< PREVIOUS ] [ 2002 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Although I'm probably as talented as anyone else when
it's time to deliver a populist rant against the special
interests,
it is actually one of those phrases, like
Colorado values,
that really doesn't convey much in
the context of a political campaign.
Let us presume that the candidates are running for
positions where they're supposed to serve the public
interest
as county commissioners, state legislators,
governors, representatives, senators, etc.
Under our system, how do we define the public interest? In essence, it's a conflation of the special interests. You want better highways because you use them a lot. That's a special interest, I use the library a lot more than I use the highways, so I want more funding for libraries. That's a special interest.
Both our special interests concern the allocation of
public resources, and there's a case to be made for both
highways and libraries. But calling the other side a
special interest,
while pretending that your
position alone is the legitimate public interest,
is
just name-calling, rather than an attempt to find an
equitable way to distribute public resources.
Your neighbor who's a teacher wants more resources for public schools, as does your other neighbor who has children in those public schools. Our kids are out of school and we'd like to expand the local trail system.
I want access to public lands, you don't want traffic near your scenic 35-acre homesite that borders public land. You own shares in a banking company's stock and want a return on your investment, I don't want to have to pay higher service charges. I want electricity, you don't want a high-voltage power line near your house. You want your pharmaceutical stocks to pay a decent return, I want my parents to be able to afford the medicine they need.
And so it goes, for almost any issue you can imagine.
Wherever there's one special interest,
almost
invariably there are one or more competing special
interests.
We elect people to listen to the pleadings
of these special interests, and then cobble together some
kind of compromise that might serve the public
interest.
Another problem with this special interests
approach is that it lends itself to convenient
name-calling. especially if you're just trying to be a good
citizen who respects the U.S. Constitution.
If you defend the First Amendment, then you can be
branded as a tool of the pornography lobby
or if
you're luckier, merely a lackey for the media
interests.
Defend the Second, and you're a shill for
the gun lobby.
Defend the Fourth and Fifth, and you're
just a property-rights advocate,
unless you're a
bleeding heart who would let violent criminals get off
on technicalities.
All of us have special interests
and we all have
the right to petition the government. That's how it's
supposed to work, isn't it? And if some office-holder
decided that he knew the public interest
without
ever listening to a constituent or conducting a hearing,
wouldn't we rightfully think he was arrogant
and
out of touch with the public
?
That said, there's another statement that pops up with
almost nauseating frequency. Candidates from all manner of
parties promise to keep Colorado water in
Colorado.
That resonates well, especially in a drought year. It gives you the idea that you'd be able to water your lawn if we didn't let those greedy downstream states, or perhaps the evil federal government, take away our water.
But in truth, the only water that Colorado might own that we haven't already developed is our full share under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. That might be as much as a million acre-feet in a good year (when we probably wouldn't need the water, but that's another matter). This water leaves the state at the Utah line just west of Grand Junction.
That's the only relevant water when a candidate wants to
keep Colorado water in Colorado.
Where does the
candidate propose to store it? Down there, where the
pumping costs would be tremendous to get it to where the
water is needed? Who gets to pay the bill for the Big
Straw?
Or would Colorado's water be diverted and stored up
high, along the Continental Divide? Then, whose valleys
would be drowned and whose trout streams would be destroyed
to keep Colorado water in Colorado
? Which Western
Slope basin would have to suffer lower stream flows?
Any candidate who promises to keep Colorado water in Colorado ought to explain exactly how this would be done and how it would be financed. Also we should know the exact location of the proposed Sacrifice Zone, because we'll need a big one if we're going to keep Colorado water in Colorado.
Of course, that would give the special interests
who want to protect that zone a chance to organize, but you
can't have everything.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2002 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >