Grijalva suggests the federal economic stimulus package should include provisions for public lands.

U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva released a report Wednesday that, even in two dozen pages, couldn’t list all of the Bush administration’s assaults on our public lands.

But the worst of the worst are in the report, which serves not only as an indictment, but also as a blueprint for corrections the next administration must make.

We hope the next president will heed his predecessor’s errors and ensure that good policies and procedures are undertaken – with a topnotch professional leading the Department of the Interior.

Grijalva’s re-election Nov. 4 is as certain as a Tucson sunset’s beauty, so this isn’t self-serving politics.

Rather, it underscores the devotion to our natural lands consistently demonstrated by the Arizona Democrat who chairs the House National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee.

The Bush team, by contrast, has steamrolled scientific data, punted professionalism in favor of political hires and doubled an already huge maintenance load.

It has ignored the rule of law, rolled back regulations and pandered to the energy industry at public lands’ expense.

Near the Grand Canyon – the only U.S. park that is also a world wonder – Interior has OK’d a uranium mine despite a congressional ban on it.

Bison are being slaughtered at levels not seen since the 1800s, and wild horses and burros are being grossly mismanaged.

Parks visitors are painfully aware of the swarms of snowmobiles that have taken over Yellowstone National Park and of the inappropriate allowances for personal watercraft and off-road vehicles in parks and other public lands.

Still, some of the most egregious actions undertaken by the Bush administration cannot be seen by the naked eye – yet. And many of these affect southern Arizona directly.

For example, dozens of environmental, health, safety and public process laws have been waived in planning 700 miles of border fence – through national wildlife refuges, protected waterways, forests and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, among other sites with scenic, cultural and threatened wildlife habitat values.

The Forest Service seeks to streamline requirements for gold, copper and other mineral mining sans any environmental analysis, in direct conflict with the National Research Council’s recommendation.

And as Tucsonans well know, with the conviction of Mount Lemmon hiker Christine Wallace, fees have been added and increased on many of our national parks and forests, resulting in double taxation and discrimination against the poor and low-impact users.

As our economy continues sinking into severe recession, even the most ardent fans of public lands don’t expect generous funding to materialize, no matter who becomes president.

But reasonable appropriations are essential – and broken policies, rules and practices can be righted for little to no cost. Professionalism can be restored and science heeded, rather than manipulated.

Grijalva also suggests the federal economic stimulus package should include provisions for public lands.

A two-year, voluntary service commitment by young people, to defray their college costs, could be focused on maintenance work in our parks and other public lands, much like the Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression.

The environment can’t compete with the economy as an issue now, but Grijalva says the public still cares deeply – and we agree.

Our public lands are eight years overdue for thoughtful, scientific and professional stewardship.

———

Download the document

Read Rep. Grijalva’s report

The Tucson City Council showed foresight this week with a vote requiring that new homes be ready to use recycled water or gray water on landscaping.

The council unanimously approved the ordinance that requires builders to plumb homes for separate wastewater systems.

Water from washing machines, showers, bathtubs and laundry and bathroom sinks can be diverted from the traditional sewer system and instead used on landscaping.

Beginning June 1, 2010, new homes will be prepared so homeowners can take advantage of using the recycled water outside.

That will add about $500 to the cost of a home. But it will reduce the demand for fresh water on landscaping, especially in the summer when outdoor use is highest.

It’s a good move.

These are tough times for the saguaro cactus. The Goliaths of the desert have been besieged in recent years by non-native plants. Invaders such as buffelgrass choke off young saguaros and increase the likelihood of a habitat-scorching wildfire.

Man, of course, also has proven to be a nemesis. Thieves, while rare, have made off with young cactuses, sometimes taking a dozen at a time.

Thankfully, technology offers a way to fight back.

Saguaro National Park plans to tag young cactuses with tiny microchips to help in investigations of missing cactuses and to make robbers think twice before striking.

Saguaros are a living symbol of the Southwest and lure visitors from around the world to our city. Keeping the cactuses alive and well should be a top priority, and we’re glad to see that Saguaro National Park has found a high-tech way to stick it to thieves.

A withering condemnation of the proposed Rosemont Mine by the Arizona Game & Fish Department should prompt the federal government to soundly reject the mine proposal.

The evaluation of the mine is a sound, comprehensive, science-based look at widespread and irreversible problems that will be caused if the open-pit copper mine is permitted in the Santa Rita Mountains, southeast of Tucson.

Joan E. Scott, habitat program manager in the Tucson office of Game & Fish, was blunt in a July 8 letter to the U.S. Forest Service, the agency that will decide whether the milewide, 3,000-foot-deep pit should be dug.

The mine would be on private property, but national forest land would be needed for waste dirt and for a road to access the site.

Despite any attempts at mitigation, the mine would “render the northern portion of the Santa Rita Mountains virtually worthless as wildlife habitat and as a functioning ecosystem,” Scott wrote.

Scott took strong issue with a previous study that claimed there would be “minimal” impact on wildlife habitat.

“Land disturbance, traffic, noise, light and general mining activity will completely disrupt wildlife in the area,” Scott wrote.

The mine is expected to be in operation for 20 years, and supporters have said that once it closes, any disruption would end – a contention Scott called “fantasy.”

Among her specific concerns:

• The water table would be substantially lowered. The mine operators have talked about bringing Central Arizona Project water to the area, but that has not been finalized.

• Spills from the mine would pollute surface and groundwater sources used by threatened and endangered species. Mine operators have said they will have state-of-the-art technology to prevent spills, but Scott wrote “virtually all mines have had spills.”

• If the mine is permitted, Scott wrote, its owners should be required to buy and give to the public a block of land next to the forest equal in size and wildlife values. Since no such land is available, the mine should not be permitted, Scott wrote.

The Forest Service has indicated that unless there are extraordinary extenuating circumstances, the mine legally must be allowed. But Scott makes a key point that cannot be ignored in the permitting process:

“The Forest (Service) must insure that the scientific analysis upon which they base their decisions is sound.”

That must be the ultimate consideration. Once the first shovelful of dirt is turned at the Rosemont Mine, the area will never be the same. No amount of money or remediation will bring it back to its current state.

This is not an appropriate place for an open-pit copper mine. Scott’s letter makes that abundantly clear with unambiguous scientific evidence.

———

TO READ MORE

Read the letter from Joan E. Scott of the Game and Fish Department

The federal government is building a wall along the southern border of the United States and, no, thank you, input from the locals is not needed.

That’s the arrogant attitude of the U.S. Department of the Interior, which has told southern Arizona science experts that their thoughts about the wall and its effect on the environment are neither needed nor welcome.

The feds plan to have 650 miles of permanent border fencing in place by the end of this year. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a southern Arizona Democrat, asked that University of Arizona scientists be included in planing for monitoring the impact of the work.

But Rick Schultz, borderlands coordinator for the Interior Department, said scientists working for the U.S. Geological Survey will develop protocol for monitoring and don’t need help from anyone outside of the federal government.

While we’re sure the federal scientists are competent and well-meaning, they don’t necessarily have any expertise when it comes to the desert Southwest. That is why UA researchers and others from southern Arizona would have been invaluable.

Schultz said $50 million has been set aside to pay for damage to endangered species. But the goal should be to avoid such damage – not try to fix it after the fact. And money can’t undo environmental damage.

The feds must rethink their decision to shut out scientists who have worked in this part of the country. The border fence is a massive undertaking that needs to take advantage of all the scientific expertise available.

The troubled relationship between man and wolf has grown more contentious along the Arizona-New Mexico border.

So far this year, three female Mexican gray wolves – an endangered species – have been illegally shot, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Agency reported last week.

The killings came in an area where the wolf is being reintroduced, a half-century after it was hunted out of existence in the wild.

It was 10 years ago last March that 11 pioneer Mexican gray wolves were released to run free in the forests of eastern Arizona. The decade-long experiment has a checkered record with many rural residents opposed to their presence.

But that opposition from a few must not be allowed to doom this bold experiment that has long-range environmental benefits.

Since the reintroduction began in March 1998, 28 wolves have been illegally shot and killed despite fines of up to $75,000 and a year in jail. Other wolves have died after being hit by vehicles and some were removed because they killed livestock.

The federal government has a policy of removing any wolf that kills three head of livestock in a year. But this step, taken to appease ranchers, has not been enough to halt the opposition and the illegal wolf killings.

Officials had predicted that by now there would be a self-sustaining population of 100 wolves and 18 breeding pairs in the area. But there are only 52 wolves and four breeding pairs.

Fish & Wildlife has sound reasons for bringing back the wolves. Ecologists have shown that wolves bring untold benefits to the entire region by improving the overall health of game populations and reduce the damage caused by overgrazing from deer and elk herds.

Because wolves see cattle as slow-moving meals, conflicts between ranchers and wolves are inevitable. But a handful of people acting illegally must not be allowed to derail this well-developed and well-researched program.

The wolves have a historic place in this part of the country. They must be allowed to reclaim it.

Read another editorial: Running for gold, and his country.

The Department of the Interior has extended the comment period for a wrong-headed idea to allow loaded guns in national parks and national wildlife refuges.

U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a southern Arizona Democrat who is chair of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, was among the members of Congress seeking more time for comment.

“It is my hope that ultimately the department will decide to abandon this ill-advised idea for the safety of park visitors and wildlife alike,” Grijalva said in a statement.

There is no need for guns in areas that are set aside for families and individuals to enjoy nature and wildlife. The gun ban in parks was enacted during the Reagan administration and should be continued.

Comments on the proposal will be taken through July 30.

———

TO LEARN MORE

Read the proposal and comment

The mortgage crisis may not have hit you directly. But you will be affected by this financial tidal wave sweeping Tucson and the nation.
A two-day Tucson Citizen series “The Mortgage Crisis in Tucson,” (Part 1, Part 2) which concludes Friday, spells out the breadth and depth of this nationwide problem. And for Tucson, the worst may still be ahead.
There is no quick fix. But even if you are a renter or have a mortgage that you can afford, this is or soon will be your problem.
The scope of the problem is breathtaking. In 2007, there were 4,471 foreclosure filings in Pima County. But 1,700 were in the fourth quarter – a staggering 430 percent increase from 2006.
And it is far from over. Nearly 70 percent of the Pima County subprime loans have an adjustable rate. Half of those borrowers will see their interest rates increased within the next year.
The peak is forecast to hit in August.
Even if you are not among those unfortunate borrowers, you’ll be impacted. If homes in your neighborhood are foreclosed and remain empty, it will hurt your home’s value and the quality of life in the area.
A national study found that the violent crime rate increases in neighborhood where there are vacant homes. And the loss of a home may be the trigger that causes a family to break apart – another loss for a neighborhood and for the community.
Time is the only sure cure for the mortgage crisis. But for some, time is working against them.
There are things we can do as a community. But it was a series of individual decisions that led to this crisis and it will take individual actions to ameliorate it.
Local governments and nonprofits are talking about programs to buy vacant homes to increase the stock of affordable housing. That’s a double benefit, but a costly one. Money is available to buy only a handful of the thousands of foreclosed homes.
More promising is a program in which local agencies are teaming up to offer “foreclosure clinics” in areas of Tucson with a large number of filings.
There may also be federal help, with a bill in the U.S. House that would provide money to refinance loans and reduce interest rates.
But those in the crosshairs of this crisis cannot wait, hoping such a program comes through. Individual responsibility is essential.
If you struggle or get behind in your mortgage payments, contact your lender immediately. Or seek help through one of the numerous intermediaries listed in Friday’s installment of this series.
There is some good news ahead. Tucson is a growing community that will grow its way out of this crisis – something that many other communities cannot count on. But it won’t be soon, and it won’t be easy.

Overly simplistic is the best way to describe the idea that expanding Tucson’s water supply with waste water purified through treatment will encourage growth.

Anti-growth gadfly John Kromko admits that waste water treatment and use can add to supply but asks why we would want to, because it will encourage growth.

His extreme thinking is impractical, unrealistic and unpopular.

The unpopularity was proven last year when Tucson voters decisively rejected his anti-growth proposals to stop water service expansion and ban waste water use to extend supply.

Practically speaking, long-range supply is questionable for the current population of Tucson metro area, even without any growth.

Reality is that supply must be expanded for and conservation made more pervasive with the existing population, and these matters are made more urgent when one considers those yet to arrive.

The idea of slamming the door on newcomers is totally unrealistic.

But it also doesn’t take into account that new and developing technologies will improve conservation and perhaps lead to new sources of water.

That’s through multilevel treatment of waste water, by making seawater conversion affordable or something not yet conceived.

One school of thought about why the ancient Hohokam people disappeared from our desert is that drought drove them away.

It’s a lesson to be considered as usage increasingly strains our water supply and projected growth only makes the picture worse.

Other lessons also must be considered, especially the success that Orange County, Calif., is having with treated waste water for household use.

On the face of it, using recycled waste water strikes one as unpleasant, at best. But as it turns out, it is clean and safe, if expensive.

Tucson Citizen staff writer B. Poole reported Monday that Orange County uses a multistep process to purify water from its sewage system, with excellent results.

“It’s the cleanest source of water we have,” Orange County water official Shivaji Deshmukh told Poole.

That includes comparison with Orange County’s allotment of water from the Colorado River, which also supplies Tucson via the Central Arizona project.

There are measurable but allowable levels of arsenic, two kinds of radium, uranium and trichloroethylene in Tucson’s current water supply – but all are undetectable in Orange County’s treated waste water.

Half of Tucson’s treated sewage water now is dumped into the Santa Cruz River bed and flows downstream, away from our water supply.

Officials have discussed the need to treat it and use it as drinking water at an unspecified point in the future.

Orange County was dumping its sewage into the ocean. Its treatment success should spur Tucson to begin earnestly working on the process.

The key to success will be long-range planning to find ways to pay for the system and get it in place.

Our sewage water could be treated to the level of purity being achieved in Orange County and added to the water supply, Tucson Water Director David Modeer said.

With such treated water, “you could offset” the widening gap between current supply and usage, he said.

By 2030, Tucson Water officials estimate, enough sewage water will be generated in the metro area that, if treated, could supply 150,000 families.

Early discussion and planning, followed by decisive action, will make it so that, unlike the ancient Hohokam, those 150,000 families and others will not be driven away by a lack of water.

Read another editorial: Water needed, growth or not

Tucson Water is holding a series of public meetings to discuss conservation and update residents on the city water plan.

Residents are being asked to comment on the Community Conservation Task Force’s 22 recommendations and on Tucson Water’s 50-year resources plan. The meetings will be:

• Wednesday: William Clements Center, 8155 E. Poinciana Drive, 7-9 p.m.

• Thursday: Ward 6 office, 3202 E. First St., 7-9 p.m.

• April 28: Quincie Douglas Center, 1575 E. 36th St., 6-8 p.m.

• April 30: Desert Sky Middle School, 9850 E. Rankin Loop, 7-9 p.m.

• May 1: El Rio Neighborhood Center, 1390 W. Speedway Blvd., 7-9 p.m.

• May 8: Ward 3 office, 1510 E. Grant Road, 6:30-8:30 p.m.

• May 17: Mission Library, 3770 S. Mission Road, 10 a.m.-noon

Water conservationists – that should be all desert dwellers – ought to welcome the city of Tucson’s approach to use water rates and building codes as incentives to preserve that precious commodity.

Both steps are significant and necessary, even if more costly, to get the city and all of us acting more seriously about conservation.

The city is on the verge of adopting the first in a series of five water rate increases between now and 2013. This year’s increase will include a new, built-in fund for conservation.

City officials also are preparing proposals to require that new commercial buildings include rainwater harvesting systems and new houses have gray water recovery systems.

Tucsonans already are earnest about water conservation, but these steps will take us to needed new levels and help ensure adequate water for those here now and those to come.

Our water rates are low compared with other Arizona cities and places with much more water. Higher rates, especially for big users, and other efforts will improve our conservation record and keep the water delivery system in good shape.

Rates will rise, for the average household, by nearly 6 percent to $21.24 a month if the City Council adopts the proposal at its May 20 meeting. Just under 2 percentage points of the increase will be used to create a dedicated conservation fund.

The charge for that fund will be 3 cents for every 100 cubic feet of water – 748 gallons – used. The average Tucson water customer uses 1,200 cubic feet a month, so the monthly conservation charge will be 36 cents.

“This separates paying for conservation from water rates,” City Councilman Rodney Glassman said in explaining the rationale behind setting up a dedicated rate and fund for water-saving efforts.

It’s a pretty inexpensive price to pay for what could be a wide array of conservation ideas and plans.

The key will be properly using the $1.5 million expected to be collected from the charge in its first year. That means citizens should take part in Tucson Water’s ongoing series of public discussions. Seven sessions will be held through May 17 (schedule below).

Building code changes that will allow us to take advantage of rainfall and used household water could push even greater levels of efficiency.

Retrofitting existing structures for this is costly and thus inefficient. But what can work is requiring rainfall capture off the big rooftops of new commercial buildings and gray water systems in newly built houses so residents can use it for landscaping.

The proposals must be aired, so builders, businesses and the public can offer adjustments and ideas.

They are the kinds of ideas that must be implemented if we are to remain, as we all hope to, longtime occupants of the desert.

Read another editorial: List of talks on conservation

———

MORE ON THE ENVIRONMENT

GREEN WISDOM: Readers share their Earth-friendly tip

GUEST OPINION: Treat your planet gently

Here’s your chance to get some exercise while helping to clean Tucson’s air and ease the rush-hour crunch on local streets.

Friday is Bike 2 Work Day, one of the events that is part of Clean Air Days & Bike Fest.

For those who eschew their cars and pedal to work, there will be a free continental breakfast, safety information and raffle giveaways.

All will be from 7 to 9 a.m. downtown in front of the Joel D. Valdez Main Library and at the Bristol Coffeebus, 5601 E. Broadway.

Saturday, Mayor Bob Walkup will lead a leisurely 14-mile bike ride.

And on Aptil 19, if you bike to the Reid Park Zoo, you will be admitted free.

It’s all good for you and for Tucson.

———

UPCOMING EVENTS

For details on all upcoming Bike Fest events, go to: http://dot.tucsonaz.gov/bikefest

For details on all upcoming Clean Air Days events, go to: http://www.cleanair.pima.gov

Chertoff marches on, wreaking havoc, ignoring rule of law

Two fences are not better than one: A zig-zagging second fence (center) runs parallel to the original border fence (right) along the U.S./Mexico border in San Diego, in 2003.

Archaeological treasures, ancient Indian graves, clean drinking water and fragile lands clearly don’t matter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Such sensitive, federally protected features of our borderlands must not delay completion of a 700-mile border fence, he insisted Tuesday.

Chertoff’s decision to waive 36 federal laws is an outrage, as is his callous disregard of entire communities in southern Arizona and elsewhere along the border.

Congress gave him permission in 2005 to waive federal laws, and Congress now needs to revoke that atrociously flawed authority.

Tuesday, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords decried Chertoff’s failure to consult community groups or local, state and federal officials before arbitrarily making his decision.

U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva accurately noted, “These waivers are an attempt to wreck more than a century of protections for our resources and the health of our communities by an administration on its way out of town.”

The normally required environmental impact reviews for such massive projects now will be waived on hundreds of thousands of acres – and for what?

The border fence cannot stanch the flow of economic refugees, millions of whom have risked “death by desert” to seek work in the U.S.

The fence also does nothing about the many millions of immigrants who remain here illegally after overstaying their visas.

It is a futile effort being made in a vacuum, with no comprehensive immigration reforms or real enforcement in sight.

Meanwhile, even as Homeland Security waives laws that would protect fragile lands, waterways and antiquities, it will protect the upscale River Bend Resort and golf course, the Texas Observer reported in February.

There, in Brownsville, Texas, Homeland Security is serving condemnation lawsuit notices to owners of border property. But the fence will stop where the River Bend site begins, then resume at the other end of the resort.

The fence won’t stop, though, for the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area in southern Arizona. Nor will it stop for the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.

It will march on, at an estimated cost of $1 million a mile, threatening protected lands from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.

Congress must stop this nonsense. It must revoke the authority granted to Homeland Security to waive federal laws, a ridiculous notion that never should have been enacted.

Americans must be ensured of protections under real laws, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act or the Clean Air Act. And Chertoff’s folly must be brought to a stop.

The issues surrounding state trust land are complex and difficult to grasp.

But this much is clear and easy to explain: Unless substantive changes are made to this 96-year-old system, most open land surrounding Arizona cities and towns will be developed. Little will be conserved.

The latest legislative developments give us no reason for optimism. Gov. Janet Napolitano’s announced efforts to reach compromise and consensus have come apart in the Legislature.

A move back to the table is needed.

To understand state trust land, it is necessary to look back at 1912, the year Arizona gained statehood. As a kind of “welcome to the union” gift, the federal government gave state government about 10 million acres.

The land was to be sold as needed, with proceeds benefiting schools, prisons and other essential services.

Today, about 9.2 million acres remain in state ownership. But with Arizona one of the nation’s fastest-growing states, the demand for developable land is insatiable.

The state constitution and Arizona’s agreement with the feds require trust land be sold to the highest bidder. No provision was made to set aside land for preservation because in 1912, no one imagined that more than 6 million people would be here.

Several attempts have been made to craft an agreement palatable to voters, who must approve constitutional changes. But splintered views have made it difficult to build support.

That was supposed to change this year. Napolitano launched a bipartisan effort to reform trust land regulations. The effort collapsed, and there again is talk of taking a measure to the ballot without broad backing.

Change is essential. Conservation must be an equally important use of state trust land, a use that would probably increase the value of adjacent trust land sold for development.

Cities and counties cannot compete with profit-driven developers when it comes to bidding for land. One need look only at Tucson’s West Side where Tumamoc Hill, which is trust land, could be sold for development.

Since 1903, Tumamoc Hill has been a living laboratory for desert researchers, housing the University of Arizona Desert Laboratory. If the state Land Department were to sell the property, developers of high-priced homes would be able to outbid the city, county or others who want this unique resource preserved.

Some trust land is suited to development. But some must be saved.

When state trust land is gone, it is gone, and we as Arizonans will have lost the only opportunity we have to make it possible to preserve these special places of our history.

The Legislature must do the difficult work to agree on a plan to reform state-owned trust land.