WATER CONSORTIUM PRESUMES TO PROMOTE INNOVATION

I read with considerable interest the article authoried by Kathy Jacobs, Executive Director of the Az Water Institute, in the Arizona Republic … wherein she touts the innovations this water consortium is promoting with your tax dollars … innovations for whose benefit … ?

Having been a proactive “stakeholder” in a number of ADEQ rule revisions on wastewater I must inquire where was AZ WATER INSTITUTE in all these discussions – absent.

Or is Ms. Jacob’s suggesting that the issues facing the more than 500,000 currently installed residential onsite septic systems do not negatively impact Arizona’s water sustainability, which the article notes is the focus of this institute’s efforts…? That Arizona does not currently have a program implemented which legally mandates field verification that every septic tank installed is water tight certainly does not negatively impact Az’s water sustainability, does it…? That Arizona does not currently have a legally accountable mandated residential onsite septic system inspection and certification program, certainly does not negatively impact Az’s water sustainability, does it…?

This Institute, generously supported with your general tax fund $$$, is an active participant along with SRP, ADEQ, DWR, Agri-Business Council, CAP, City of Phoenix, City of Tucson and the Bureau of Reclaimation on issues and topics of concern to this consitiuent group. Notice any recurring theme … ? Entities with deep pocket$ always get a seat at the negotiating table while those actually picking up the tab are notably denied acce$$ into this privileged territory.

Moreover the more than 500,000 currently installed septic systems have a continuing and major impact upon the quality and sustainability of your drinking water. Unfortunately as “we” permitted the implementation of rules and laws governing the design, installation, O&M, and resale of any septic system with absolutely “no-teeth” is a testiment to our unbridled allegience to the prevailing public economic mantra of unsustainable and unrestircted growth. As a consequence of our collective action we stand at the precipice calling for unparrelled leadership for us to emerge from this precarious abyss successfully. From where do “we” – that’s you and me – expect this unparrelled leadership to emerge…?

The real tragedy is that innovatative truth not sanctioned as politiclly correct can not find support to see the light of day. Today the illusive power of money drives our political process, drives our commitment to finding solutions, drives the solutions which get published by corporate controlled mass media and drives how our institutions of higher learning report the “studies” funded by their corporate financial backers.

Count me as one who does not find evidence that my tax money is being used wisely by the Arizona Water Institute to honestly promote innovation. It’s business as ususal with same players using your money to promote what is in their best interest, not your$.

////////////////////////////////////////////////

I provided Ms. Jacobs with a copy of the above prior to presenting it to you, wherein I suggested and invited her to perform some homework on my offering. To follow is the chronology of the email exchange between us – raw and without any edit – which I present for your consideration.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

At 05:31 PM 1/11/2008, you wrote:
Ms. Jacobs I though I would offer you the opportunity to look over and offer any input or comment on my assessment of your position noted in the Arizona Republic before I released it to my email list. I welcome any comment you might care to offer.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From: Kathy Jacobs [mailto:kjacobs@azwaterinstitute.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:28 PM
To: Paul F Miller
Cc: cgg@azwaterinstitute.org
Subject: Re: your newsletter
Mr. Miller,
Obviously I do not concur with your conclusions about the Water
Institute and would invite you to learn more before you take us on in this way. If you read the article you will note that we are focusing on solving problems for water users across all of Arizona, including tribal entities, watershed groups, smaller communities, etc. We are SPECIFICALLY focusing on rule revisions for wastewater reuse, septic tanks, etc, and I would strongly recommend that you talk to Chuck Graf, our Associate Director at ADEQ, before you distribute this newsletter. His email cgg@azdeq.gov and his phone is 480-759-7524.

I appreciate the opportunity to review this before you distributed it.

Kathy

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

At 03:27 PM 1/12/2008, you wrote:
Greetings Ms. Jacobs ...

Before I send the email I forwarded to you, I feel obligated to make sure "we" - that's you and me - are talking the same language and reading from the same book. Before you reject the issues I have raised you may find it beneficial to check with Mr. Graf as I have had the opportunity to interact with him for a number of years prior to his formal retirement from adeq. believe he can, should he choose, verify the effort "stakeholders" like me have attempted to make respecting the ADEQ wastewater rules affecting all residential onsite wastewater treatment and effluent disposal systems.
You might also choose to discuss who I am with Mr. Graf and my interaction with ADEQ for the past 33 years. You might also choose to question Mr. Graf about contacting another former adeq employee, Mr. Jack Bale, whose insight into adeq could be quite revealing to you.

The fact remains your Water Institute was not an active participant at any of the meetings which stakeholder groups had with ADEQ prior to its rule in 2000 or the revision of Nov 2005. Perhaps given your group's apparent" status" you were granted an "insider" briefing on the rules proposed. I have not seen your Water Institute at any of the hearings in Sedona relative to the Bella Terra project or am I mistaken....? I have not seen your Water Institute as an active "player" either pro or con on the
Indian's issues respecting the use of sewage to make artificial snow at the Snow Bowl, an area deemed by their culture as sacred for centuries or am I mistaken again...?

You note in your email reply to me .... "we are SPECIFICALLY focusing on rule revisions for wastewater reuse, septic tanks, etc" ... SPECIFICALLY what is your Water Institutes position for the record on legally accountable field verification and water testing of all septic tanks prior to use...? And SPECIFICALLY what is your Water Institutes position for the record on legally accountable residential septic inspection and certification as currently mandated by ADEQ....? And SPECIFICALLY what is your Water Institute’s position for the record on wastewater reuse and use of greywater at residential sites...? That your group is at least in part funded by the tax payers of Arizona, I would believe I and we are entitled to have the positions your Water Institutes is advocating in our behalf written out for our observation and evaluation, don't you agree...?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully submitted,

Paul F Miller
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Original Message-----
From: Kathy Jacobs [mailto:kjacobs@azwaterinstitute.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 8:04 PM
To: Paul F Miller
Cc: cgg@azwaterinstitute.org
Subject: Re: Let's check with Mr. Graft shall we

Paul,
I'm not exactly sure what happened that resulted in your concerns about the Water Institute, and perhaps we should start this conversation over again by phone. I actually don't think we are "talking the same language" as you suggest below. The Water Institute is a very small organization. We are not an advocacy organization (in fact we have been told not to take positions on policy issues). We provide technical support to a wide number of agencies, tribes, watershed groups, utilities, etc. and focus on developing solutions to water quality and quantity issues from a science and capacity building perspective. We are not "stakeholders" and were not asked to engage in the rule processes that you mention. Chuck is working on several projects that relate to improving septic tank management and regulation of wastewater, but not by taking positions on proposed rules. There is more than one way to contribute to the issues you are concerned about. If you would like to talk about these issues further or to meet I would be happy to do that. In the meantime, Chuck actually works for the Water Institute as the liaison with ADEQ and his office is at ADEQ - so he has many opportunities to stay abreast of issues there. You are more than welcome to talk to him. Thanks for letting us know about your concerns and I look forward to talking with you. Kathy

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

At 10:40 AM 1/13/2008, you wrote:
Greeting Kathy:

I am disappointed, though not entirely surprised you chose NOT to answer any of the questions I posed to you in my email. It would I believe, behoove you to thoroughly check me out with Mr. Graf your Water Institute's liaison with adeq as you note.

Allow me to be as candid as I am able in the moment with you. It was under
Mr. Graf's watch at adeq the most recent rule revisions propagated by adeq were formulated. In his capacity as Assistant Director of the Water Quality division, he hand picked the chairman - Mr. Larry Hawke - a Pima County DEQ regulator and former member of the Az State Legislature to head and to drive his initiatives. Mr. Graf and his associate Mr. Swanson in particular were instrumental in denying the "stakeholders" the time honestly required to put into place a "consensus" document. Instead, adeq yielded to the political pressures exerted by AG, SRP, Counties, big cities and denied those involved in Az's Onsite Industry - residential on-site wastewater treatment and effluent disposal the time required to promulgate a legally accountable set of rules. The home builders, the real estate industry were able to particularly dilute those sections of the rule respecting WATER TIGHT SEPTIC TANK WITH MANDATORY FIELD VERFICATION as well as RESIDENTIAL SEPTIC INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION. Moreover, in my dealings with Mr. Graf in whatever capacity he has occupied for adeq he had consistently demonstrated his word is not to be trusted. Sorry, but, Mr. Graf is the "fox-inside-the-henhouse." Actually if you want there are a number of other "stakeholders" who can offer supporting as well as contradictory input. Knowing that Chuck Graf is reputedly working on behalf of the citizens and taxpayers of Arizona on issues respecting septic tanks and the other vital issues affecting homeowners with residential wastewater treatment and effluent disposal issues I do find a bit frightening.

I repeat my request of you I posed in a prior email ....." that your group is at least in part funded by the tax payers of Arizona, I would believe I and we are entitled to have the positions your Water Institute is advocating in our behalf written out for our observation and evaluation, don't you agree."..?

I am hopefully the Water Institute of which you are the Executive
Director will respond in a timely and openly and honestly.

Respectfully,

Paul F. Miller

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

And the last and most recent email …..Paul,
I understand that you are frustrated with your dealings with ADEQ and Chuck, but I am not sure we are getting anywhere with these communications. AWI is not an advocacy group and does not take positions on rules or laws or policies that are being promulgated in this state. We were told not to do this by the founders of our organization, and there are good reasons for this. If you would like to continue this conversation by phone I am happy to do so during business hours, i.e., 8-5 Monday through Friday, on my office phone, which is 520-626-5627. Thanks for your interest in engaging with us. Kathy

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

My final comment . . . I must confess, initially I found Ms. Jacobs choice to “stone-wall” what I believed were reasonable questions of her quite maddening. In light of the recent revelation that Maricopa County’s chief law enforcement officer – Andrew Thomas – chooses to arrogantly and capriciously defy everyone and not reveal the cost of his recent self-serving propaganda brochure makes the action of Ms. Jacob pale in comparison. I say this not to excuse, Ms. Jacob’s choice as I steadfastly remain of the opinion, she has both a legal and moral obligation to be forthcoming with the answers to the questions posed to her. But I fully realize I can not force her to respond. Assessing her email, it appears to me that Ms. Jacobs does not have the answers and moreover appears reluctant to call upon her ADEQ liaison to provide them to her and for us. One might be inclined to inquire, why … ?

Respectfully,