity and cost substantial amounts of money to operate let alone build the infrastructure.
Desalinization is really only viable in coastal areas. Rain water catchment is a much better solution elsewhere, even in relatively dry climates. 1 inch of rain on a 500 sqft roof can fill a 200 gallon cistern of potable water if filtered. If non-potable uses are need it can be over 300 gallons. Given a big enough cistern and a basic level of consumption awareness, a couple of good Colorado gully washers can give a small building enough potable water for several months if not longer.
I recall reading that at least some Front Range jurisdictions get a lot of drinking water from the upper parts of the Colorado River watershed, and then pipe it through the mountains. Is that source used up or otherwise no longer available?
CPZ, Colo water laws are famously…um…unique. You have to hold water rights on a waterway to use them; you get them by prior appropriation or you purchase them.
There are some rights left on the Yampa, but Shell may have most of them for fracking (not sure how that is playing out). I project I worked on several years ago is still sitting there because they can’t get enough water to start (and then pay to pump uphill). My jurisdiction just paid big bucks for a bit of new water, ostensibly “for growth” (even though I’m paying for it when the pols said we wouldn’t) – and then they turned around and leased that water to frackers for the general fund money.
Meaning: water is better than gold out here. “Whiskey’s for drinkin’, water’s fer fightin’ “.
DS
1 inch of rain on a 500 sqft roof can fill a 200 gallon cistern of potable water if filtered. If non-potable uses are need it can be over 300 gallons. Given a big enough cistern and a basic level of consumption awareness, a couple of good Colorado gully washers can give a small building enough potable water for several months if not longer.
That would be real nice here if we could capture it, but my roof runoff has already been appropriated and therefore it is not mine.
DS
Bennett wrote:
Another Colorado water absurdity is that apparently capture rights do not exist in that state. I don’t believe in silver bullets, but decentralized privately funded rain water collection is the closest thing to a CO water silver bullet ever imagined. But if you try you’ll get sued.
“Capture rights?” Never heard of such a thing – the notion that rain falling on your own land does not belong to you seems, well, strange to me – but I live in a place that usually gets enough rain.
Dan wrote>
CPZ, Colo water laws are famously…um…unique. You have to hold water rights on a waterway to use them; you get them by prior appropriation or you purchase them.
That does sound unique!
There are some rights left on the Yampa, but Shell may have most of them for fracking (not sure how that is playing out). I project I worked on several years ago is still sitting there because they can’t get enough water to start (and then pay to pump uphill). My jurisdiction just paid big bucks for a bit of new water, ostensibly “for growth” (even though I’m paying for it when the pols said we wouldn’t) – and then they turned around and leased that water to frackers for the general fund money.
Silly me, I thought that fracking was an Appalachian thing, at least in the United States. Was not aware that Colorado was land that had potential for fracking. Those Shell frackers must have paid pretty well, considering you had to pump it up the hill.
Meaning: water is better than gold out here. “Whiskey’s for drinkin’, water’s fer fightin’ “.
Yeah, I have heard that before from people living in the West. We usually have abundant water here in Maryland, and water disputes on that scale simply do not seem to happen.
the notion that rain falling on your own land does not belong to you seems, well, strange to me – but I live in a place that usually gets enough rain.
Water falls from the sky where you live?! The majority of weather stations around these parts last year had 8.5 – 10.3 liquid water equivalent precip last year – severe drought year, and our trend is down. Nevertheless, every year there is a symposium in Denver to go over the Colo water laws – changes, current, future directions, water trends on the Colorado, Arkansas, and other headwater rivers.
Silly me, I thought that fracking was an Appalachian thing, at least in the United States. Was not aware that Colorado was land that had potential for fracking.
You can’t swing a dead cat in many areas around here without hitting a drilling rig. Our dark-sky site out on the plains is mothballed for the time being, as the lights from drilling rigs ruined it. As soon as they play out (3-5 years) we’ll be back. There is increasing evidence, too, of various forms of CH4 leakage which blow out any greenhouse gas benefits the natgas folks were touting. Also, get this picture of well flaring on the Bakken Shale play – amazing, isn’t it?!
So, Dan, whoever owns that rain water must be liable for any damage the rain causes on your house. Must be nice to get a free roof! 🙂
Alas, only Colorado has such silly water appropriation rules.
Until 2009 in Colorado, water rights laws almost completely restricted rainwater harvesting; a property owner who captured the rain from his own roof for his use was deemed to be stealing it from those who have rights to take water from the watershed. Now, residential well owners that meet certain criteria may obtain a permit to install a rooftop precipitation collection system. the Colorado Legislature sought to change the law as result of a 2007 study that found that in an average year, 97% of the precipitation that fell in Douglas County never reached a stream at all. Soaked up by plants before reaching the stream or evaporating off the ground. In Colorado you cannot even drill a water well unless you have at least 35 acres. However in some states, harvesting precipitation has become mandatory. Santa Fe, New Mexico already put it into effect; any new housing requires it.
LazyReader hits the nail on the head. Water rights have typically applied to surface water (rivers and streams). They do not (or rather should not) apply to water sheds. Using the logic of the CO law, all vegetation in the state should be eliminated because it is infringing on water rights.
I am also a proponent of mandatory rainwater harvesting for new homes that rely on municipal water.
Residential gray water from the washing machine-dishwasher will start to be used more widely as well. Re-designing treelawns is just around the corner. We already have places on the Front Range with curb cuts and filtration for stormwater.
Just a matter of time before the younger set gets control and our infrastructure changes paradigm.
DS
The problem is not that we don’t have enough water, the problem is that we waste it down the drain and employ a huge sum of money to make all that waste water clean enough to be potable when only a fraction of it is actually drunk. In the U.S. we only reuse 0.3% of the water put to use. That being put huge infrastructural costs to clean wastewater before going into rivers in streams. A better practice is to put wastewater to good use by having more than one use. Anyone interested should look up “Living Machiens” a brand term describing a ecologically suitable waste water treatment technology that uses outdoor or indoor bioreactors to handle human wastes (flush) to render the water safe for outdoor reintroduction and in some sophisticated levels be potable again. The water treated is used for irrigation or flushing toilets for locations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McUTzdVwRHw
The system featured above is built to a natural setting, however other systems can take place totally indoors using containers. Can be built to nearly any scale from a houses water to an entire shopping complex or larger.
LR: I agree. When you frame it as: we water our lawns with drinking water, or we water our lawns with expensive treated water, it helps put it in perspective. And if there were only a way that we could get used to yards without the big lawn.
Not to mention we had a couple HOAs around here fine people for brown lawns during a drought and tight water restrictions…
DS
How about, “We defecate in expensive treated water”?
How about, “We defecate in expensive treated water”?
True, although I think gray water would be a hard sell to a lot of individuals and plumbers (altho deodorants and colorants would be a business opportunity [try Oxy Clean today! We’ll send you two FREE! you pay separate S&H!!]). I’d like some aromatic gray water to see if these bunnies would stay away from the ground cover in the winter…
DS
I never fully explained how the system works in regards to water filled with “waste”. Waste water comes from 3 sources…The sink, the tub and the toilet. All that water goes into a tank (Step 1) where solids are permitted to settle in some instances it’s a bioreactor that dissolves the solids where methogenic bacteria convert it to swamp gas that harvested for power generation. The next and primary steps include pumping the nasty water into “Cells”, aggregate instead of soil filled containers with plants typically found in highly productive wetland environments or grown hydroponically in the water without any solid medium at all. The medium is cultured with fungi, bacteria and protozoans that feed on the dissolved waste and each other found in the water and the process repeats itself depending on the number of cells; higher up the ladder, fish and snails and even fresh water clams may be involved in some of the process. If the plants do not provide oxygen, then small pumps will. This entire process is solar powered (photovoltaically to run the pumps and sensors and photosynthetically for the plants thus the entire process is essentially carbon neutral) These steps may also feature a “biofilter” made of pumice and tree bark from aromatic species to eliminate the odor and when the microbes inside die, they become food for the plants. If heavy metals and petrochemicals are sequestered from the water (such as an industrial setting) then the plants must be harvested, dried and disposed of safely, incinerating and landfilling the ash however in a residential or commercial setting the plants may be ornamental or even edible. Finally the water is sent to a filter to remove micro-contaminants, the purpose of which is for safety and but it also extends the life of the filter far longer as most of the contaminants have since been safely converted into biomass already consumed. The water is later stored for reuse usually flusing toilets or irrigating landscape, or however if it’s reintroduced into the water supply it may undergo ozone or UV treatment assuming they have them available. More likely it will be sent to the river. The entire systems can be built using readily available materials and at nearly any site, schools, hospitals, government offices, corporate offices, municipal buildings, shopping centers and condos. The forseeable future looks bright on a technology that in a sense is not really a technology. reducing the burden on municipal water providers by reducing the amount of waste sent their way and reutilizing a valuable resource for other uses. In some instances it may very well function as a municipal water treatment option for towns.
Water treatment plants are large, heavy, smelly, expensive endeavors small cities do not have the capital to build. Israel leads the world in recycling water and future filters may promote potable water derived from sewage. Orange County has already provided the tech for producing drinking water from sewage and Los Angeles will feature the largest such plant in the US by 2019.
There is no water shortage in the US. It is just a matter of price. Seriously. People gripe about gas prices, but buy bottled water that costs more per gallon than gas. Then they go home and pee in toilet and use a gallon and a half of water just to flush.
“Water shortage” is a code word for “no free market”.
Lazy, I have friends on the eastern slope of WA state who couldn’t get a gray water system permitted for the watering of their garden, and it was simpler than your outline. The separate pipe was only from the kitchen and laundry room. Some places aren’t ready yet. Soon enough, though, if the widespread drought continues.
DS
A light-rail fanatic named Clay Chastain had petitioned for light rail in Kansas City six times and lost.
He can fail as many times as he needs to. He only needs to “succeed” once.