State of Utah Long Term Risks report
The book's title comes from MacWilliams's assessment of the risks faced by the country at the time of this transition: nuclear accidents; nuclear attacks from North Korea and Iran; an attack on the electrical grid; and project management, "the fifth risk." MacWilliams, a professional risk manager, believed the seamless transition of responsibility at DOE was key to its ability to protect the country.
In a post, I argue that a city's elected officials and stakeholders should see themselves as risk managers ("Town-city management: "We are all asset managers now"," "Learning the wrong lessons from risk management: GFC, Boeing (+ deregulation)"), and how like with large settlements because of police department misconduct, that's an indicator of a failure to manage risk ("Killing people is seen as a routine outcome, not as an indicator of the need for change: Orange County Sheriff's Department versus Fullerton Police Department," "Where is the risk management approach to police misconduct and regularized killings of citizens?").
So the fact that the State of Utah Legislature's Auditor General has produced a report on the long term risks faced by the state, High-Risk List" Identifying and Mitigating Critical Vulnerabilities in Utah – 2025, is quite interesting. (The report is modeled after one produced by the Government Accountability Office at the start of each new Congress.) The top ten risks are:
- Meeting Utah's water needs
- Aging water infrastructure
- Education pathways to in-demand professions
- Insufficient behavioral health capacity
- Planning effective transportation
- Public workforce shortages
- Improving housing affordability
- Utah's energy policy
- Threats to cybersecurity and data privacy
- Federal revenue diversification
I'm surprised the possible dissipation of the Great Salt Lake is not listed separately ("‘Last nail in the coffin’: Utah’s Great Salt Lake on verge of collapse," Guardian, "The Great Salt Lake Is Drying. Can Utah Save It?," New York Times, "The Great Salt Lake is shrinking. What can we do to stop it?," Science News).
Nor the impact of Climate Change and the Environment--a state that emphasizes outdoor tourism in particular skiing ought to be thinking about the long term effects of less snowfall, especially with the possibility of Utah being the permanent site of the Winter Olympics ("What will it take to save the Great Salt Lake by the 2034 Winter Olympics? It depends on whom you ask.," Salt Lake Tribune). And air quality, especially in the winter--I'm amazed that the EPA gives the Salt Lake Valley a pass on this.
I hope "agricultural priorities" is an element of water needs. The face is 80% of water use is for agriculture, and half that goes to alfalfa production which is mostly shipped overseas for cattle feeding. So China basically is getting Utah's water for cheap. From the NYT:
While climate change has contributed to extensive water shortages in the Southwest, the Great Salt Lake’s decline is mostly human-caused. Agriculture uses 71 percent of the water that would otherwise flow to the lake, and cities use around 17 percent, according to research compiled by the Great Salt Lake Strike Team, a group of climate scientists, policy analysts and state regulators.
Climate change also poses risks to households ("Climate change makes "ordinary living" a lot more risky," "Planning for heat/climate change | Public health," and "Climate change is already here in many US communities | "Heat Officers" versus Climate Change Officers"). Also see "The New American Inequality: The Cooled vs. the Cooked, and "Homeless and Burning in Phoenix, America's Hottest City," New York Times.
I don't see how Utah's energy policy is deserving of a call out and the more general issue of Climate Change and the Environment is not.
Utah as a petro state. I haven't fully read the report, but for a few years I've argued that Utah is a petro state, that the concept of nations as petro states ("The Petro States of America," Bloomberg) can be thought of sub-nationally.
There are five refineries in Salt Lake and North Salt Lake, refining oil from Utah and Wyoming. Much of it is sold to markets outside the state. And the state is getting approval for a railroad on federal lands to ship out crude oil for refining overseas.
Except for California, policy in petro states in the US and Canada favors fossil fuels, although Utah is gambling on nuclear energy ("Utah unveils plans to bring nuclear hub to Brigham City," Salt Lake Tribune).
And road building, more than transit extension, is the top priority of the Utah Department of Transportation.
The State Legislature even goes to the extent of trying to prevent "traffic calming" initiatives in Salt Lake City ("Bill giving UDOT veto power over some SLC street projects moves to governor’s desk," Salt Lake Tribune).
Technically, Utah is more of an extractive resources economy. 25% of the state budget comes from taxes on copper mining--but the state is second to Minnesota for copper production. The oil thing is just a chaser. Coal is an element that's up there too ("Mining is big business in Utah — to the tune of billions of dollars per year," Salt Lake Deseret News).
Yet from the air quality and Olympics angle, were I state leaders, I'd push for the concept of EV only sales of automobiles by 2035 ("US Senate votes to block California 2035 electric vehicle rules," Reuters), the year after the Olympics, as a way to shift away from fossil fuels and to improve air quality and limit the impact of higher temperatures brought on by climate change.
I'd say sprawl/urban development form--the Salt Lake Valley is the epitome of the sprawl, despite all you read about Utah being ahead of the pack in environmental planning ("The Utah Model: Lessons for Regional Planning," Brookings)--is also a risk in terms of water use, energy use, air quality, climate change and the environment, etc. ("More suburban sprawl won’t fix Utah’s housing affordability problem," "Utah launches all-out push to build thousands of new ‘starter homes’ that you might be able to afford," "Many Utahns ‘stuck’ with hourlong commutes amid housing crisis," Salt Lake Tribune).
I'd also add the risks of continual tax reduction and political homogeneity. The state prides itself on growth--expecting to add 2 million more residents by 2065. The legislators constantly cut taxes, saying "we need to share the benefits of growth" when the fact is, growing places need to spend more on creating new infrastructure and replacing aging infrastructure*, not less. A city and county risk is frequent interference and law preemption by the State Legislature.
=====
* One example is the park I'm on the board of--one building in dire need of replacement is 61 years old.
We have tens of millions of dollars in unfunded capital improvement projects. One source of funds we'd normally rely on, won't happen until 2029, because it needs to go on next year's ballot, and after a ballot failure last year, the County Mayor is postponing it to the next cycle.
Budget cutbacks mean a bunch of projects we intended to start in 2027 won't be funded, as the County looks to increase property tax by 20%--the first property tax increase in 6 years--and of course, people are up in arms ("Salt Lake County mayor proposes nearly 20% property tax increase," KUTV). And our park is but one site in an array of hundreds that have serious capital needs.
Labels: air quality, green-environment-urban, infrastructure, progressive urban political agenda, risk management
posted by Richard Layman @ 4:00 AM&Permanent Link
4 Comments:
https://newrepublic.com/article/203097/los-angeles-weather-rains-flood-fire
Climate Change Is Killing the Myth of Los Angeles
For over a century, the city has drawn people with the promise of perfect weather. Now floods and fires threaten its very survival.
https://www.propublica.org/article/kerr-county-state-grants-flood-warning-system
Texas Lawmakers Criticized Kerr Leaders for Rejecting State Flood Money. Other Communities Did the Same
Leaders from about 30 local governments that the news organizations spoke with said the state grants paid for so little of the total project costs that they simply could not move forward, even with the program’s offer to cover the rest through interest-free loans. Many hoped the state program would provide grants that paid the bulk of the costs, such as the ones from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which typically supply at least 75%. They believed that they could raise the rest.
Instead, many were offered far less. In some cases, the state offered grants that paid for less than 10% of the funding needed.
In Kerr’s case, the state awarded a $50,000 grant for a $1 million flood warning system, or roughly 5%. It said the river authority could borrow the rest and repay it over the next three decades, but local officials were not sure they would be able to pay back the $950,000 — and failure to do so could carry state sanctions.
City officials in Robinson, located between Dallas and Austin, sought about $2.4 million in funding to buy and tear down homes directly in the floodway. The state offered $236,000 and required that the city conduct an engineering study that would have eaten up more than half of those grant funds, the city manager told the news organizations.
The state also proposed giving the East Texas city of Kilgore a fraction of what Public Works Director Clay Evers had anticipated for a drainage study aimed at minimizing flooding. The city needed the money, Evers said, but the state’s offer required a far larger match than the council members had planned to set aside based on the federal grant system as a guide. The state also required the city to go through a second application process to secure the grant, which Evers said would further strain resources.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/algoma-steel-layoffs-a-wake-up-call-for-canada-s-industrial-future/article_14cc77c6-d0de-4fc9-82d6-edd3564a1e1c.html
Algoma Steel layoffs: A wake-up call for Canada’s industrial future
The news that Algoma Steel is laying off workers in Sault Ste. Marie may feel sudden, but it should not come as a surprise. The only surprise is how quickly it happened after nearly half a billion dollars in federal and provincial support was announced to help the company modernize.
But listening to interviews with the CEO of Algoma makes it clear: the company was facing a cash crunch and it had to make the planned transition to greener technology much sooner than planned. The news is nevertheless devastating for all the workers and their families and communities who have been negatively impacted.
There are two broad forces shaping this outcome: the transition to new technology and the pressure of U.S. tariffs.
Algoma’s shift from traditional blast furnaces to electric arc technology was never going to be painless. Modernization promises cleaner steel and long-term competitiveness, but it also means fewer jobs, at least in the short term. This is the reality of industrial transformation everywhere. When governments invest in these transitions, they must be clear-eyed that the goal is not to preserve the status quo: the goal in this case was long-term sustainability and competitiveness.
Yet, Canada’s complacency remained until relatively recently. The fact that three-quarters of our trade flows south of the border has left Canadian firms and communities exposed to political shocks and protectionist swings in the U.S. When tariffs hit, companies like Algoma Steel have few alternatives. This is not a new problem; it is a structural weakness we have failed to address despite repeated warnings.
The layoffs at Algoma should not be viewed simply as a local story for workers and the community of Sault Ste. Marie. We have seen that several companies that have received government support moving production to the U.S., including Stellantis’s recent decision to move production to the U.S.
This is a national message to Canada that prosperity cannot be built on subsidies and government support alone. As my research shows, and as I have argued before government committees and in my last book, competitiveness comes from enabling firms to innovate, scale and diversify globally. That means opening new markets, reducing barriers to investment and fostering an environment where Canadian companies can thrive beyond the U.S. Canada’s future depends on reducing our reliance on one market and embracing innovation as the foundation of industrial policy.
Algoma Steel’s layoffs are painful, but they are also predictable. They remind us that modernization and global volatility are not temporary challenges: they are permanent features of operating in the global economy.
I’ll be coming back to your blog site for further soon
Post a Comment
<< Home