Rum, Romanism and Rebellion

I got a note from John Kromko last night. He wanted me to put up a link to his latest petition drive, No More Water Fees. In the 80’s and 90’s, a Kromko petition drive was enough to send chills down the spines of elected officials and bureaucrats everywhere. His organizational ability lost some of its luster after the botched “Total Recall” drive against Ed Moore and a string of other efforts that seemed to go nowhere.

Still, Kromko is smart about policy. A staffer at the legislature told me once that the talk among them was always that you hadn’t really worked there until you’d been “Kromkoed,” meaning that you would have to answer a series of seemingly out-of-nowhere questions about a particular bill. Eventually, the staffer would realize that Kromko was just asking about implications that other legislators and staff just hadn’t considered.

The petition effort is wide ranging, asking to ditch both the new water surcharge and the so-called “garbage tax.” It would also prevent the city from privatizing water and garbage services. Look for Jim Nintzel to pounce on this one. He had taken Democratic party candidates to task last year for campaigning against the garbage fee without providing any alternative revenue source. And, sure enough, this year the council ended up keeping the fee because they couldn’t find the money anywhere else. Supporters of this may be hoping that forcing a repeal of the fee would force city leaders to find other revenue sources.

The most interesting bit for me is the language about a sustainable water supply:

(d)  The right to a permanent and sustainable supply.

(1)  If the flow of CAP water to Tucson is cut off, or reduced by more than 20% from the average flow of the previous three years, for any period longer than 30 days, then Tucson Water shall declare an emergency and stop making water connections to any new structure until the flow is restored to that average rate of the previous three years, except that structures that were under construction at the time of the emergency may be connected.  Water flow during emergencies shall not be counted in calculating average flow.  Such an emergency shall be in effect during any CAP water shortage declared by the Department of the Interior.

(2)  When Tucson Water reaches an annual rate of water delivery to customers that exceeds the maximum reliable water supply, 140,000 acre-feet per year, Tucson Water shall stop making water connections to any new structures to provide that existing customers have a sustainable
supply. In March of each year, Tucson Water shall calculate and publish the anticipated date of this cut-off of connections.

(3)  A new cut-off date, four years in the future, may be established if such date is approved by City voters at the regular November election nearest to two years before the existing cut-off date.

This is the part that is likely to cause the most controversy. Actually, this is the part that is likely to raise the most opposition money from SAHBA. Don’t look for them to actually talk about this part though. SAHBA isn’t nearly as evil as they once were (noticed I said “not as evil”…), but they still seem to cling to the belief that here in the desert, we have an unlimited water supply. I think we Bajaarizonenses have done a better job of being sensitive to our scant water supplies than they have in the Valley of the Yakes, but we are still seeing new developments with acres of green lawns and artificial lakes. If this initiative prompts a real discussion with whether or not our local environment can actually sustain a population of more than a million people (oh heck, we are already there!), then that will be a good thing.

The website names former legislator Carmine Cardamone, a longtime Kromko associate, and Victoria Finley as officers in the organization.