CECIL GARLAND’S QUIXOTIC FIGHT
I met Cecil Garland once, more than 20 years ago, at a meeting of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, in Boulder, Utah. Incredibly (from a 2008 perspective), we were both SUWA board members. In those golden days, extreme wealth wasn’t a pre-condition to environmental board membership, though even then, I recall a rich weasel from Colorado who seemed to dominate the proceedings—I should have smelled a rat, even in 1985.
In the end, neither of us were board-types and we left almost as quickly as we arrived. But I’ve followed Cecil’s battles to save Utah’s West Desert from my bunker in southeast Utah, and have stayed an admirer, albeit a long-distance one. When I heard of his efforts to fight the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s (SNWA) scheme to pipe northern Nevada’s water to Vegas, I knew Cecil’s voice needed to be heard in The Zephyr. His cover story begins on page 12.
Cecil’s arch nemesis in all this is Patty Mulroy, the "water czar" of Vegas, SNWA’s boss and the noisiest and most enthusiastic proponent of the pipeline. She solemnly swears that she has no desire to destroy the agricultural economy of rural Nevada, but at the same time darkly hints that perhaps the wisest and best use of all that water can be provided by a booming urban economy like Las Vegas. She claims that her city is taking great strides to reduce water waste and you’d almost think she was turning Las Vegans into role models for modest living.
I thought that was pretty funny, but then a few months ago, I received a copy of an email that was circulating on the web. It was a letter from one of Utah’s most prominent and respected environmentalists and it proposed that we consider the possibility of working with Ms. Mulroy, instead of fighting her.
Ms. Mulroy is a brilliant tactician and a politician with a bright future. She knows what to say, to who, and in what context. She is a gifted manipulator. Especially in this case.
In part, the email said:
Hi Everyone,
We had an important meeting this week with Nevada water czar Pat Mulroy. The meeting was at her suggestion. First we enjoyed the day in sunny Las Vegas touring the amazing Springs Reserve, a brand new theme park/educational experience on the site of the former springs or vegas that prompted settlement in such a godforsaken place. This was Pat Mulroy’s brainchild, very very impressive, and foregrounding a message of conservation, yes, water conservation.
Worth a look: http://www.springspreserve.org/html/origen_live.html
We met with Ms. Pat Mulroy herself in the afternoon for an hour. Very cordial and frank. She explained to us that the Lower Basin would be pleased to keep Mead full at the expense of Powell, but that the Upper Basin still clings to it as a savings account in case of a compact call...she was interested to hear that we thought that drawing down Powell would allow restoration of two canyons in one fell swoop, that is Glen and Grand, if a sediment bypass was provided at Glen Canyon Dam——which of course, it has to be. We said it would make an awful nice gift to the Southwest to save both of our biggest canyons. Think of the good PR for Lost Wages. She was also intrigued to learn that (we) will accept using Glen Canyon Dam as a backstop in wet years to a full Mead, as long as it is summarily drawn down....At any rate, it means the trend is going towards drawing down Powell....
Also, incidentally, there is talk of her running for governor of NV, which she didn’t deny. So, this is an important relationship that we will keep close.
The writer’s enthusiasm is sincere, I believe, if not naive. And I seriously doubt if he/she sees the trap.
So. Is it possible that Ms. Mulroy has a genuine interest in drawing down Lake Powell? Should we really believe that Nevada’s water czar is concerned about the restoration of eco-systems in flooded canyons of the Colorado River?
On some level, she might genuinely care. She recently told High Country News, "I would not have described myself as very environmentally responsible back in the early ‘90s," she says. "Over the years, I have grown not only to understand and appreciate it, but have become very vocal about the need to think about the whole, including the environment that we leave behind for our children."
Maybe. But I doubt it’s what drives her. Pat Mulroy wants Las Vegas to keep growing. She’s savvy enough to realize she’ll get no support for her pipeline if Las Vegans make no attempt to conserve the water they have. But make no mistake—she’s not ready to put a lid on Vegas and say, ‘This is as far as we go.’ She’s made that clear. And it raises the old question—if a city can find ways to, in this case, conserve water, that allows it to grow by another million, or two million people...is that a real accomplishment? What about the other resources that are consumed in that kind of mad growth?
I suspect Patty sees an opportunity to co-opt environmentalists, to bind their hands with her own self-promoted good intentions, for the sole purpose of serving her not so hidden agenda. If she supports a draw-down of Powell Reservoir, to keep Lake Meade full, is she hoping environmentalists will turn a blind eye to the pipeline? It’s happened before, for reasons that escape me. For example, the Grand Canyon Trust vehemently opposed the Lake Powell to St. George water pipeline for years. Its web site was full of press releases and position papers.
Then, quietly those links were removed and any sign of their opposition to the pipeline vanished. When I emailed GCT’s water issues director, Nikolai Ramsey, he explained, "The Grand Canyon Trust made a capacity-based decision two years ago not to continue our heavy involvement in SW Utah with the exception of continued participation in a few ongoing issues like Virgin River... It has been our experience that growth is rarely, if ever, stopped by shutting off the water supply. If the people are coming, the water will be brought in, with politicians cheering all the way. "
Egads! That’s like saying, ‘We can’t stop the use of automatic weapons, so why bother—they’ll get them if they really want to.’ Or...’If they really want the oil from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, they’ll get it...so why fight it?’
Still, with regard to the SNWA’s plans, keep in mind, there is nary a mention of the pipeline in the email, nor do I suspect she ever raised the issue herself.
Patty Mulroy is way too clever for that. The influence will be subtle, not blatant.
But here’s the real question...do environmentalists even need Mulroy’s support? Does she hold any cards worth trading for? Or is global warming and a persistent drought in the desert southwestern United States making her willingness to "negotiate" a joke? Consider these excerpts from a recent New York Times story:
Lake Mead, the vast reservoir for the Colorado River water that sustains the fast-growing cities of Phoenix and Las Vegas, could lose water faster than previously thought and run dry within 13 years, according to a new study by scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
The lake...has a 50 percent chance of becoming unusable by 2021, the scientists say, if the demand for water remains unchanged and if human-induced climate change follows climate scientists’ moderate forecasts, resulting in a reduction in average river flows.
Demand for Colorado River water already slightly exceeds the average annual supply when high levels of evaporation are taken into account, the researchers, Tim P. Barnett and David W. Pierce, point out....
"We were really sort of stunned," Professor Barnett said in an interview. "We didn’t expect such a big problem basically right on our front doorstep. We thought there’d be more time."
He added, "You think of what the implications are, and it’s pretty scary."
With both the Powell and Meade reservoirs currently sitting at 50% capacity, it may well be that the only way to keep Lake Meade operational is to dramatically lower Powell. So what influence can Patty Mulroy leverage anyway?
None. I hope that environmental groups, both in Utah and Nevada, will use the power of their organizations (and all that money) to help Cecil Garland and other courageous souls out there who are fighting to protect their lives and the land they’ve loved and respected for so long.
Remember the Owens Valley. We can’t let that happen again.
SAVING THE ABAJOS!???
Last month, while many miles from home, I found a letter to the Moab Times-Independent on their web site that proves once again, I can run but I can’t hide. It was from Mr. Harold Shepherd, the issues director for Moab’s Red Rock Forests. Here are some excerpts:
Last October I spent a weekend in the Abajo Mountains not far from Blanding, where Red Rock Forests hosted a small group of regional environmental activists to discuss pressing issues for these forestlands... The threats to the Abajos are numerous...
What should conservationists do to address the old and new threats to the Abajos? At the risk of violating the preservationists code of conduct, by revealing the secrets of the few remaining natural wonders of the West, when it comes to the Abajo Mountains, I believe we should. Most of the Abajos, it would appear, for example, have been overlooked by recreationists who are still cramming into meccas like Moab just 60 miles to the north. We need to change all that, but in a "politically correct" way, by encouraging hikers, cross-country skiers, backpackers, birders, history buffs, archeologists, mountain bikers and, (yes) guidebook writers to come to these mountains.
Perhaps my flirting with environmental heresy is out of the fear that the Abajos are headed down the road that places like Alaska have already covered. Or perhaps, in this 21st century, idealism just no longer applies. Indeed, due to roads and mining in the Abajo Mountains they only recently lost their status as one of the largest roadless areas in the country. If we, therefore, decide to keep the secret of the Abajos to ourselves, we’ll soon discover that the extraction industry and motorized recreationists have beaten us to it.
I groaned to myself...here we go again. In order to "save" the Abajo Mountains, Mr. Shepherd and his ilk want to promote the hell out of them. The only surprise here was Harold’s notion that this was "environmental heresy."
Where have you been Harold? What do you think your peers have been doing in Moab the last 15 years? What you are looking at, Harold, as you complain about Moab’s "crammed meccas," is your compatriots’ stunning success, doing exactly what you propose now for your neighbors to the south.
It escapes me how Mr. Shepherd and the mainstream enviropreneurial movement in Utah can still, even now, fail to grasp the connection between the amenities economy they promote and encourage, an economy that demands the massive consumption of oil just to get here, and the search for and development of oil and gas reserves, both here and across the North American continent. An industry they blatantly condemn. Who do they think uses part of that oil? Do they stubbornly believe it’s only consumed by fat Republicans waiting for the Rapture?
Is it still lost on you guys?
I will at least give Harold credit for sounding as if he’s not totally sold on the plan himself when he writes, "...perhaps, in this 21st century, idealism just no longer applies." Indeed. Thanks Harold, for saying it out loud.
In these early years of the 21st Century, idealism and mainstream corporate environmentalism stand at odds with each other. Mr. Shepherd’s honesty is appreciated, if not exactly admired.
LI’L WAL-MART....or BIG WAL-MART?
Is Wal-Mart in Moab an inevitability now? The city council fears that rejecting a Big Box store would only drive the giant retailer into San Juan County, where all the tax revenues would flow. Moab, they figure, would dry up and blow away. And it’s true, there doesn’t seem to be any real opposition to Wal-Mart, though some have proposed a smaller version as an acceptable alternative.
Chris Baird, a leader of the "Buy Local First" movement in Moab and currently a candidate for Grand County Council, urged the city council and Moab residents to support a proposed Big Box city ordinance change. The revision would have allowed Big Box stores like Wal-Mart to build retail structures in Moab up to 75,000 square feet.
Rather than wage a campaign to defeat the ordinance, he thought this compromise was in order. Baird explained that it is "a way in which polarized communities can face challenges and still move forward and grow."
He noted that 75,000 square feet is too small for a Wal-Mart Supercenter. That means the grocery giant Kroger, aka City Market in Moab, will be spared the risk of being squeezed out by a fellow corporate giant.
Baird wrote to fellow Buy Local Firsters,, "If you know Moab, you know that we are a community of small locally owned businesses, we are a community of volunteers, fiercely independent, in love with being genuine, unique, and above all authentic. These characteristics not only define us but they drive our economy."
The city council, however, was not impressed. It rejected the smaller version and has now approved a 200,000 square foot maximum. But does it really matter?
How would a Wal-Mart, big or small, affect small businesses in Moab that sell the following items: books, CDs, DVDs, T-shirts, souvenirs, garden nursery items, soft drinks, snack foods, coffee, film, film developing, bicycles, bicycle supplies, cameras, iPods, calendars, computer supplies and accessories, sun glasses, toys, shoes, men’s and women’s casual and recreational clothing, camping gear, climbing gear, rafting and canoeing accessories, children’s clothing, hardware items, paint, paint brushes...should I go on?
If a mini-Wal-Mart sold all these items, and they would, and at greatly reduced prices, would that adversely affect many of the Buy Local First businesses?
Is there anything about supporting a 75,000 square foot Wal-Mart that would make anyone feel, "genuine, unique and above all, authentic?" Or "fiercely independent?"
And is the City of Moab prepared to abandon the many small businesses that make a living in Moab, for the sake of preserving the tax base?
How about this? Instead of throwing in the towel, why not try to fight Wal-Mart on two fronts? While San Juan County would surely benefit from a Wal-Mart, tax-base-wise, it will also cost them dearly in infrastructure improvements. That’s a cost to be borne by all San Juan County residents. We should remember that an increased tax base rarely reduces the individual’s tax burden. Just the opposite is true.
What’s needed here are twin Big Box referendums in both Grand and San Juan Counties. San Juan County people don’t give a hoot in hell for a Moab Wal-Mart—they go to the one in Cortez. So instead of beginning the debate by capitulating, why not play for broke?
Because if, by chance, the smaller ordinance had prevailed, I can see in my mind’s eye, its proponents lining up to cut the ribbon for the new, mini-Wal-Mart. And I’d bet that everyone standing in that dummy line, would have really thought they’d done something noble. Even "authentic."
And it would have been a lie. Beginning the debate with a 75,000 square foot concession could only have led to the result we have now.
STILES FOR PREZ??? WHAT WOULD YOU DO???
And finally...yes...it’s true. I stand before you today, my fellow Americans, to announce that I am a candidate for the office of President of the United States. Over the next few issues, I hope to convince you that a vote for any of the mainstream candidates is a waste of your time and an insult to your intelligence.
In fact, I think many of you might make good candidates as well. So...here’s what I’d like you to do. Tell me what you’d do if you were President. What would your priorities be?
Send them to me, in maybe 200-500 words. I will collect them over the next few months and will print them in the October/November issue.
Like me...what have you got to lose?
Send them to: cczephyr@frontiernet.net and a cc to moabzephyr@yahoo.com
AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT...
This is the beginning of The Zephyr’s 20th year.
Then what?
