A Django site.
August 21, 2008

Jeremy Robb
scothoser
Scothoser's Corner
» Rainwater Collection Plans Part 2: New Legislation Allowing Collection??

Again, like with many of my other governmental inquiries through email, I have as yet received a reply from the Water Resources board regarding the avenues available for rainwater collection on an urban farm.  And then, a few weeks ago, I heard a report (or a followup at the very least) that legislators here in Utah are looking into reforming the Water Rights laws to allow for residential rainwater collection.  

So why did it take me so long to reply?  Because I can’t find any reference to the followup report on KSL, nor can I find a reference online from any legislator that is taking up the fight.  So in spite of the total lack of references, I’m reassured that someone somewhere is willing to take up this fight.  

Perhaps that is why I am not getting a reply from the Water Resources board.  Perhaps… or perhaps it is because I made the inquiry via email.  Either way, it looks as though sometime in the future it may be possible to build and collect rainwater for use on an urban farm.  Unfortunately I don’t know when or who is fighting for this.  Perhaps it’s time I contact my local legislator again.  Maybe I’ll get a reply.

November 7, 2007

Doran Barton
fozzmoo
Fozzolog
» The final word on vouchers

I have been so busy lately, but have wanted to chime in on the state referendum up for vote here in Utah today. I feel a little guilty for even mentioning it because I was so busy today I didn't even get around to voting and that is not something I am proud of.

If I had voted, I would have voted FOR Referendum 1, also known as "that school voucher thing." But, I really don't care what happens. Looking at the preliminary election results this evening, it doesn't look good for the referendum at this point.

I have two big problems with the legislation that was passed and signed into law. First: It provides vouchers to parents who want to send their kids to private schools based on need. That seems to fly in the face of the intended purpose of vouchers! If vouchers are intended to ease the overall burden on parents who pay property taxes (of which a large portion goes to their local school district) and fork out the tuition costs for a private school, why would the largest voucher amounts go to the families who pay the lowest property taxes (presumably the families with the lowest incomes). That's just... backwards!

A sensible school voucher program should be equally accessible to all families regardless of need or income.

Next, the pro-voucher camps have argued the legislation is actually good for public schools because for every child that is removed from public schools and placed in private schools via a voucher, there would be at least $3,500 left in the school's budget for that year. Again, this flies in the face of another thing a voucher program is supposed to do: Make poor-performing schools feel the heat.

The concept of school choice means you can pull your child out of a poor school and send them to a better school. Since schools get their funding based on the number of students enrolled, this effectively punishes the poor-performing schools and encourages them to improve. It's called "competition" and it works really well in the real world.

Because the voucher legislation up for referendum vote doesn't effectively penalize poor schools, it therefore gives them no incentive to improve. The result would be poor-performing schools that continue to be poor-performing schools.

So, I say let the referendum fail. Legislators need to get serious. They tried this last year to pass legislation that was extremely accomodating and sympathetic to public schools, especially poor-performing public schools, and it was balked at. This next legislative session, Utah lawmakers need to push through some voucher legislation that actually has some teeth!