I recently was forced to spend many hours at an airport because a flight was cancelled due to inclement weather and I decided to review some AWSA reports that I keep on my computers.  There was one that caught my eye, in particular, that is the “2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act Work Plan, FY 2014”.  I had been planning to write about what the title (above) describes and finally decided to do it after reading the Work Plan.

The Executive Summary on page one describes how the NM Legislature prefers that the ISC have a substantial plan in place before the 2014 legislative session.  This has caused the ISC to put its proposed schedule (Originally for a plan to be completed by end of Aug 2014.) on an accelerated pace to have a plan ready for the legislative session.  This has further resulted in the ISC contracting several study organizations to conduct a “massive assessment” of all the projects to ensure that the Legislature’s preference is met.

This Work Plan also describes nine elements to serve as a guide for the work activity.  The ninth element, in particular, states in part:  “Staff will contract with a planning/public involvement firm and professional facilitators to assist on public meetings, dissemination of materials, and formulation of public involvement strategy”.  I further single out “…formulation of public involvement strategy”.  Craig Roepke further verbally stated during the Jul meeting of the GSFWC when he was going over the work plan “…to have a better public involvement”.

I am sort of dumbfounded by these words since I have been trying for a very long time to make sure any of my detailed reviews get into the hands of the study contractors who did the reports.  My requests have always gone ignored for the most part.  If these words mean that what I desired will happen, then I would say that progress would have been made; but I will not hold my breath on this one.

I will describe some history relevant to this topic by starting with four factual occurrences that I was involved in.
No. 1-I was at a meeting of the GBIC about 1 ½ years ago when the topic of public involvement was discussed. The ISC representative at the meeting stated that there was not enough time to go over a lot of public input and that it should be posted in the AWSA web site for others to read.  I asked how would anyone who did a review and submitted written comments know if what they had to say was used or not for changes in some draft report.  The representative stated that we would have to check future updated copies of the draft report to see if there were any changes that might reflect what we had in our review comments.  I decided then and there that I would send my review comments directly to the contractors and request a response from them.

No. 2-I had reviewed several draft interim reports until one years ago and still was going through my usual spiel about my (or anyone’s) written review comments to get to the hands of the study contractors.  At one point I received an email from an ISC staffer saying that “although my review comments usually had merit”, that I was “bent out of shape” which meant that my constantly maintaining my rhetoric about written review comments will eventually cause other people to ignore what I have to say and just turn themselves away from me in general.  I did respond to this description of my character and will not go into details on that part.
No. 3- I was at the April meeting of the GSFWC and there were ISC representatives in attendance.  I had done a review (back in Jan) of Debbie Hathaway’s draft report, “Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration as a Tool in Ecohydrologic Assessment and Application to the Gila River Near-River Groundwater Zone”, and posted it in the web site.   I asked the one of the representatives after the meeting if my written review comments are getting into the hands of the contractors (referring to Debbie’s report) and the response was “No!”   This person then stated that “I must enjoy being in the habit of getting people irritated”.  I was somewhat shocked to be characterized that way and decided that I would just let it pass rather than create a scene before other folks.  But I did respond by email in a similar way as I did in item No. 1.

I attended the AWSA Quarterly Public Meeting held the previous night when over 100 folks listened to all what was said. I also hand delivered Debbie a hard copy of my review comments of her draft report and asked her if she could get back on it. She indicated that she might be able to address my review as she gave her presentation.  She was not able to do this since my written comments and questions were too specific for her to cover in an abbreviated general presentation.  I saw her the next day during the GSFWC meeting as she was leaving before the meeting ended and again asked her to get back to me about my written review comments (that I did in January).

No. 4-I waited several weeks for Debbie to respond to me. Finally, I sent her an email and asked her if she was able to go over my comments yet.  She was gracious enough to say that she had read my comments when she saw them in the web site, that she gives consideration to all and any comments from anyone, and that ISC does not make any funding available for contractors to get back to reviewers who send in written comments.

I will state several conclusions/after thoughts regarding my history of public involvement with ISC and some other comments with specific experiences.

--I think that the two negative remarks (one written and one verbal) were totally out of line for a (or any) public employee to make toward any citizen of our society.  There are millions of words in our society’s vocabulary for anyone to select from to put together acceptable sentences anytime without having to resort to undesirable ones.  These statements were made toward me as if it was totally ok to do so and without any apparent thought of consequences.  I could (or perhaps should) have made a formal complaint in my situation to the proper authorities since I was acting within my right as a citizen and did not provoke such remarks.  I let it slide by and decided that I would defer any action for a future time.

--Alex Thal, Grant County Soil and Water representative on the GSFWC,  mentioned, during the Jul GSFWC meeting,  that the Human Dimension was missing from the ISC’s description of all the on-going studies.  Craig Roepke responded that the ISC’s only present function was to do the AWSA studies on the 16 proposed projects using the best available science.

This is not exactly the same as what I have been advocating in regard to desiring contractors to communicate with reviewers of their reports, but it does demonstrate the general philosophy that the ISC seems to constantly maintain a limited public involvement.

Mary Reese, BOR, stated during public comments, that the “Human Dimension” is handled during the NEPA process which happens after the final projects are selected by the ISC Commissioners; probably continued work after 2014. I worked on many BOR planning projects and concur with what Mary said.  But the “axe that I have been grinding” is that the ISC allowed public involvement during the “before NEPA” time, but limited the degree of individual’s (from the general public) participation.  I felt that I had a lot to offer when I took time to do detailed reviews of almost everything that was done.  But since I was not allowed to go directly to the hands of the contractors, I felt it was a waste of time to do any more of my detailed reviews and subsequently discontinued the process this past Jan 2013. I felt that the way the ISC treated me regarding these reviews just discouraged me from doing any more.

 --I was mildly surprised, but not that it was unexpected, when Debbie Hathaway told me that there was no funding from the ISC for contractors to communicate with those stakeholders who had done detailed reviews and provided written comments.  I can only go by my vast experience with the ISC  on this item, but it appears that the funds for any stakeholder activity occurs only during the quarterly public meetings and at the GSFWC meetings ( if any attend and want to say something during public comments).  The ISC will also allow written comments of any length be posted to the AWSA web site-but these will be read by those folks who go into the web site and happen to find it. Such comments are also subject to censor and moderation.  (These were two practices the US Gov ‘t did on private correspondence between American citizens and the Fighting GI’s during WWII; it was an issue of universal security then, but that reason cannot exist with the AWSA site comments.)   

 My advice for anyone who is bent on getting written comments into the hands of the study contractors is to just bypass the ISC and deliver it directly to them using Fax, email, snail mail, or any independent means.

Generally speaking, I am the sole individual who did any detailed review and have written comments;  I believe there were a few occasional other ones, but do not know for sure.  I can well understand the ISC staffers trying to control the public input (In particular if every contractor was subjected to it constantly coming from the public.) if everyone did it to the extent as I have done, but this has never been the case and it seems that my sole doing it is being treated the same way.

--I have stated more than once that the AWSA website has been inadequate for the entire general public.  It is better for a homogenized group of individuals and who understand and know the workings of the site. It is like equipping soldiers in time of war with just 22 rifles to fight with which is totally inadequate.  Similarly, the web site is not a good working tool for most people.  There are those who say it is, but most of these understand sites from their experiences.  There has been a lack of a dedicated program of instruction on it, lack of ISC personnel or others to answer questions about it on demand, and confusion what exactly goes in what site.  Craig offsets this a little by informing the stakeholders of a new document having been posted leaving a blue line to click on which usually will take one to the site.

--The AWSA Input Group is supposed to represent each person within their political/geographical region. They will either speak for us as like “all with one voice” or transfer any individuals concerns/comments who (individual) gives it to them (representative).  Anthony Gutierrez is Grant County’s representative.  He is so extremely busy doing his regular day job that he does not have time to always look at his computer to receive, read over, and reasons out how he will prepare each person’s concerns/comments.  The fact that these reps just do not have the time participate in the Input Group fully is reason enough for me to expect my concerns/comments get directly to the ISC staffers, ISC commissioners,  and, not least, the study contractors.

--The AWSA Public Quarterly meetings are both good and bad.  They are good for when a focus group attends them and just dwell on one thing and each person of such a group can say a little amount and let another one continue.  The meetings are bad when someone like me will also focus on something and I am never allotted enough time to present what I have to say in it’s entirely.  So, for me, the meetings do not do me any good.  Rather, I prefer to present my lengthy items (like this email) in written form. Unfortunately, I have several stumbling blocks here also like putting them in the Web Site and taking the chance that many people will see it and read it.  The meetings can be shouting matches if no control is present.

--This so called “hurry-up” schedule while being mandated to ensure the Interior Secretary will get what the Federal law requires in a timely way has had to take on several more study contractors. I did not see anything in the Work Plan relevant to any kind of public involvement on all of these several ongoing “at once” studies.  In particular, I would expect to see the public have a review and comment period for the final drafts of each and every one of these individual studies.  I would consider it a “very bad” injustice to the stakeholders who are interested in having this opportunity.  I say this and still fully understand the need for the acceleration.  Something better be thought of how to accommodate the stakeholder or there could be some strong, rightful, and legal protests if not the case.  It is not sufficient for just the Quarterly Public meetings to fulfill the required public involvement in the final drafts of these studies.

I have been fairly quiet since Jan of this year on this topic, but will definitely not be quiet for the final study drafts.  It is too easy to just omit the public involvement on these final drafts for the sake of expediency.  Alex Thal spoke during the Jul GSFWC meeting of a lack in the Human Dimension.  As I stated earlier, what Alex is saying and what I am saying, while not totally the same, are both in the same arena regarding public involvement.  The Public Involvement is more important regarding the final drafts than any other work done before such time.

--Craig mentioned in the Work Plan (Under Work Plan Risk(s) and Impact(s)) that “An uncommon occurrence in initial assessment activities is the discovery of unanticipated complications or additional issues”.  Craig, I assume, is speaking only of the technical complications and issues, but I consider the absence of public involvement (as I described it) an anticipated complication or issue.  Although it might be felt by some that the ISC Commissioners can make a “…considered and informed decision …” without the public involvement on the AWSA projects, there is, no doubt, an opposing view.  

--Element 7 states (paraphrase) that legal counsel will provide assistance in moving correctly and expeditiously through NEPA and ESA consultations.   If these NEPA & ESA processes are prior to the end of Dec 2014, then it implies they are pertinent throughout all of these ongoing studies.  I mention this from what Mary said about the processes being after that deadline.  (There might be some confusion here someplace.)  My main point in this paragraph is if the legal counsel might say something about the public involvement when projects are publically funded.   I will let time tell this.

--It is a well known fact that there is a strong focus to keep the all of the water in the river and I expect that all the related activity will eventually go beyond just spoken and written rhetoric to present the greatest “expression of feelings”.  I do not necessarily agree with keeping all the water in river, but certainly can agree with this greatest “expression of feelings” activity if it ever happens.  This could be similar to my own (and others who agree with me) greatest “expression of feelings” regarding my issue of “total public involvement”.  Again, I will just wait to see what develops and if our paths meet.  

I have written four pages on this topic and will stop at this point. I expect more spoken and written rhetoric will occur over the long future, but it could (And probably will.) be at stronger levels.

Written and submitted by:

Gerald Schultz
NM RC&D
Aug 9, 2013