Week 3.1: Bus passes and insane water policies

  In Virginia Maclaren's article, Urban Sustainability Reporting, she outlines the importance of measuring the health of the community using appropriate sustainability indicators. With these mechanisms one is capable of gauging the state of the urban environment, progress and setbacks resulting from sustainable initiatives, policies, and other drivers. According to Maclaren, there are four characteristics around which all urban sustainability indicators should center. They should be integrative, forward-looking, distributional, and developed using input from a variety of stakeholders. She notes that it may not be possible to meet all four characteristics for each indicator, but within an index of indicators all characteristics should be accounted for.

   In Bloomington's 2008 Sustainability and Trends Assessment Report (STAR), a large set of indicators are used to measure the state of the community. One indicator measured in the transportation subset of the report is the cost of a bus ticket as percentage of median income. This measure is integrative, as it links economic and social welfare, the ease with which the typical Bloomington resident can afford alternative transportation, to environmental dimensions, the availability of alternative transportation to reduce automobile emissions. This indicator is also forward-looking to the extent that providing alternative transportation reduces environmental, air, and water quality degradation, preserving these resources for generations to come. As mentioned previously, this cost accounts for the ease with which one can afford to utilize alternative transportation. Rather than deciding to list the flat fee associated with riding the bus, using the percentage of median income provides more information about who is capable of purchasing these passes. Therefore this measure, at the very least, makes room for distributional analysis (accounting for those in different spatial locations, generations, gender, income, etc.). This technique, however, could be irrelevant should it be determined that median income is not evenly distributed among different factors. Finally, according to the STAR report, these indicators were developed by the commission that developed the report, the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability. This violates what Maclaren calls the one characteristic every indicators should have. It should be generated from multiple stakeholders within the community. The commission recognizes that it is important to receive input from community stakeholders in future reports, and also encourage readers to contact them. Because this indicator meets the at least two of the three other characteristics, it would not be unreasonable to consider

this indicator an appropriate measure within the transportation subset of the STAR report.

         

 In Phoenix, one of the fastest growing cities in the country and my lovely little hometown, policies currently support unconstrained growth despite the environmental constraints that come with supporting large populations in an arid, desert ecosystem. Planners and politicians associate physical growth with economic growth, and nothing should stand in the way of economic growth. Afterall, construction, real estate, and tourism account for large portions of the state economy. But suburban, low density sprawl, supported by extensive highway systems are placing immense pressure on the surrounding ecosystems and water availability, and increase city temperatures as the result of the urban heat island effect (But it's a dry heat!). More importantly, water availability is becoming limited.

  Despite the blindfolds worn by those watering their GRASS lawns at midday, those spending summer afternoons at waterparks, those repairing and refilling the artificial lake in the heart of the Phoenix-Metro area, and those reaping the financial rewards of Grow, baby, grow!, this.is.not.sustainable. Literally, this level of growth cannot be sustained - at least not at the low costs of development Arizona sees today. The state has been in a drought for the last twenty years and Arizona, along with California and Nevada who share the Colorado River as a large supply of water for their residents, will soon be facing the costs of water depletion. Arizona politicians do not bring these issues to the table, as they are afraid it could negatively affect economic development. If Arizona politicians and residents want to avoid the water crisis looming on the horizon, action should be taken today to avoid the type of growth that places greater constraints on what is left of Arizona's resources.
  Using Roseland's policy instruments to enact sustainable change, it is not difficult to find several mechanisms that can assist in this process. First, the Arizona Department of Water Resources issues permits to water rights practically indiscriminately according to loose criteria. Instead, the issuance of permits should be suspended. The permits currently available should be designated as tradable permits, allowing those who wish to develop to purchase permits from those no longer using their water rights. As implemented in Oakland, plumbing standards should be administered to require low-flow toilets and faucets to reduce the amount of water wasted. Information should be provided to the public regarding drought current drought levels and the need to avoid behaviors that contribute to water waste. Most importantly, pricing (a hot topic among those who dare to mention it in mixed company) should be adjusted to reflect the true value of water. Prices can be adjusted according to threshold levels so that water for basic needs is kept relatively low. Water used for keeping grass, filling pools, and spitting out of shower heads at 2.5 gallons per minute are priced at higher levels according to the actual value of using it as an amenity rather than a resource necessary to survival and quality of life. This will discourage many of the undesirable practices associated with water depletion and may rule out a need for several other policy tools, allowing those in Arizona to maintain a higher quality of life (let us not forget the majority of the world does not have clean water) over the long run.