From the Arizona Daily Star May 9, 2011:

Arizona set to build own border fence

PHOENIX – Arizona lawmakers want more fence along the border with Mexico – whether the federal government thinks it’s necessary or not.

They’ve got a plan that could get a project started using online donations and prison labor. If they get enough money, all they would have to do is get cooperation from landowners, and construction could begin as soon as this year.

Gov. Jan Brewer recently signed a bill that sets the state on a course that begins with launching a website to raise money for the work, said state Sen. Steve Smith, the bill’s sponsor.

“We’re going to build this site as fast as we can, and promote it, and market the heck out of it,” said Smith, a first-term Republican senator from Maricopa.

More….

There is just one little problem with the scheme of Arizona building its own border fence….most of the border is owned by the US federal government or the Tohono O’dham Indian Nation.

The border…a crazy quilt of jurisdictions and ownership

Special Report: Who owns the border?

Take for example the stretch of the border west of Nogales that I frequently mention as being a major gap in border security. The area between Nogales and Sasabe is Coronado National Forest land and the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.

The really open area like in Caliifornia Gulch would require extensive road-building along the border so a fence could be constructed.

The chances of the federal government allowing the state to run around federal land constructing roads and a border fence are approximately zero.

East of Nogales the border fence runs out across the Buena Vista ranch which is private property. The feds condemned an easement for the fence across that ranch. The fence stops at the Coronado National Forest boundary east of Nogales.

West of Sasabe the fence ends at the boundary of the Tohono O’Odham Indian Nation. I seriously doubt the Indians are going to let Jan Brewer and friends on their lands building a fence.

There is actually very little private land on the border where the state could build a fence.

So this is little more than another publicity stunt on the part of the state legislature to try and draw attention to border security issues without actually doing anything real to improve actual border security.

There are helpful things the state could do….namely work with others who are pushing for better border security. One effort is to support federal legislation which would remove the ability of federal land managers and litigious environmental groups who frustrate building roads and the fence along the border.

Another helpful effort is to try and convince the Department of Homeland Security that finishing the fence, building the necessary roads, and adding some more  Forward Observation Bases along the border would be of great help.

Finally, if the state really wanted to put a thumb in the eye of the feds about border security, I suggest passing a law making it a state crime for the Border Patrol to operate anywhere beyond 10 or 15 miles from the actual border. Of course that would invade “federal authority” which reaches 100 miles inside the state to run around setting up road blocks and harass tourists….but the fuss about this would draw national attention to how goofy the Border Patrol’s current strategy is to “secure the border”.

The ACLU has called the 100 mile zone in which the Border Patrol can operate the “Constitution Free Zone” in which the normal requirements of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution do not apply. Even Glenn Beck has pointed that one out…and they are actually right about that.

______________________________________

MORE articles and commentaries about the border

The following are articles and commentaries on border issues and SB 1070 that have appeared in the View From Baja Arizona since May, 2010.

Most recent….

Napolitano promises to change the way “border security” is measured

Cochise County Sheriff Tells Congress That Border Patrol Agents Ordered to Reduce Arrests

California Gulch..one of those places along the border wide open to drug smugglers

If the border is so secure why are there dead bodies all over the place?

Republicans Introduce Bill to Secure Border on Federal Lands, Protect Environment

Apprehensions of illegal aliens at the border are way down…why?

GAO confirms federal environmental laws and federal land managers hinder securing our border

Senators Kyl and McCain propose new border security plan

DHS testifies at same hearing as border rancher…compare the view of the border situation

Rancher tells Congress the way it really is down at the border

What does “securing the border” really mean?

Illegal entry and drug smuggling in perspective…what if all this was going on in your front yard?

Probationary Presence…another Immigration Law Reform Proposal

Arizona Republic trashes claim by Pinal Sheriff Babeu that Pinal is the number 1 pass-through county for drug and human trafficking in America

Drug cartels have made Nogales the tunnel capital of the Southwestern border

GOP drafts legislative assault on illegal immigration

Arizona would go broke if all the illegal immigrants left the state

230,000 displaced in Mexico by drug war

Janet Napolitano: Border security better than ever

Birthright citizenship debate…is the solution worse than the problem?

Immigration enforcement efforts damaging to community, police group says

10 million more illegal aliens coming to America?

Border officials say security is improving…and the tooth fairy is real

US Census Report on Arizona…Hispanic population increases dramatically

Utah avoids mistakes Arizona made on immigration laws

Cops don’t want to be junior Border Patrol agents (except in Maricopa County)

CBS News reports on ATF scandal…was Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry murdered by a gun being tracked by ATF?

Inside ATF…an ugly picture …how many dead bodies are out there as a result of Project Gunrunner?

Senator Grassley struggles to get to the bottom of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s death and the role of ATF

FBI: Friendly fire ruled out in Tucson border agent’s slaying …so which gun fired the bullet that killed Brian Terry?

Grassley blasts Department of Justice on coverup of guns used in Agent Terry’s murder

Dept. of Justice denies gun claim about Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s death

Is there a cover-up on Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murder?

Senator Grassley letters accusing BATFE of letting guns be sold that may have been used in the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry

Was Border Patrol agent Brian Terry killed by a gun bought in Phoenix?

DHS chief Napolitano living in a fantasy land about border security

Guns and Mexico … be very afraid my friends

More on the coverup of the truth about the guns that killed Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry

Secure the border at the border

Border safe and secure, CBP commissioner Bersin proclaims

Dept. of Justice denies gun claim about Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s death

Think things are bad for illegal aliens in Arizona…don’t go to Escondido, California if you are an illegal alien and have any kind of criminal record (including a traffic ticket)

Is there a cover-up on Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murder?

Arizona ranchers question Napolitano’s claims the border is safer

Napolitano touts Homeland Security’s border efforts

Guns from Arizona going to Mexican drug cartels according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns

Senator Grassley letters accusing BATFE of letting guns be sold that may have been used in the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry

Was Border Patrol agent Brian Terry killed by a gun bought in Phoenix?

11.2 million illegal immigrants in US according to Pew Research Center

Arizona legislators determined to keep Arizona as the center of anti-immigrant efforts

Arizona’s harsh immigration law cancer not spreading across nation

Murdered Border Patrol Agent’s mom still in the dark about what really happened

Birthright citizenship bill unveiled by Arizona lawmakers — 2011′s version of SB 1070

McCain willing to seek immigration overhaul bill when the border is secure

Mexican cartel violence prompts calls for bigger National Guard deployment along the border

Mexico headed to collapse?

Celebrating the New Year in the borderlands with automatic weapon gunfire

An NPR report: Nogales, Sonora — Once A Mexican Tourist Town, Now No Man’s Land

Mexican drug cartels killing their border cities

More rumors and few facts regarding the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry

Texas border ranchers face same unsolved problems as Arizona’s border ranchers

Does America hold children responsible for the crimes of their parents?

Feds making a big mistake in secrecy over death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry

Battling the border bandits

Green Valley News Reports Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot in the back

Border Patrol agent death a wake up call to many

Nogales International report on BORTAC and Peck Canyon

Dream Act dead because a majority isn’t a majority in the US Senate

Napolitano confirms bandit gang killed border agent

Borderlands a war zone

Some ideas about how to really secure the border

Tucson Sector U.S. Border Patrol Agent Killed in Line of Duty

The Border is NOT Secure !!!

Mexico a powder keg about to explode

Militia shows up in Sasabe

A 14 point proposal for immigration law reform –”probationary presence” instead of amnesty

Humanitarian crisis on our border must be addressed

Special law enforcement task force needed to prosecute crimes against illegal immigrants

Drug cartels fight over control of northern Sonora

Are the Mexican drug cartels taking over Mexico? Is there any doubt?

Border wildlife refuge turns into battleground over humanitarian aid to illegal immigrants

Broken immigration law fuels illegal entry

What to do about drug cartel “spotters” on the US side of the border?

Napolitano says border is largely controlled

Border Patrol agents in shootout near Nogales — what’s wrong with this story?

Why isn’t the border secure?

Sealing the border is unrealistic says border boss

Marijuana fuels Mexican drug cartel profits

Do people deliberately come to the US to have babies who will be citizens?

Illegal immigration trashes wildlife refuge

Tohono O’odham Reservation deadly place for migrants

Are there fewer drug tunnels in Nogales?

Immigration law reform—overstaying a visa should be a crime

12 million illegal immigrants…a resource that should not be wasted

Some difficult issues in the “amnesty” debate

Border tours offer opportunity to see border realities

Sovereignty and a secure border

The difficulty of securing the border

A Cochise County rancher’s view of the border

Is the effort to secure the border deliberately designed to fail?

Alice in Wonderland and border security

Out in the desert on immigrant trails

Are there some areas near the border that are too dangerous for the Border Patrol?

Mexican drug cartels are not listed as official terrorist organizations

Rumors on the border? What about the truth? Mexican drug cartels are seeking to control the Mexican side of our border

Is the Border Patrol avoiding some areas of the border because “it is too dangerous”?

Posse Comitatus and the Mexican border

Legalize drugs to bankrupt the cartels…Pfizer versus the Aztecas…the ultimate “smack down”.

_____________________

Major posts…..

We need immigration law reform — Opinion

What does “no amnesty” really mean?

Secure the border or immigration law reform first?

Life on the border — the residents of Nogales, Rio Rico and Tubac

Life on the border — the ranchers

Life on the border — Entering the US illegally

More horses needed to secure the border – Commentary

More on the cartel attack on a border ranch

Border ranch attacked by drug cartel

Ranchers report smuggler scouts on the border area hilltops

Send in the US Cavalry

Has the federal government abandoned land to the Mexican drug cartels?

Abolish the Border Patrol and replace it with a new Border Security Agency

The lost border

The lost border part 2

Is racism on the rise in Arizona?

Has Arizona become the “cracker state”?

Klan types ride again … only on electron beams

Guide to Border Patrol Checkpoints

Are there human rights for people who cross the border illegally?

Who will stand up against the racism in Arizona?

Poll results show politicians the way on border issues…if they’ll listen

Background on why SB 1070 even exists

More blame to share on illegal immigration

Who is at fault for illegal immigration?

How would you deport 11 million illegal aliens?

Securing the border and immigration law reform

What is your definition of a “secure border”?

__________________________________

More….

“Attrition through enforcement”…SB 1070 attempts to make Arizona the “bouncer” of illegal aliens

59 dead in the desert in July due to killer coyotes

Why Americans Think (Wrongly) That Illegal Immigrants Hurt the Economy

Law enforcement discretion and SB 1070

Commentary on the judge’s decision to stop parts of SB 1070 from going into effect

Do politicians have the will to work together to stop illegal immigration and drug smuggling?

Should SB 1070 have been enjoined?

Was SB 1070 worth it? Commentary

SB 1070 enjoined by federal judge  July 27, 2010

Read full text of SB 1010

Arpaio takes 50 caliber machine gun out into desert hunting cartel smugglers

Is it safe to visit Southern Arizona ?

Arizona Republic Poll: Most Arizonans would let immigrants stay in U.S

Would you allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States if…

Feds’ suit raises stakes for Arizona’s immigration law

Feds sue Arizona on SB 1070

US sues Arizona over SB 1070 — Justice Department Press Release

Full text of Complaint filed against Arizona on SB 1070 by US

US Brief in support of injunction against SB 1070

Statement of Santa Cruz County Sheriff in support of suit against SB 1070

Statement of Tucson Police Chief in support of suit against SB 1070

What if a state said “welcome” to immigrants?

The immigration debate — it never ends

Recipe for making an American

What’s wrong with SB 1070

Pinal County Sheriff: Mexican drug cartels now control parts of Arizona

SB 1070 does nothing to stop drug cartel gunmen

Can you qualify to be a US citizen?

_______________________

Citizen bloggers are not paid for doing  their blogs.

If you like the View From Baja Arizona you can make a contribution to support this blog.

It is a secure Pay Pal transaction.

Thank you !!!  DONATE BY CLICKING HERE

The state legislature screws Pima County…again.

This time they came up with a clever way to make sure not one penny of border law enforcement assistance money would come to Pima…even though Pima has the largest share of border with Mexico of any Arizona county.

The Republicans up there didn’t like Pima Sheriff Dupnik’s opposition to SB 1070 or his remarks about hate speech.

So take that Pima !

Howie Fischer of Capitol Media Services reports:

Senate budget bill designed to keep cash from Dupnik

Pima excluded from border-crime funding

PHOENIX – Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik need not apply for a share of funds in the Senate budget plan to fight border crime.

A provision buried in one of the 13 budget bills approved late Wednesday spells out that the first $1.6 million of available money go to the sheriff of a county with a population of more than 3 million. That applies only to Maricopa County.

The next $500,000 is earmarked for a sheriff in a county of between 300,000 and 500,000, with only Pinal County meeting that definition. And if there’s anything left, it can be allocated to other counties or cities.

But not Pima County: SB 1621 spells out any county with a population between 500,00 and 2 million “shall not receive any monies from the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement mission fund.”

More….

And you wonder why folks down here want to create Baja Arizona…..

Some folks think the movement to Free Baja Arizona is silly.

But on a national scale, the antics of the Arizona state legislature are doing catastrophic damage to the state’s image. And it is hurting our state’s economy.

It doesn’t help Arizona when the New York Times (I know…a bunch of you think it is Pravda) blasts Arizona. But think about where the people who make major economic decisions live…and what they’re reading this Sunday morning….

Editorial: Angry Arizona, Again
Published: February 26, 2011

Many states are doing urgent business: jobs, the economy, broken budgets. Arizona’s legislators are trying to give government new powers to strip away individual rights, to extend immigration enforcement into schools, public housing, hospitals and doctor’s offices.

More…

From the Arizona Republic:

Gov. Jan Brewer OKs slashing business taxes in bid to lure jobs
by Mary Jo Pitzl – Feb. 18, 2011 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

When people are broke, most of them trim their budgets and try to boost their income.

In Arizona, lawmakers plan to balance future state budgets by spending less while also reducing income – by cutting taxes. They believe the move will bring more business activity and more money down the road.

Gov. Jan Brewer on Thursday signed into law a tax-cut package that legislative budget analysts estimate at $538 million, revamping the state’s business-recruitment arm in the process.

The unanswered question is whether Arizona can erase continuing budget shortfalls while also reducing business taxes.

The tax cuts will come at a challenging time, phasing in just months after a temporary 1-cent-per-dollar sales tax expires. Lawmakers have used that extra revenue to help reduce budget shortfalls so far.

Brewer and the GOP majority in the Legislature say they’re confident they can cut taxes and still balance the budget.

They maintain that lower taxes will attract more businesses. And that will create jobs and reverse an economic downturn that has claimed 300,000 jobs since 2008.

Even before the cuts take effect, Republicans believe the predictability of lower rates will boost business confidence and start generating new jobs.

Democrats and others aren’t so sure. They worry the tax cuts will further deplete state coffers, leading to deep cuts in education and further hampering Arizona’s ability to compete for the high-skill, high-wage jobs the legislation aims to attract.

History shows that although tax incentives can draw new business activity, Arizona has not tried to solve a budget deficit by cutting both spending and revenue.

What it amounts to is a gamble that will play out in the middle of this decade. That’s when the sales-tax increase expires and tax cuts take effect.

For example, the budget for fiscal 2014 will not have the extra $1 billion the sales-tax hike generated. At the same time, the budget will have to absorb the loss of $52 million in assorted business tax cuts.

House Speaker Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, said the biggest gamble is to do nothing. Arizona’s economy, he said, needs the boost the tax cuts will provide.

Debate rages
Although cutting taxes while trying to climb out of a deficit seems contradictory, it’s in vogue. About 20 states are proposing just that, said Jon Shure, deputy director of the state fiscal program for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C.

He believes such policies are folly, a view shared by others at the liberal-leaning think tank.

“It’s a double whammy that will hurt both economic recovery and future growth,” he said.

There is no guarantee the money a business saves from a tax cut, such as the nearly 30-percent cut to the corporate income tax Arizona lawmakers just approved, will stay in the state, he said.

Meanwhile, budget cuts could dull a state’s appeal to employers looking for skilled workers or a strong school system, he said.

“The role of taxes is making sure you have the resources to invest in the things that make a healthy economy,” Shure said. Those range from a reliable transportation network to safe, livable communities.

“There’s so much more that makes a business decide to move than taxes,” Shure said. “Such as, ‘How do I move goods to market, how near am I to my customers, what about a skilled work force?’ ”

But tax cuts in a down economy can work, some economists say, as long as it’s the right taxes: Those that are too high compared with competitors, for example. That might mean raising revenue or fees elsewhere.

“It’s certainly possible to have tax cuts and budget deficits,” said Jonathan Williams, director of tax and fiscal policy at the American Legislative Exchange Council, which works with predominantly conservative lawmakers. “It just makes your budget balancing more difficult.”

Earlier this week, he testified in Michigan, where new Gov. Mitch Snyder is proposing $1.8 billion in business tax cuts.

“It could potentially double the shortfall, but they’re going to replace it with a revenue increase elsewhere,” Williams said.

In Arizona, economist Dennis Hoffman at the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University said the tax cuts might prompt a broader conversation about taxes. Individuals today pay less per $1,000 of income than they have in decades, Hoffman said.

“This problem is structural,” he said of the gap between Arizona’s tax collections and the demand for state services.

“The only way you can fix this is to figure out what level of service people want, and then go to the people and ask them to support it.”

There is evidence that tax cuts, especially targeted incentives, can improve the economy, he said. It’s unfair to assume businesses must shoulder the bulk of the tax burden, he said, since individuals put a lot of demand on state services.

However, politicians are skittish about asking citizens to pay more.

Tax cuts failed last year
Last year, a similar attempt to cut taxes in the midst of a deficit battle ran aground in the state Senate.

Then-president Bob Burns, along with Brewer, objected to cutting taxes when the state’s finances were upside down.

“It’s a pretty tough balancing act, especially with the level of deficit we have,” said Burns, a Peoria Republican who was term limited from office. “To bring this back into balance, I don’t see how we do it without going into K-12.”

Burns remains skeptical about the effect on the deficit, currently estimated at about $1 billion, but said he understands the desire to use lower taxes to lure business. A stable state government is important, too, he said.

“We need to demonstrate to the rest of the country that we can manage our finances,” he said.

Brewersaid by the time the tax cuts phase in on Jan. 1, 2014, the economy will be brighter, and the state budget should be able to absorb what she believes will be a short-term loss of tax collections.

A new approach on ‘cuts’
Arizona’s response to this economic crisis – cutting taxes and cutting programs – is different than past economic downturns.

Last year, Brewer pushed through the sales-tax hike, while also cutting programs.

Hoffman and fellow ASU economist Tom Rex in 2008 authored a paper that tracked how policy makers reacted to recent recessions. In the late 1980s, it was a mix of tax increases and budget cuts.

The downturn triggered by the 9/11 terrorist attacks was resolved by spending cuts and tapping the state’s rainy-day fund.

Their study concluded: “In Arizona, tax increases and decreases over the last 30 years have had no perceptible impact on economic growth.”

But the GOP-led Legislature points to recent tax incentives to attract solar-industry jobs as proof that lower taxes can attract increased business.

Reading from a Greater Phoenix Economic Council report, Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, noted that the incentives have drawn $139 million in capital investment, with another $1.7 billion in investment committed by various solar interests.

Spending cuts certain
Meanwhile, the Legislature is poised to take a “huge slice” out of the state’s budget deficit, Adams said.

Brewer has proposed a budget with more than $1 billion in permanent cuts for the next fiscal year, and lawmakers say they will cut more as they finalize a budget next month.

While the spending cuts will chop down the deficit, they won’t eliminate it. Brewer’s plan still anticipates a $179 million deficit at the end of fiscal 2012, which will be papered over by short-term borrowing and other accounting gimmicks.

Education advocates and Democrats worries that the budget cuts will be deepened by the revenue lost to the tax cuts.

Unless the economy comes roaring back, filling state coffers with new tax revenue, cuts are unavoidable.

“If these jobs aren’t created, we’ve got to have a way to dig ourselves out of a hole,” Jennifer Laredo of the Arizona Education Association told a Senate panel earlier this week. The state’s largest teacher’s union is wary future cuts will come from education.

She urged lawmakers to tie the start of tax cuts to improvements in the economy, rather than the exact dates spelled out in the bill.

The tax breaks:

Cutting the corporate income tax rate from just below 6 percent to 4.9 percent, giving Arizona the fifth-lowest rate in the nation.

Allowing some multistate corporations to pay no corporate income taxes at all.

Altering how businesses are assessed for property-tax purposes, potentially reducing their liability by 10 percent.

Creating new state tax credits for firms that create jobs that pay at least the median wage for the county where they are located, up to $3,000 per job for three years.

Permitting companies to write off new equipment purchases faster, reducing their state income taxes.

Increasing the amount of equipment that businesses can exempt from being assessed for property tax purposes.

Creating a new $25 million a year “deal closing” fund to help persuade firms to move to the state.

The state of Arizona is in a hole. The deficit for this year is around $800 million and next year estimated to be double that.

So what does the state legislature  do? Cut business taxes by $400 million

It is said the first rule of getting out of a hole is to quit digging

Guess the folks in Phoenix don’t believe that.

The tax cuts are aimed at stimulating business to spend more money and thus increase tax revenues by the growth in economic activity 

Remember “trickle down”?

The state of Arizona is in a hole. The deficit for this year is around $800 million and next year estimated to be double that.

So what does the state legislature want to do? Cut business taxes by $400 million

It is said the first rule of getting out of a hole is to quit digging

Guess the folks in Phoenix don’t believe that.

The proposed tax cuts are aimed at stimulating business to spend more money and thus increase tax revenues by the growth in economic activity 

Remember “trickle down”?

According to the Star here are some of the tax cuts and tax breaks that are expected to be on Governor Brewer’s desk by Wednesday:

Cutting the corporate income tax rate from just below 6 percent to 4.9 percent, giving Arizona the fifth-lowest rate in the nation.

Allowing some multistate corporations to pay no corporate income taxes at all.

Altering how businesses are assessed for property-tax purposes, potentially reducing their liability by 10 percent.

Creating new state tax credits for firms that create jobs that pay at least the median wage for the county where they are located, up to $3,000 per job for three years.

Permitting companies to write off new equipment purchases faster, reducing their state income taxes.

Increasing the amount of equipment that businesses can exempt from being assessed for property tax purposes.

Creating a new $25 million a year “deal closing” fund to help persuade firms to move to the state.

Arguably most of these tax cuts and breaks make sense if you are in business. I especially have though the property tax on “personal property” really was damaging to business.

Reducing the assesment ratio is also good.

But with the size of the current deficit, all this means right now is steeper cuts are going to have to be made in funding for education, health care and just about everything else.

News story from the Arizona Republic…notice the spin….

Gov. Jan Brewer touts bill to reduce business taxes, create jobs

by Mary Jo Pitzl and Ginger Rough – Feb. 15, 2011 12:00 AM

The Arizona Republic

Gov. Jan Brewer and lawmakers unveiled a wide-ranging package of tax cuts and incentives on Monday that they believe will usher in a new era of economic prosperity.

Using Arizona’s 99th birthday as a platform, they said a special legislative session this week will map a new course for Arizona’s economy: one that relies more on high-paying, skilled jobs and less on the boom-and-bust cycle of housing growth.

“This is the most historic piece of legislation to be heard by the Legislature in decades,” Brewer said at a news conference.

The wide-ranging Senate Bill 1001 is filled with tax breaks and incentives for businesses large and small. The legislative budget office estimated its cost at $538 million by 2018, when all the tax cuts are phased in. Brewer’s office offered a lower tab, about $400 million.

The proposal comes as Arizona faces its fourth straight year of budget deficits. This year’s gap is estimated at $763 million and a $1.15 billion deficit in fiscal 2012, according to Brewer’s office.

Brewer’s advisors acknowledged that there is no guarantee the changes would yield enough new investment and jobs to offset the anticipated revenue loss. “I can’t answer the question,” said John Arnold, director of the Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting.

Still, Arnold and other proponents maintain the moves are necessary to boost the economy.

They said lower tax rates will attract new business investments, making up for the lost revenue. Arizona had drawn national and international attention not for its tax structure but for social policies that some said paint an unwelcoming image of the state.

House Speaker Kirk Adams, who introduced a similar tax bill last year, acknowledged the state needs to be concerned with its reputation but said a hospitable business climate would trump any negative images.

As Brewer and legislative leaders unveiled their tax plan, protesters gathered outside the Capitol to object to a bill that would require hospitals to check the citizenship of patients before admitting them for non-emergency care.

Adams, R-Mesa, said businesses will look at balance sheets and financial decisions when making location decisions.

“It’s a business decision, not an image decision,” he said.

Democrats, who were not consulted as Brewer, Adams and Senate President Russell Pearce worked on the 200-page bill, chafed at the holes they believe the tax cuts would punch in the state budget.

“There are corporate tax cuts in this bill that can’t be paid for,” said House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix.

The bill faces relatively smooth sailing, since it has support of the GOP leadership and Brewer and Republicans have more than enough votes to pass it without Democrats.

A four-year phase-down of the corporate income tax, at a cumulative cost of $220 million, is the biggest-ticket item in the bill.

Arizona is in the middle of the pack on corporate income tax; a 2-percentage-point cut would give it the fifth-lowest rate in the nation.

Beginning Jan. 1, 2014, the 6.968 percent tax would reduce by 0.5 percentage points a year, settling at 4.9 percent in 2018.

Adams said changes to the business personal property tax should spur new investment next year.

The bill proposes to increase the exemption for business equipment purchased in 2012, raising it to $79,000 from $66,000. It would be adjusted annually.

“For small businesses, they can write off equipment purchases faster, which could be an incentive to buy more,” Adams said.

Coupled with other changes to the tax businesses pay on equipment, such as accelerating the equipment-depreciation schedule and reducing assessment rates, proponents feel the bill would give business an immediate, competitive edge.

Tim Lawless, president of the Arizona chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, called the proposals a “game changer.”

“The initiative to reduce business property taxes will soon move the needle when firms again make job expansion and relocation decisions,” he said.

Most of the tax breaks would not kick in until July 2013, after the temporary, 1-cent-per-dollar sales-tax increase Brewer championed expires.

She said the delay would keep faith with the voters, who overwhelmingly approved the tax to protect education, health-care and public-safety spending.

“I assured them at the time that none of that money would be used for tax cuts,” Brewer said.

The package includes the abolition of the state Department of Commerce and the creation of the Arizona Commerce Authority, a public-private partnership designed to attract and retain jobs in Arizona.

The private businessmen who would run the authority lauded Brewer for relinquishing some of her power as governor by agreeing to share control with lawmakers and the private sector.

The Commerce Department is part of the executive branch and controlled by the governor.

Don Cardon, president and CEO of the authority, said the business-oriented group would operate with transparency and openness.

Among other things, it would administer the annual $25 million “deal-closing fund” that is part of the bill. Other aspects of SB 1001 include:

- Termination of the enterprise-zone program, which gave tax breaks to selected businesses. In its place, companies that create new jobs that pay above the median wage in a county, and that cover at least 65 percent of employee health-care costs, will receive a $9,000 tax credit for each new job. Total credits would be capped at $30 million a year.

- Reauthorization of the job-training program, which lapsed because of budget cuts.

- An increase in the “sales factor,” which exempts companies from the income tax for that portion of its sales made out of state. The idea is to incentivize businesses that export goods and materials. The sales factor, which currently exempts 80 percent of the sales, would increase over five years to 100 percent, at a cost Brewer’s office estimates at $95 million.

- Lowering the rate at which various business property-tax categories are assessed. This would normally cause residential property taxes to rise. Lawmakers say they would protect homeowners from an increase by allowing a state subsidy to continue for primary residences but ending it for rental properties. This, they believe, would raise enough money to offset the lower assessments for business properties.

- Elimination of the capital-gains tax on investments in qualified small businesses. However, the program would be capped at $20 million over its five-year life.

- Expansion of the research-and-development tax credit by 10 percent for companies that collaborate with university researchers.

The Star has a report about the Town of Marana’s efforts to get control of its wastewater treatment system away from Pima County…

Bill seeks to give sewage plant to Marana

…The bill would allow any town or city to “acquire all or any portion of a sewage system located within or serving the city or town and owned or operated by a county,” as long as the voters in the city or town approve it, at least 75 percent of the sewage treated there is generated from within the city or town, and the municipality pays the county for any outstanding debt on the treatment plant.

More…

So you are asking yourself “why do I care if Marana and Pima County are fighting over who owns a wastewater treatment plant in Marana?”

According to the Star story,  Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said allowing any municipality to have part of the regional wastewater system would cost all customers more in their sewer bills.

 But there’s a lot more to this story.

Pima County is the only county in Arizona with state law authority to own and operate wastewater treatment plants.

In the rest of the state, wastewater plants are mostly owned and operated  by cities and towns with a few private companies serving areas and which are regulated by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC).

The ACC has no state constitutional authority to regulate utilities such as wastewater owned and operated by cities and towns (or counties for that matter).

Prior to 1979 the City of Tucson owned and operated its own wastewater utility serving the city, and treated wastewater at its Roger Road WWTP which is famous for its smell.

Pima County had a sewer district in the northwest area up along Oracle Road and Tucson challenged Pima’s authority to offer sewer service.

Tucson and Pima settled their dispute with an infamous 1979 Intergovernmental Agreement wherein Tucson handed over its sewer system and treatment plant to Pima, agreed to let Pima be the regional sewer provider, and Tucson kept 90% of the effluent from all sewage treatment plants owned by Pima County…even if the sewage did not come from Tucson’s water service area.

This was sort of like Russia and Germany carving up Poland in 1939.

Tucson got legislation introduced into the state legislature giving Pima authority to own and operate wastewater systems.

One of the concepts back in those days was Tucson was hell bent to be the regional water utility in the metro area, having bought out many of the private water companies within and without Tucson’s city limits.

By 1979 Tucson had water customers all over the Catalina Foothills, and as far south as Corona de Tucson…miles from its city limits.

A good argument can be made that Tucson’s pursuit of water empire fueled the suburban sprawl outside its city limits.

Pima County, armed with unilateral wastewater authority, unleashed a wave of growth in the Northwest Area…north of River Road, west of Oracle Road out to the Pinal County line. About one third of all metro Tucsonans live in this area.

In the rest of Arizona, especially in Maricopa County, both water and waster are run by their cities and towns. If you were a developer with land outside of the city limits of Phoenix, Mesas, Tempe or whatever and you needed water and sewer service for your subdivision, you had to annex your land into the city or town providing the water and sewer service.

In Pima County a new subdivision outside Tucson’s city limits could get water service from Tucson and sewer service from Pima County. Cities and towns could not force new growth inside city or town incorporated limits.

The result is there are more people living in the unincorporated area of Pima County ( maybe 300,000 out of a total population 1 million) than in Maricopa County(maybe 200,000 out of a population 4 million). State revenue share is based on population inside a city or town….so Pima residents get screwed.

But this was all done in the name of regional management of water and wastewater.

Then along came Marana which incorporated as a town and many years later its voters authorized Marana to be in the water utility business. Ever since Marana has been busy buying up water companies inside its jurisdiction, and trying to oust Tucson Water from serving water inside Marana. 

Not a lot of love is lost historically between Marana and Tucson since Marana was originally incorporated to protect Marana area farmers from having their water stolen by Tucson. Tucson had already bought some 20,000 acres of farms in the Avra Valley to mine groundwater from that valley to feed Tucson’s growth (our local version of the movie “China Town”).

Under the more modern 100 year assured water supply and water management goals imposed in this state after 1980, effluent has become a very important source of renewable water.

Under the 1979 IGA between Tucson and Pima, Pima controls the effluent…even if it originates from Marana’s water utility. Pima has some effluent control…but the effluent ends up running down the Santa Cruz River creating endangered species fish habitat and recharging the aquifer of Pinal County.

Under no rational analysis can Pima’s management of effluent and placement of its wastewater treatment plants be viewed as having anything to do with good water management. Pima scuttled a plan to have a wastewater treatment plant in Vail so effluent from Vail could be re-used in Vail. Instead, effluent from Vail ends up in the Santa Cruz River north of Pima’s Ina Road wastewater treatment plant some 40 miles away.

Pima also wanted wastewater from Sahuarita to flow into the regional treatment system at Roger and Ina Road, denying Sahuarita  the ability to beneficially use effluent in the same area water was pumped.  Sahuarita got authority to have its own wastewater system…the only city or town in Pima County that has that authority (remember the norm in Arizona is for cities and towns to provide wastewater collecion and treatment and no other county in the state can do this).

Marana comes along and sues Pima over a wastewater treatment plant located in Marana treating sewage which originates from Marana’s water utility. Marana argued that the wastewater plant was in Marana and thus Marana had the right to own like in the same way when Marana annexes a road owned by Pima, the road ends up belonging to Marana. Pima fought this in court and Marana lost.

So Marana went to the court of higher resort in Arizona…the state legislature, and got a bill  (SB 1171) passed by the State Senate the other day giving Marana the ability to oust Pima County from control of the wastewater treatment plant in Marana. Marana would have to pay whatever the remaining debt is on the plant.

Pima wants fair market value which it claimed inb the Star story was an Arizona Corporation Commission requirement. Hucklberry needs to talk to his lawyer about this because he is flat wrong. The only time a municipality has to pay fair market value for utility property is when it condemns that property…and that is not ACC law but state law…and that only applies to privately owned utility assets. Not something taxpayers already own.

The primary reason Marana wants control of that wastewater treatment plant is they want control of the effluent…which is something every city and town with a water utility and a wastewater utility has in this state…outside Pima.

Pima’s Huckelberry is whining that breakup of its regional wastewater system will be bad for everyone else because it might cost more to other Pima residents if Marana goes it alone. Fewer residents served by Pima’ssystem…divide the same cost by fewer residents equalling high sewer rates. This argument presumes there would not be new sewer customers outside of Marana in Pima’s service area.

Huckleberry also argues new customers hooking up to Pima’s regional system will pay more because they are very costly (because Pima is providing fish habitat) , and fewer connection (having lost Marana’s growth) means new development in the rest of the county will pay more.

Like does anyone care if new development in Pima County has to pay more for Pima’s wastewater treatment capacity?

The argument Pima makes leaves some things out.

Pima is spending upwards of $240 million on ts big treatment plants along the Santa Cruz River because the effluent is ending up in the Santa Cruz River and triggering very strict water quality standards to protect fish in that river.

Other wastewater treatment entities figured out discharging effluent into rivers was not smart because the beneficial reuse of the effluent was lost…like being able to deny new golf courses access to municipal potable water service and forcing the golf courses to use treated effluent.

Once one is discharging effluent to a river…it is likely environmental groups would claim removing the effluent for other uses is destroying endangered species habitat…and thus Pima is probably never going to be able to remove the effluent it dumps into the river to recharge or other beneficial uses. And Pima doesn’t need recharge credits because it is not a water provider and has no authority whatsoever to be in the water utility business.

If there was anything most Tucsonans could agree on it is that golf courses should never be allowed access to potable water supplies and even existing golf courses should be forced to switch to treated effluent.

Pima is spending $240 million of Pima’s sewer users money to improve fish habitat.

Marana can’t enforce a requirement to use only effluent on a golf course inside its town boundaries because Pima owns the wastewater treatment plant and as a consequence owns the effluent (note under Arizona law he who owns a wastewater plant owns the effluent it produces)…except…because of the 1979 IGA with Tucson…Pima gives significant control of that effluent to Tucson.

The Marana treatment plant does not discharge to the river and thus it is not encumbered with fish habitat protection. That treatment plant’s effluent is available for recharge and for non-potable industrial and irrigation uses.

Beginning to understand why the 1979 IGA between Tucson and Pima smells like the Roger Road wastewater treatment plant?

Pima is justly worried that if the Marana legislation passes, it is going to have other problems in the region.

It should take about one second for Sahuarita to go after Pima County’s wastewater treatment plant that serves Green Valley for the same reasons as Marana…control of effluent is crucial for good water resource management.

And Oro Valley has long wanted effluent access and control for its purposes.

Effluent is a hugely important future water resource in the region….it is a potential recharge water source and it is really valuable for new uses that can be shifted away from potable water like industrial uses, golf courses, and outdoor irrigation.

In Prescott Valley, that town sold its effluent recharge rights to new development to provide an assured water supply for something like $20,000 an acre foot.

It is just contrary to good local water management to have Pima going in one direction and actually working against Tucson and surrounding towns.

One of the biggest mistakes Tucson made was getting out of its wastewater treatment business and turning that over to Pima…losing a huge annexation card in the process. Tucson did keep control of effluent…but not just its own…but effluent from the water supplies of its neighbors. Not good.

State Sen. Frank Antenori and state Rep. Vic Williams are two of the nine Southern Arizona legislators who sponsored the  Marana wastewater takeover bill.

The bill now goes to the House of Representatives.

Huckelberryand his radical environmental board of supervisors may discover that they have few friends on the House side of the State Capitol.

[Note: From 1974 to 1978 I was an assistant city attorney for Tucson involved in water issues and I actually wrote the language adopted by the state legislature giving Pima County wastewater authority...one of my bigger mistakes of my career. I did some work for Pima on federal water quality Clean Water Act issues fighting the EPA requirements to spend millions to create happy fish habitat and then represented  Marana in its quest to gain water utility authority and buy out the private utilities and irrigation district that served development in that town.]

SB 1171

One of the ironies of the 2010 election in Arizona is the number of Democrats left in the state legislature doesn’t give them the ability to do much of anything except watch the Republicans slash education and health care and create hell for illegal immigrants in the state.

It isn’t like the Republican majority last session let the Democrats have any say. Only the next session it will be really obvious that Democrats in the state legislature are essentially meaningless. They probably wouldn’t be missed if they didn’t even bother to show up for legislative sessions.

Generally Republicans oppose paying people not to do any work. However, a situation is brewing where Democrat members of the state legislature will be getting paid to basically watch the legislative process from their desks on the House and Senate floors. Great seats to watch a horror movie in the making even if they are in the back of the rooms.

Here are some (tongue in cheek) suggestions for additional stupid laws the Arizona state legislature can consider to purify Arizona and “encourage” foreigners to leave the state:

Ban foreign food restaurants: Using state health code laws, revoke the licenses of Mexican food restaurants, because everyone knows that if Mexicans have a place to eat, they will migrate to Arizona.

Ban the use of non-English names for cities, towns, mountains, rivers and streets: No more Catalina and Rincon mountains, or Pantano Road, or Colorado River or Pima County. Rename Tucson and and Sierra Vista. English is the official language in Arizona, so no Spanish or Indian words can be used for any place or geographic identification. Don’t let them foreigners be able to find their way around the state with familiar words and names.

Ban the use of non-English names for businesses: State and local governments must only license businesses named using American words. No more “Taco” Bell

Ban foreign music on radio and television: Can’t have Norteno or Mariachi or polka music on our airwaves competing with good old American music. We can’t let “them” feel comfortable living in the state listening to “their” own music.

Ban the use of non-English names for babies born in the state: Birth certificates must be in English. Americanize everyone’s names…like they did at Ellis Island…Jorge becomes George, Martinez becomes Martin, Holub becomes Hollow.

Deny American citizenship to babies born in Arizona to an illegal alien mother: Oops…they’re actually trying to do that one.