Considering state of planet, we should be working to slow growth

It should be obvious, but apparently isn’t, that the doubling of the number of humans on the planet, from 4 billion in 1974 to 8 billion now, has overstressed our planet’s ability to support our presence in all sorts of ways, from the rapid increase in greenhouse gases leading to likely runaway climate change, to wiping out other species on a massive scale, to droughts threatening our ability to thrive. For example, arctic temperatures are rising almost four times as fast as the global average, potentially releasing hundreds of billions of tons of methane and carbon dioxide, according to some estimates, as permafrost melts.

But our governments keep promoting more growth, as if that is magically going to solve our problems.

Locally, the latest is the push by both our governor and our city council for more and denser housing to allegedly help with the affordability issue. But at the same time, our state government’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) subsidizes business growth in already developed urban areas. Our city council approved, for example, the East Boulder Sub Community Plan, which added far more jobs than housing. But they haven’t increased Boulder’s jobs-housing linkage fees, now down to around 20% of the cost of supplying housing for the new workers who could not otherwise afford housing.

And there’s CU South, which doesn’t come close to providing enough housing for the students and staff on site. Some members of the council are even pushing for the state to promote densifying single-family neighborhoods, under the fantasy that this will make a significant dent in the self-created housing deficit.

No one seems to be looking at the impacts of growth on our water supply. A week ago, the states in the Colorado River’s Upper Basin plus Arizona and Nevada finally proposed a plan to address the dramatic reduction in runoff due to climate change. But California, the biggest water consumer, proposed a different one. As Robin Craig, a law professor at the University of Southern California, succinctly stated in a news release from the university:

“The Upper Basin, which is Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, and parts of Nevada, get 7.5 million acre-feet per year and has the legal duty to deliver roughly the same amount to the Lower Basin states, which comprise California, Arizona, and most of Nevada. When push comes to shove, the Lower Basin’s argument is basically that the Upper Basin, where the water originates, bears most of the burden of a drought.

“Add to that complication that California gets highest priority rights due to the ‘first in time, first in right’ doctrine and its considerable might in Congress. California gets 4.4 million acrefeet per year before anybody else gets anything.”

So, it’s no surprise that California was not part of the plan.

The three Lower Basin states get the water first because of the “legal duty” of the Upper Basin to deliver, and California has priority rights over the other two states.

Colorado’s Front Range will be heavily impacted if the courts resolve this in the Lower Basin’s favor (as I suspect they will) because much of the Front Range’s supply, including about a third of Boulder’s water, is junior to the compact, and so could be mostly gone! But our state and council majority continue to push for more and more growth as if we are magically immune.

Here in Boulder, a couple of neighbors just filed a suit complaining that the proposed factory on the recently annexed BVSD land next to Sombrero March violates the “public” zoning approved as part of the annexation. I looked at the city code zoning chart, and these neighbors appear to be correct. That this use is inappropriate so near Sombrero Marsh should have been obvious anyway, because it’s too close to this important, sensitive natural area, in spite of all the efforts being made to cut down its traffic, noise, lights, etc.

Promoting more development has helped further escalate property values, straining many existing residents with the resulting ever-increasing property taxes.

But the recent discussions about reforms have not faced the fact that all this growth imposes costs that are not covered by existing taxes, forcing a real dilemma: suffer reduced levels of service or pay even higher taxes. Instead, the state should require all cities, counties, school districts and private and public utilities to impose impact fees on new development adequate to cover the cost of the new facilities and services needed to maintain levels of service. That would slow growth, and save us all real money … and water!

Steve Pomerance is a former member of the Boulder City Council.

stevepomerance@yahoo.com.