Water Compacts: the last lesson of Remedial Water 1A. Xcel bows out of building EV chargers. And my written comment to the Prescription Drug Affordability Board.
Last lesson of Remedial Groundwater 1A...
In this, the last lesson of Remedial Groundwater 1A, we're going to discuss water compacts.
Before we get into an example, however, let's backup a step for some quick context. If you're as ignorant of Colorado geography as I was, when you think Rio Grande, you will likely think Texas and/or the border.
The Rio Grande, however, starts right here in Colorado. Specifically, it starts on the south edge of the San Luis Valley. The river and its watershed (if you ever see a watershed map, what you're looking at is the region where if a drop of water hits it will eventually end up in that river--so any water that lands in the shaded region of the map will eventually end up in the Rio Grande) are shown in screenshot #1.
I took the liberty of drawing in the US border on the map, and I also highlighted the Elephant Butte reservoir. It will be important later. Interestingly, some of the watershed for the Rio Grande is actually in Mexico.
A quick look at the map ought to make it pretty apparent why we need water compacts (contracts between states) in the first place. It would be pretty easy for one state to hog all the water that passes through for its own needs.
I mean, we could either put a dam on the border with New Mexico or just put a giant straw into the river and pull out all the water we could ever want, leaving New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico with a lot less (I won't say none because there are significant areas of the Rio Grande watershed further South). That wouldn't be fair, however.
So, a compact between states is made. Negotiators sit down and hash out the particulars of how they can all peaceably share this resource. I linked to the actual Rio Grande compact below. As you can see in screenshot #2, it's an agreement between Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas (each of which gets one commissioner to make decisions related to this compact).
You'll also note (since I boxed it) that the compact dates back to 1939. Which, to put it in historical context, puts it at the tail end of the Dust Bowl**. I can imagine that all three of these states had water near the top of their mind (perhaps not NM as much, they didn't bear as much brunt as did CO, OK, and TX).
The Rio Grande Compact itself reads about as excitingly as you would imagine any contract would. I'm not going to go through it exhaustively; as I've often said, I'll leave it to you to read up on the details if you'd like.
There are some things that are either of interest or import for later, however, so I want to touch on a few things.
First, in case you were not aware, the unit of measure for water when you are working at the level of rivers is an acre-foot (plural acre-feet). That is the amount of water that could cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot. Since acre is an area and you multiply that by a depth, it is a unit of volume and is equivalent to 325,851 gallons.
We'll be dealing with numbers in the tens of thousands of acre-feet of water, so you can clearly see why rescaling would be handy. The numbers, were they to stay in gallons, would be unmanageable.
Back to the compact. Like any good contract, you spend the first part defining terms. That way everything that is important is written down and no one can say later that "oh, that's what you meant by amount of water to deliver? I thought you meant [fill in the blank]".
Take a look at screenshot #3. This is a copy of that "definitions" page. I highlighted concepts and/or terms that we'll be talking about later. Not much to say about them here, just note that the San Luis Valley has something called a Closed Basin, there is a method for measuring and dealing with water that is owed those downstream, and there was planned storage for Rio Grande Water.
Now, as I've written about more than once, you cannot understand or characterize well without being able to measure. So what is measured? And how?
Well, in the compact, you'll see the agreement that the states came to--both in terms of what is measured and how. It delineates where they will measure stream. Take a look at Screenshot #4. I had to chop and reassemble some things from different pages, but it gives you a flavor of how this works. They tell you where they'll measure, then they note how much Colorado has to deliver and where.
Lastly, take a look at screenshot #5. I highlighted a couple things important for us later. Note that "found water" (my term, not a technical one), water that one brings into the Rio Grande river from somewhere else, can be used to meet the water obligations of a given party to the compact. Note, too, that the writers of the compact here took the time to mention that this compact settles the arguments about Rio Grande water between the states. I am no historian, but I take this to be a significant indicator of how much fuss there was (is, frankly) about water among these dry states. Both of these things figure into our story later.
You guys have graduated from the remedial school and are ready to take on the real meat of the topic, at least with regard to water in the San Luis Valley.
Future parts will be telling you that story.
**The Dust Bowl was bad choices made by humans on top of uncooperative weather. Remember that combo, you'll be hearing similar soon with regard to the Rio Grande and the San Luis Valley. I remember stories from my grandmother of her time living through it on their farm near Holly, CO. If you're interested in more, I put a link to a wonderful book below "The Worst Hard Time", highly recommended reading.
https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/permitting/water-rights/interstate-compacts/rio-grande/rio-grande-compact.pdf
Xcel bows out of trying to build electric chargers.
The little Axios blurb below details how Xcel is giving up its earlier proposal to build out electric chargers for EV's around Colorado. Thought an update would be in order.
I'm glad to hear it. Xcel already soaks its customers for capital construction** and this would have been yet another hose-down for ratepayers.
In a larger sense, I'm glad to see that private business will get a larger stake in building chargers (at least here in Colorado). We subsidize the bejeezus out of renewables and every other touted climate solution that makes for good soundbites.
Maybe we could let a few pass us taxpayers by.
**Building things is one of the few areas where Xcel gets to make profit so you can imagine how eager they are to be in the construction business.
https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2023/08/08/colorado-ev-charge-network-private-developers-xcel-energy
My written comment to Colorado's Prescription Drug Affordability Board.
I've written in the past about taking up the hobby of speaking at meetings of Colorado's manifold unelected boards. I read the article linked first below and was all set to sign up to testify (second link below). Then I saw the date and time. I'll be in class at that time.
I'm going, therefore, to do the next best thing and send in written comment. It's below.
Not to harp too much, but I want you to note that I'm not a doctor, not a health care policy expert. I'm just a believer in free markets and in important decisions made by people who we elect and who are accountable. I'm also not special in any way.
This is all to say that you can follow suit. All you need do is take the time to do it.
Make your voice heard in this state. Speak up and keep the question "is this the proper role of government?" in front of those making decisions here.
Written testimony follows:
To the Prescription Drug Affordability Board,
My name is Cory Gaines and I'm a resident of Logan County.
I'm writing in today after reading the article linked below.
I am not anywhere near an expert in pharmacology or the business of getting medicines from concept to patient. I will also not sit here and say that the way we are doing health care in this country is serving everyone well.
Even with that, however, I question if what you are doing, or have the power to do at least, is helpful. I question too, whether what you are doing is the proper role and function of government.
Governments and policymakers turning to those with particular expertise is not new. I also think it is a perfectly valid thing to do. When I have an issue arising in some field that I don't have any knowledge in, I seek help from those that do. I wouldn't, for example, try to start trying to take apart the automatic transmission in my car to fix it, I'd hire a mechanic to either do it or advise me while I did the work.
In that sense, I don't take issue with your board. I do, however, take issue with the fact that you, a group of 5 unelected and unaccountable citizens from a state of 5.8 million, 5 who were appointed by one man, could hold the power you do.
In what other contexts do we allow such weighty decisions to be made by so few? In what other contexts do we allow such weighty decisions without the general public having a voice (or at least the ability to remove someone from office if they don't like what they do)?
Further, I think your choices have great potential to cause more harm than to do good. To quote the article linked below:
"Pfieffer [Hannah Pfieffer, a patient with cystic fibrosis who needs the drug Trikafta, one of the medicines you might potentially review] said her concern is centered around making sure access to the drug does not go away as the process plays out."
One thing missing from recent legislation in this state around price controls and government regulation is the fact that no one is required to supply the things that the policymakers in our state want to regulate.
That is, when you push too hard on a company, they're free to get up from the table and leave. This is a genuine concern, particularly when we are discussing drugs for which there is not a lot of competition.
Will price ceilings and strict demands from government boards be helpful here? Will they keep a steady supply and help patient choice? I genuinely question whether they will and echo Ms. Pfieffer's concerns.
Please be considered and thoughtful in your actions, both in the sense of how big a role you should have and in what you do with regard to individual medicines and manufacturers. You've been handed a good deal of power by our Assembly, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to exercise it, particularly if doing so would be harmful.
Be advisors and not central planners.
Thank you for your time,
C
https://kdvr.com/news/local/states-prescription-drug-affordability-board-to-review-5-drugs/
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdreFkh_omZORqo0pgnacLHfOz2R87eeGWNnrlFaoiwVPLk_A/viewform