Sustainability for Arizona: the issue of our age

              s u s t a i n

a b i l i t y

for arizona

the issue of our age

ARIZONA

POLICY

CHOICES

6th Edition

november 2007

fromthe publisher

Sustainability has been called the “ biggest story in the history of humanity” by Thomas Lovejoy of the

Heinz Center, and it certainly seems to be true in light of recent coverage. For Arizona and across the

country, sustainability is not just a topic of discussion, but the focus of new initiatives by businesses, neigh-borhoods,

public agencies, and universities. The NewYork Times columnistThomas Friedman even went

so far as to say 2006 was the tipping point for mainstream acceptance of living and working “ green.”

Yet, sustainability is about much more than just being green. It requires making policy choices that take

the economy, society, and the environment into account. This inclusiveness and complexity prompted

Morrison Institute for Public Policy and its Board of Advisors to choose sustainability as the subject of

the 6th edition of Arizona Policy Choices, a series created by the Institute especially to provide new in-sights

on critical issues.

The result is Sustainability for Arizona: The Issue of Our Age, a primer on sustainability containing the re-search

of Morrison Institute policy analysts and a wealth of contributed essays from 28 Arizona and na-tional

policy thinkers. Not only does this report describe sustainability, but we are also pleased that it has

been produced using certified sustainability practices thanks to our partnership with Prisma Graphic and

their paper supplier, Stora Enso.

I hope you will read Sustainability for Arizona: The Issue of Our Age and share your thoughts with others. By

talking and working together, we can develop wise public policies for a better, more sustainableArizona.

Rob Melnick, Ph. D.

Director, Morrison Institute for Public Policy

AssociateVice President for Economic Affairs and Public Policy

Arizona State University

s u s t a i n

PRINCIPAL AUTHORS

Rick Heffernon NancyWelch Rob Melnick

Morrison Institute for Public Policy

Foreword by Julie AnnWrigley

President and CEO, Julie AnnWrigley Foundation

SPECIAL CONTRIBUTORS

David Berns, ExecutiveVice President, Casey Family Programs

Michael M. Crow, President, Arizona State University

Dan O’Neill, CEO, DJT Enterprises, LLC

Luther Propst, Executive Director, Sonoran Institute

ESSAYISTS

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH TEAM

Allan Affeldt

Bruce Babbitt

Todd Bostwick

James Buizer

Brad Casper

William C. Clark

Jonathan Fink

Ed Fox

Grady Gammage, Jr.

Phil Gordon

MaryAnn Guerra

Brent E. Herrington

Jim Holway

Barbara Kingsolver

Kai Lee

Stephanie McKinney

Sharon Megdal

Mandy Roberts Metzger

Charles Redman

Kevin Rogers

Kent Paredes Scribner

V. Kerry Smith

DonaldWarne

Jeff Williamson

Grady Gammage, Jr.

Daniel Hunting

RichardToon

Andrew Levi

JD Godchaux

Bill Hart

Dana Bennett

Yuri Artibise

© 2007 by the Arizona Board of Regents for and on behalf of Arizona State University and its Morrison Institute for Public Policy.

sustainability

for arizona

the issue of our age

a b i l i t y

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 5

foreword

Julie Ann Wrigley, President and Chief Executive Officer

Julie Ann Wrigley Foundation

The dawn of an “ urban century” and the effects of climate change are just two of the global circumstances

that are combining to make sustainability the defining quest of the 21st century. Sustainability, as

a result, is larger than one person, one company, or one country. Its scope, scale, and importance

mean that traditional approaches to environmental protection and other complex problems will be

insufficient to deliver a sustainable world. Never has it been more important to push the envelope to

find new ways to manage growth.

For those who are set on inventing the future rather than simply watching it unfold, sustainability

demands investment in innovative thinking, research, and programs with expectations of practical

solutions and swift, substantial returns.

Sustainability also represents the century’s greatest opportunity. It brings together those concerned

with the environment, the economy, and society on equal terms. Most important, sustainability

acknowledges the influence of people’s choices on the environment and accepts human behavior as

integral to any solution.

Despite today’s growing interest in sustainability, effective efforts to communicate what sustainability

means and the urgency to establish policies, measurements, and training to pursue it are still in their

infancy. Sustainability, in fact, remains a mysterious buzzword for many policymakers and portions of

the public. While leaders and residents often share concerns about their places, they still wonder:

“ What does sustainability mean here?” Nevertheless, awareness and commitment are expanding rapidly

in Arizona and around the world.

Arizona has the opportunity – many would say the responsibility because of our substantial growth,

arid climate, and research capacity – to provide a significant “ laboratory” for sustainability practices.

As our state focuses on understanding sustainability and creating quality and balance, Arizona can

become a model for the world.

The success of business people, philanthropists, scientists, and activists in expanding sustainability

from a technical topic dear to a handful of insiders to a widely accepted blueprint for public policies

at every level will determine whether the 21st century is one of rebirth and expanding quality of life,

or a disaster for people and nature alike. The stakes are too high not to embrace this burgeoning field

and take the actions – even the risks – that offer possibilities for real changes and dramatic break-throughs.

Our return on investment for these dollars and energies will come when we find the balance

that benefits the environment, business, and communities together.

This report, Sustainability for Arizona: The Issue of Our Age, offers a valuable service to leaders and individ-uals,

whether they are new to sustainability or already experts in sustainable development. It can help

people understand and explain how the principles of sustainability may be put into practice anywhere.

FROM THE PUBLISHER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

PART 1 – DEFINING SUSTAINABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

SUSTAINABILITY: THE ISSUE OF OUR AGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

LESSONS ON SUSTAINABILITY FROM ARIZONA’S PAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

PART 2 – QUESTIONS LEADERS ARE

ASKING ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

IS ARIZONA SUSTAINABLE NOW? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

CAN A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY BE A COMPETITIVE ECONOMY? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

DOES SUSTAINABILITY MEAN BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN

THE “ HAVES” AND THE “ HAVE NOTS”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

WILL INACTION AND GROWTH STYMIE SUSTAINABILITY

AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFORTS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

HOW CAN ARIZONA KEEP SCORE ON SUSTAINABILITY? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

PART 3 – LEADING THINKERS SPEAK OUT ON SUSTAINABILITY . . . . . . 41

IMPROVING PRACTICES FOR SUSTAINABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Sustaining Resources Makes Good Business Sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Arizona Ranches Plan to Protect Land and Adapt to a Changing Economy . . . . . . 43

Green Building: Could Home Builders Be Missing the Boat? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Historic Federal Water Plan Concentrated Urban Settlement

and Protected Open Space in Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

New Degree Program Will Educate a Sustainability Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Using Local Foods Is Key to Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

LEVERAGING ASSETS FOR SUSTAINABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Schools Can Capitalize on the “ Disadvantages of Success”

for the Next Generation of Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Arizona Can Be Sustainability’s Test Bed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Phoenix Quality of Life and Amenities Make Sustainability Achievable. . . . . . . . . . 50

Eco- Industrial Park Will Position Coconino County as a Sustainability Center. . . . . 51

Sense of Place Provides Long- Term Economic Asset for Rural Communities . . . . . . 52

At Its Best, Agriculture Serves the Economy, Communities, and Security . . . . . . . . 53

DEFINING NEEDS FOR SUSTAINABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Education, Health, and Research Are Three Investment Imperatives

for a Sustainable Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

6 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

sustainability

for arizona

the issue of our age

CONTENTS

Public Health Investments in Prevention Are Needed to Balance Forces

of the Marketplace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Six Challenges Must Be Met for a Sustainable Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Water Regulation Should Serve Arizona’s Waterways and Riparian Areas. . . . . . . . 57

Arizona Should Preserve Agriculture as Our Heritage and Water Hedge . . . . . . . . 58

Green Olympics Would Motivate Cleaner, Cheaper, Safer Designs. . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

MAKING DECISIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Sustainability Thinking Starts at Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Carrying Capacity Must Be Addressed Before People Vote with Their Feet. . . . . . . 61

Sustainability’s Elusive Balance Must Be Part of Every Policy Decision. . . . . . . . . . . 62

Take Uncertainty Seriously and Learn from Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Attaining Sustainability Requires a Scorecard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Consumption and Personal Gratification Must Be Redirected

Toward Conservation and Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

PART 4 – SUSTAINABILITY AT WORK: EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC,

PRIVATE, AND PUBLIC- PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVES . . . . . . . . 67

WHERE INGENUITY MEETS OPPORTUNITY AND NECESSITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Public Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Private Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Public- Private Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

PART 5 – ARIZONA’S SUSTAINABLE FUTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

SUSTAINABILITY: A NEW ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

SELECTED RESOURCES AND REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 7

9

19

41 77

67

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people throughout Arizona provided information and insights for this publication. Their assistance is

gratefully acknowledged. We appreciate the support of those who helped to conceive this project, including Arizona State University’s Julia Rosen

and Keith Aspinall of the Office of Economic Affairs, Jim Buizer of the Office of the President, and Jim Holway of the Global Institute of

Sustainability. We thank our reviewers, Chris Herstam of Lewis and Roca, JeffWilliamson of Arizona Zoological Society, Bill Pupo of theTown

of ChinoValley, and Arizona State University's Charles Redman of the School of Sustainability, James Buizer of the Office of the President, and

Jon Fink and Jim Holway of the Global Institute of Sustainability. We are also thankful for the contributions of Saundra Johnson of Flinn Foundation,

Dan Shilling of Sharlot Hall Museum, and the assistance of AliceWilley, Cherylene Schick, Nielle McCammon, Barbara Lewkowitz, Olivia Salcido,

and Suzanne Ernstein at Morrison Institute for Public Policy.

Publication Coordinator Karen Leland | Design Karen Heard, Chalk Design | Cover Photograph © Bill Timmerman

THE ARIZONA POLICY

CHOICES SERIES

Sustainability for Arizona:

The Issue of Our Age – 2007

How Arizona Compares: Real

Numbers and Hot Topics – 2005

Five Shoes Waiting to Drop

on Arizona’s Future – 2001

The New Economy: A Guide

for Arizona – 1999

Growth in Arizona: The Machine

in the Garden – 1998

Balancing Acts: Tax Cuts and

Public Policy in Arizona – 1997

Sustainability is a condition of existence which

enables the present generation of humans and

other species to enjoy social wellbeing, a vibrant

economy, and a healthy environment, and to

experience fulfillment, beauty, and joy, without

compromising the ability of future generations

of humans and other species to enjoy the same.

Guy Dauncey, President, British Columbia Sustainable Energy Association;

Consultant to Civano Development, Tucson

1

Part one

defining

sustainability

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 9

10 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

The AmericanWest, for many, has been about becoming, not being; about betting on the

future with little regard for constraints; about exploiting a place for short- term gains.

Arizona, for its part, has traditionally embodied the type of place people move to for an

opportunity, not necessarily to stay. That would make Arizona seem an unlikely state to be

concerned about sustainability. Yet in discussions of almost every public policy issue, few other

words are used as often, with as much fervor, or with as many meanings as sustainability.

Today, “ Arizona” and “ sustainability” represent a place and a concept poised together at the

brink of humankind’s most urgent need. This shift marks a dramatic point in the state’s

history. From the beginning of Euro- American settlement, Arizonans have focused their

attention on state building in a forbidding place. Raising Arizona was the challenge of the

20th century. Sustaining Arizona is now the challenge of the 21st.

Turning sustainability’s broad tenets into workable policies

is a multi- faceted puzzle. As internationally respected scientist

MostafaTolba, chairman of the United Nations Commission

on Sustainable Development, has written: “ Achieving

sustainable development is perhaps one of the most difficult

and one of the most pressing goals we face. It requires on

the part of all of us commitment, action, partnerships and,

sometimes, sacrifices of our traditional life patterns and

personal interests.”

Many of the challenges of sustainability are those that policy-makers

have struggled with for decades. Environmental

quality, family well- being, economic development, and smart

growth have been covered in countless publications, including

prior editions of Arizona Policy Choices. Sustainability,

however, approaches the issues from a different perspective.

Better described as a journey than a destination, sustain-ability

draws on knowledge from many disciplines and accepts

people as part of – and decision makers in – the environment.

It looks for integrated solutions that serve the economy,

environment, and society simultaneously. It acknowledges

the part that values play in choices and everyone’s respon-sibility

for a quality future.

Sustainability reflects both a monumental concept of life on a

global scale and a simple notion of balance applicable to

SUSTAINABILITY:

THE ISSUE OF OUR AGE

Many people are familiar

with the three overlapping

circles used to represent

sustainability. One circle

stands for economic per-formance,

another for

social equity, and another

for environmental quality.

Together they comprise the triple

bottom line of sustainability that

business and policy leaders must address

with every decision they make. Where the interests of all

three circles intersect is considered the “ sweet spot” of

sustainability, the place where progress on all three fronts

can be achieved.

As leaders learn to apply the triple bottom line approach

to sustainability, some have started to consider additional

circles. A fourth circle, for example, might represent

new technology, since innovation must play a role in

finding answers to issues such as energy production and

air pollution. A fifth circle could represent culture, which

binds society together yet exists apart from the concept

of social equity. Some observers also suggest the envi-ronment

circle should be expanded to encompass all others,

arguing that environment is the foundation upon which

everything else depends.

Sustainability involves

multiple components

everyone. The most commonly used “ official” definition comes from the 1987 United

Nations’ landmark report Our Common Future, where it was defined as “ meeting the needs of

present generations, while not compromising the ability of future generations to meet their

own needs.” Increasingly, governments, businesses, and organizations everywhere are put-ting

sustainability into practice as:

• An overarching value that requires best practices at every level of organization

• A framework for evaluating policies that will advance strong economies, healthy

environments, and equitable opportunities

• A fresh organizing principle for local, state, and national programs

• A mantra requiring everyone to take responsibility for a quality future

Sustainability, however, is not a new idea. Many American Indian tribes long considered

decisions in light of their effects on the seventh generation. Gifford Pinchot, the first

chief of the U. S. Forest Service, is well known for describing conservation as “ the greatest

good for the greatest number for the longest time.” In turn, many public policy analysts

have called for systems thinking, integration, and holistic solutions to recognize complex

connections among difficult issues.

The untoward effects of global development, dramatic population growth, climate change, and

widening gaps between the “ haves” and “ have nots” have sounded sustainability alarms. Many

public and private sector leaders have concluded that business as usual threatens not just

quality of life, but life in total. At the same time, executives with a wide range of businesses and

organizations are realizing that doing good and doing well can be mutually reinforcing over the

long term, not mutually exclusive. Thus, while sustainability has developed in response to

threats, it has also grown because of the desire to find new ways to solve old problems.

Today’s concern for sustainability has roots in many places. Publications such asThe Club of

Rome’s 1972 report, The Limits to Growth, and reports from international blue ribbon

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 11

Governments, businesses,

organizations, and

individuals everywhere

are putting sustainability

front and center as:

• An overarching value

• A policy framework

• A planning model

• A mantra

Don’t Eat Your Seed Corn

What is “ sustainability?” It boils down to this: Don’t eat your seed corn. A time- tested concept, sustainability

highlights the need to build replenishing systems that can supply the present without compromising the future.

Sustainability is about people: How to foster a robust workforce and strong communities. Sustainability

addresses innovation: How to spark it, nurture it, and protect it so the idea pipelines don’t run dry.

Sustainability can be a lens to focus on values: Inspired by faith, family, personal commitment… on

the built environment and on markets. And, of course, sustainability is also about natural resources:

How to use, renew, and account for environmental capital.

Marketplace, American Public Media, http:// americanpublicmedia. publicradio. org/ sustainability

CHINA RECENTLY PASSED

THE U. S. IN CO2 EMISSIONS

FROM FOSSIL FUELS

( IN 1,000 MEGATONS)

Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy,

ASU; data from Netherlands Environmental

Assessment Agency, 2007.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1990 2006

( est.)

U. S. China

Japan EU- 15

12 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

Definition of

sustainable

development

Source: U. S. National Research Council.

commissions have often linked the great issues of peace, freedom, development, and the

environment. For example, Environment magazine summarized the United Nations report,

Our Common Future, as follows:

• Human needs are basic and essential; economic growth – but also equity to share

resources with the poor – is required to sustain them; and equity is encouraged by

effective citizen participation.

• Environment is where we live; and development is what we all do in attempting to

improve our lot within that abode. The two are inseparable.

• The concept of sustainable development does imply limits – not absolute limits

but limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organization

on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects

of human activities.

In 1999, the U. S. NationalAcademy of Sciences published its report on the topic, Our Common

Journey: A Transition Toward Sustainability. This report observed that sustainable development

is “ now central to the mission of countless international organizations, national institutions,

corporate enterprises, ‘ sustainable cities,’ and states.” It also focused on defining issues:

• What is to be sustained? The answer: Nature, Life Support, and Community.

• What is to be developed? The answer: People, Economy, and Society.

More recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) – an eminent

scientific group established by governments around the world to assess evidence on global

warming – highlighted the urgency of instituting sustainable practices in a series of summary

reports released in 2007. The IPCC reports concluded with high confidence that human-related

activities, particularly burning of fossil fuels and agriculture, had precipitously

increased the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to

unprecedented levels, leading to a rise in global temperatures. The probable result, according

to IPCC scientists, will be widespread climate warming that will likely trigger extreme

weather patterns, disastrous sea level rises, loss of arable land, increased fire risk, and other

negative environmental, economic, and social effects that could persist for centuries. Current

policies to address the issue, according to IPCC reports, are not sufficient to slow the trend.

New policies and actions are needed.

While many nations and industries are not yet vigorously addressing sustainability issues,

the goal has been embraced by some unexpected players. Fortune magazine noted that

Wal- Mart, the world’s largest retailer, has decided to transition itself into the world’s

largest sustainable company and, in so doing, anticipates cutting fossil fuel consumption and

becoming the dominant marketer of organic milk and cotton. Wal- Mart also wants its

suppliers to reduce packaging and energy use, which could magnify the effects of its sustain-ability

mission enormously. At the same time, production home builders in the U. S. have

brought “ zero energy” subdivisions to the marketplace, particularly in California, and

manufacturers of everything from old- line household products to cutting- edge technologies

have taken up source reduction, recycling, and renewable materials.

WHAT IS

TO BE

DEVELOPED

PEOPLE

Child Survival

Life Expectancy

Education

Equity

Equal

Opportunity

ECONOMY

Wealth

Productive

Sectors

Consumption

SOCIETY

Institutions

Social Capital

States

Regions

WHAT IS

TO BE

SUSTAINED

NATURE

Earth

Biodiversity

Ecosystems

LIFE SUPPORT

Ecosystem

Services

Resources

Environment

COMMUNITY

Earth

Biodiversity

Ecosystems

Source

Reduction

is to garbage

what preventive

medicine is

to health.

William L. Rathje, Professor Emeritus

and Founder of The University of Arizona’s

Garbage Project

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 13

Still, the journey toward sustainability is full of barriers. Interest groups each have their own

jargon, stakeholders, and experts, and most sustainability enthusiasts start from a narrow

discipline that shapes their outlooks on solutions. While everyone may want to sing the same

song, it takes time to learn the music.

As a result, sustainability may best be addressed at the local and state levels. MichaelWillis,

2006 president of International City/ County ManagersAssociation ( ICMA), wrote in Public

Management, “ The answers to the issues of our age do not come solely from the global political

arena but also from the very things we do at the local level. For nowhere is change more

achievable than at the individual and local levels. In so many ways, it’s the things we do

locally that really count.” True, states and metropolitan regions by themselves cannot easily

measure their impacts on global conditions. What they can do, however, is monitor their

progress toward balance as a proxy for contributions to world sustainability.

At the state and local levels, sustainability can be viewed simply as the “ right” or “ wrong” trajec-tory

toward specific goals. Based on measurable indicators, states, counties, and cities must:

• Maintain policies and actions that take it in the right direction

• Change policies and actions that take it in the wrong direction

To make progress toward sustainability, communities need to agree on a set of goals and

create a dynamic process for making decisions, tracking trajectories, and recognizing

balance. They need to identify what is to be measured and monitored so their policies are

meaningful for everyone. They need to make sustainability stand for positive actions and

accomplishments. Because the stakes are high, the expectations are similarly high.

Governors Speak Out on Conservation, 1908

We, the governors of the States and Territories of the United States of America in conference assembled, do

hereby declare the conviction that the great prosperity of our country rests upon the abundant resources of

the land chosen by our forefathers for their homes, and where they laid the foundation of this great nation.

We look upon these resources as a heritage to be made use of in establishing and promoting the comfort, pros-perity,

and happiness of the American people, but not to be wasted, deteriorated, or needlessly destroyed…

We agree, in the light of the facts brought to our knowledge and from information received from sources

which we cannot doubt, that this material basis is threatened with exhaustion. Even as each succeeding gener-ation

from the birth of the nation has performed its part in promoting the progress and development of the

Republic, so do we in this generation recognize it as a high duty to perform our part; and this duty in large

degree lies in the adoption of measures for the conservation of the natural wealth of the country. [ Applause]

We declare our firm conviction that this conservation of our natural resources is a subject of transcendent

importance which should engage unremittingly the attention of the nation, the States, and the people in

earnest cooperation…

Let us conserve the foundation of our prosperity. [ Great applause]

Excerpt of a public declaration from state and territorial governors following the first conference of governors convened by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908.

tra• jec• to• ry

A path, progression, or line

of development resembling

a physical trajectory

< an upward career trajectory>

Source: www. m- w. com.

WIND GENERATION IN

THE U. S. IS ON A RISING

TRAJECTORY ( IN MW)

Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy,

ASU; data from U. S. Department of Energy

Wind Energy Program and American Wind

Energy Association.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1982 2006

14 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

An ancient land of long habitation but a short modern history, Arizona has been described as

part of the OldWest, the NewWest, and the NextWest. Now, the time has come for the

SustainableWest. Societies have always interacted in complex ways with their economies and

environments. No exception, Arizona’s history has been full of adaptations to an arid land. The

state also has felt the impact of national trends as well as disgraces of its own making. From

both the good and the bad experiences, five lessons stand out for sustainability.

Success can be short- lived, but places can be reborn. Think of Tombstone’s

silver boom and bust, grasslands ravaged by overgrazing, and the reinvention

of copper and railroad towns.

Boom and bust is a phrase inextricably tied to theWest. Arizonans most often apply it to mining

communities, with Tombstone being one of the best- known cases. Between about 1877 and

1886, Tombstone’s approximately 50 mines produced almost $ 30 million in silver, and to

fuel those operations Tombstone used “ enough wood, stacked four feet high in four- foot

lengths, to stretch nearly 200 miles” according to anthropologist Thomas Sheridan. But the

heyday ended when low silver prices and flooding in the underground mines made extracting

the ore impractical. Tombstone’s woodcutting economy also died with the mines.

During nearly the same period, large- scale livestock grazing arrived in Arizona – by rail.

Cattle growers shipped huge numbers of stock to what seemed like endless acres of grass,

particularly in southeastern Arizona. Then drought struck, first in the mid- 1880s, and again

in the early 1890s. From mining, woodcutting, and grazing, huge swaths of land were left

without trees and grass, creating a “ moonscape” that remains evident even now.

History also shows that the “ busted” can be renewed. Wilderness designations and new

grazing practices have helped some southeastern rangeland to heal. Old mining towns,

notably Bisbee and Jerome, leveraged their colorful histories and historic buildings to

retool as arts and tourism centers. More recently, the railroad and Route 66 town,

Winslow, moved toward revitalization with renovation of its La Posada Hotel, the last great

Fred Harvey railroad stopover designed by Mary Jane Colter. What is different today,

though, is the accelerating pace and breadth of change. If we consume our last reservoirs

of natural resources and historic landmarks, how will we renew places in the future?

The powerful and the weak can readily change places. Think of the

legislative power shift from rural to urban, the economic impacts of Indian

gaming, and the far- reaching effects of American Indian water settlements.

With a single stroke, a balance of power can shift. In 1960, Arizona’s population topped 1 million,

due to urban growth, yet rural areas still held sway in the legislature. The reason wasArizona’s

federal model for lawmaking: the House of Representatives was districted by population, but

LESSONS ON SUSTAINABILITY

FROM ARIZONA’S PAST

History is who

we are and why

we are the way

we are.

David C. McCullough, Pulitzer Prize-winning

Historian and Author

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 15

the Senate was districted by county. Since most counties remained rural, they held dispropor-tionate

power. A U. S. Supreme Court decision in 1964, however, changedArizona’s and other

states’ legislatures forever by requiring “ one man one vote.” The result was a shift of influence

from the country to the cities. Today, more than 80% of Arizonans live in urban areas, a fact

reflected in the membership of the modern legislature.

Another U. S. Supreme Court decision in 1993 changed tribal fortunes when it enabled Indian

gaming. By 1994, 16 Arizona tribes had negotiated gaming agreements with the state, and

10 casinos were already in operation. Since then, casino dollars have ignited economic devel-opment

on many reservations. The result is that once- ignored tribes have become prominent

players in decisions about Arizona’s urban development, and indeed, its entire future.

A third stroke of change occurred with the federal ArizonaWater Settlements Act of 2004.

As told by GeorgeWebb in A Pima Remembers, the Pima Indians had farmed along the Gila

River for centuries, but saw their way of life altered in the early 20th century when the Gila was

dammed upstream. The 2004 settlement reinstated the Pima water rights, giving the Gila River

Indian Community, Ak- Chin Indian Community, andTohono O’odham Nation new resources

and importance to municipalities and developers that are trying to assemble water portfolios

to meet metropolitan demands.

Benefits on one hand can mean hardships on the other. Think of the

unanticipated effects from water projects and the social costs of economic

and population expansion.

Many of theWest’s major reclamation projects were justified by benefits that seemed to

outweigh any potential costs because the dams provided hydroelectric power, stable water

supplies, flood control, and economic opportunities. Today, however, unintended consequences

from these vast waterworks have become apparent. Damming of waterways, for example,

has inadvertently destroyed riparian habitats across the state.

The demise of Phoenix’s Golden Gate barrio shows how progress can steamroll social and

culturally viable communities. Comprised mostly of low- income Mexican Americans and

immigrants, Golden Gate in the 1950s stood directly in the path of airport expansion.

Ultimately, most Golden Gate families were relocated to the new area of Maryvale so the

airport could grow, but the resettlement process sowed mistrust and tension among Latinos

starting new lives as well as existing Maryvale residents. While Sky Harbor Airport has since

become one of the busiest transportation hubs in the nation, its success was built in part on

the involuntary sacrifices of earlier residents.

Arizona’s population growth over the past half century has been a blessing as well as a curse.

It has brought jobs, economic growth, and expanded cultural opportunities, but also created

Major Phases

in Arizona’s

History

INCORPORATION

6th- 19th centuries

Spaniards, Mexicans, and Anglo

Americans tried to bring the

region and indigenous residents

under their control.

EXTRACTION

19th century to World War II

Extractive industries – stock

raising, mining, and agriculture –

dominated Arizona’s economy.

TRANSFORMATION

Post World War II to present

“ Those seeds of transformation

sprouted and flourished during

World War II and the postwar

boom, when the Southwest

became an overwhelming

urban society…”

Source: Thomas E. Sheridan, A History of

the Southwest: The Land and Its People.

16 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

strains between newcomers and long- term residents and raised concerns about how to

create a sense of community in new places. Growth is also responsible for increasing

anxiety about quality of life, water, and air quality.

Staying power requires new thinking and adaptation, not just persistence.

Think of reclamation, long- term goals, and evolving toward balance.

As indigenous farmers proved, water is the essential ingredient to make desert communities

bloom. Yet rains and rivers in this harsh climate are fickle. Thus, a stable water supply for

Arizona’s biggest cities depended on engineering genius, steady political backing, and deep

pockets over long periods of time. Ironically, Arizona’s two

best- known federal water projects – Roosevelt Dam and the

CentralArizona Project – marked both the beginning and end

of America’s federal commitment to huge investments in

water storage and transfer.

Leadership had to adapt. The campaigns that won big federal

water projects in the early and mid- 20th century are now

often characterized as boosterism – an outmoded type of

promotion that tended to blindly deny all faults or problems.

Today, leaders have taken up the mantra of sustainability as

it has become clear that the traditional pattern of putting

the economy first cannot continue without increasingly

large negative effects. Jobs, housing, population growth,

natural resources, transportation, family life, and all the

rest must be balanced.

Misguided policies, wrong- headed practices, and clashes of values must

be addressed sooner or later. Think of federal intervention, cures for the

maladies of “ King Real Estate” and car- dependent cities, and individualists

versus collectivists.

When state leaders have not been willing to correct public policy mistakes and missteps,

change has come anyway – by federal pressure, judicial decisions, and voters’ actions. In 1948, an

Arizona Supreme Court decision confirmed the right of American Indians to vote in Arizona

elections. In the late 1970s, the U. S. Secretary of the Interior forcedArizona to enact ground-water

management laws by threatening to block the Central Arizona Project. Recent court

cases ordered equitable K- 12 funding and improved services for English language learners.

Broad grassroots efforts helped win school integration in Arizona the year before the issue was

decided nationally by the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision on Brown vs. Board of Education, and

also brought Arizona a holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. after boycotts cost the state

the 1993 Super Bowl.

To address the downsides of economic dependence on population growth and the negative

impacts of car- dependent cities, new policies – albeit first steps – are now being enacted. Some

HISTORICAL ARIZONA

Boosterism

Few restraints because of

few residents

Exclusion

“ Congratulations, escape,

and development”*

Rural

External Standings

Leadership only by elites

Growth at all costs

Small scale and scope of

population and economic activity

EVOLVING ARIZONA

Balance

Clear limits because of a

large population

Inclusion

Realism and long- term

investment

Urban

Internal Trajectories and Sound

Comparisons

Contributions from many voices

Quality growth

Large population and global

economic competition

* Charles S. Peterson, “ Speaking for the Past,” The Oxford History of the AmericanWest.

Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, ASU, 2007.

Today, leaders have

taken up the mantra of

sustainability as it has

become clear that the

traditional pattern of

putting the economy

first cannot continue

without increasingly

large negative effects.

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 17

examples: With support from policymakers, business leaders,

and civic groups, voters approved light rail for metropolitan

Phoenix, financial support for K- 12 education, and more

funding for science and technology research at the state’s

public universities – all to improve the state’s economic

position and quality of life.

At the same time, Arizona owes much to the collaborative

efforts of community builders and massive investments from

the federal government. WhileArizonans are often portrayed

as archetypal rugged individualists, historian RichardWhite

notes that Arizona and other states “ can more accurately be

seen as the child of government and large corporations,” and

anthropologist Thomas Sheridan adds: “ Behind every rugged

individual is a government agency.”

Innovations in public policy have often come when the values of individualism and collectivism

had to be balanced. So, if issues must be addressed sooner or later, the question is why not

sooner? Can we do a better job of educating our public leaders? These five lessons touch on a

few highlights fromArizona’s past. They show the necessity of stewardship, the huge payoff of

investments for the future, and the value of a long- term timeframe. Arizona’s past lessons

suggest that, for sustainability to occur, the policy watchwords of the future should be

resilience, equity, innovation, balance, and reconciliation.

LESSONS FROM THE PAST

Success can be short- lived, but places can be reborn.

The powerful and the weak can readily

change places.

Benefits on one hand can mean hardship

on the other.

Staying power requires new thinking and

adaptation, not just persistence.

Misguided policies, wrong- headed practices, and

clashes of values must be addressed sooner or later.

POLICY

PRINCIPLE FOR

THE FUTURE

Resilience

Equity

Balance

Innovation

Reconciliation

Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, ASU, 2007.

innovations in public policy have often come when the values

of individualismand collectivismhad to be balanced.

Interpreting lessons

fromArizona’s Past

the next business evolution

Sustainability in business is the natural evolution of the Total Quality Management ( TQM) movement. Two decades

ago, everyone was talking about TQM – there were conferences, seminars, and awards. But few really knew what it

meant. Today a company without a quality management process as part of its core business

is not likely to be in operation. Looking at the current craze over sustainability, it feels

like TQM all over again – lots of talk, with tremendous uncertainty about what it

means and how to do it. But I expect that sustainability, with its longer term view on

economics, society and the environment, will also become a norm in business within

the next several years. And we will all be better off for the evolution.

Ed Fox, Vice President of Communications, Environment, and Safety for APS

If we want to create a society in Arizona that is more

than a series of booms and busts, we need to make

the fit between nature and culture more like a mem-brane

and less like a life support system. There is too

much at stake in this wild, dry land to do otherwise.

Thomas Sheridan, Professor of Anthropology,

The University of Arizona

2

Part Two

questions

leaders are asking about

sustainability

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 19

IS ARIZONA SUSTAINABLE NOW? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

CAN A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY BE A COMPETITIVE ECONOMY? . . . . . . . . . . . 24

DOES SUSTAINABILITY MEAN BRIDGING THE GAP

BETWEEN THE “ HAVES” AND THE “ HAVE NOTS”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

WILL INACTION AND GROWTH STYMIE SUSTAINABILITY

AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFORTS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

HOW CAN ARIZONA KEEP SCORE ON SUSTAINABILITY? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

20 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

Arizona has a penchant for quick payoffs, a habit of addressing one problem at a time, and

a hands- off political culture that, combined, make it easier for leaders to talk around, rather

than address, sustainability for the state. Arizona’s situation is complicated by the fact that,

despite an array of visions, plans, policies, programs, and initiatives, it lacks some of the

tools it needs to accurately plot the state’s trajectory toward sustainability. All this makes it

impossible to definitively answer the question, “ Is Arizona sustainable now?” Looking at

the state’s track record, one cannot help but be skeptical about Arizona’s prospects for sus-tainability.

But this is offset somewhat by another traditionalWestern attribute – faith in the

future. Both skepticism and optimism are, in fact, well- founded.

A Tendency to Get Behind the Curve on Significant Issues

Through the years, Arizona’s leaders have received numerous warnings about trends and their

potential consequences. Sometimes the wake- up calls have been answered; other times they

have gone unheeded. Even when action has been taken, it is often insufficient to the task

due to population growth, a mismatch between the size of the problem and the size of the

investment, or the spin- off effects of national movements. This is not lost on residents. In a 2004

survey, Arizonans compared their state negatively to others on 8 out of 12 items ranging from

housing costs to education and financial well- being. Among Arizona’s issues:

• AIR QUALITY In every decade since the 1960s, Arizona residents have noted their

concerns over air quality. A 2006 survey of Arizona households by Behavior Research

Center showed that 58% reported one or more family members had “ an adverse reaction

to stagnant and polluted air” during the last months of 2005. On the same question in

1994, a total of 41% of respondents noted poor reactions to air quality. Back in 1972, the

U. S. Environmental ProtectionAgency first requiredArizona to create a plan to show how

problem areas would meet the requirements of the 1965 Clean Air Act. And while nearly

every county in Arizona has been rated a nonattainment area for one or more of six air

quality measures, The Arizona Republic noted that Maricopa County has earned the distinc-tion

as only the second county in the nation to receive the U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency’s strictest warning on particulate pollution.

• HEAT ISLAND EFFECT As urban areas are built, their new pavement and buildings

absorb enough daytime heat to eventually raise nighttime temperatures – a phenomenon

known as heat island effect. First taken seriously in metropolitan Phoenix in the early

1990s, heat island effect has become an increasing concern because, according to Arizona

State University researchers, its size and intensity will continue to grow. This will lead

to additional water and energy use, even in places that today are on the far edges of the

metropolis. Experts note that some simple solutions are at hand now, but they need to

be adopted on sufficient scale to change the current trend.

IS ARIZONA SUSTAINABLE NOW?

Source: Morrison Institute for Public

Policy, ASU; data from Arizona

Department of Economic Security,

Research Administration, Population

Statistics Unit, 2006.

To get a significant

toehold for a

population base

to live in the desert

took relentless

boosterism by past

generations of

pioneering

entrepreneurs.

Grady Gammage, Jr., Author of

Phoenix in Perspective: Reflections

on Developing the Desert

1950

0

3

6

9

12

15

2050

1

ARIZONA’S FORECAST

IS FOR GROWTH

( POPULATION IN MILLIONS)

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 21

• GROUNDWATER Despite the state’s strong history of innovative water management

practices and water- saving technologies, experts warn of trouble ahead. Karen Smith,

deputy director of Arizona Department ofWater Resources, stated in 2006: “ Based on

today’s rates of water consumption and pumping… we will not reach safe yield in any of

the active management areas by 2025.” Safe yield means striking a balance between

groundwater pumping and recharge and is one of the most important goals set by the

state’s 1980 Groundwater Management Act. The current situation troubles many state

residents. In a 2006 survey commissioned by Valley Forward, more than 6 out of 10

metropolitan Phoenix residents said they believed there is a water crisis in Arizona.

• EDUCATION High school drop outs started to make headlines in Arizona after the 1983

report, A Nation at Risk, highlighted education problems in the U. S. Since then, Arizona

has usually ranked near the bottom of state comparisons for drop outs. Recent examina-tions

of high school graduation rates, however, paint a better picture. In 2004, Arizona

showed a 76.8% graduation rate, slightly above average for the country, though well

below leading states.

Air quality, water, urban heat island, and graduation levels are just some of the areas where

Arizona has shown subpar performance. Major national indices have highlighted other areas in

whichArizona also lags. While rankings are often criticized for glossing over individual nuances,

Arizona’s preponderance of middle and low scores certainly should give everyone pause.

700

5 am Temperature Current Landcover on June 8, 1998.

46 51 55 60 64 69 7 3

5 am Temperature MAG Projection on June 8 in unspecified year of build- out.

800

800

300

500

400

500

1200

1400

500

500

800

500

600

500

1400

1200

500

800

400

500

300

46 51 55 60 64 69 7 3

Source: Susanne Grossman- Clarke, Ph. D., ASU Global Institute of Sustainability.

EXPERTS FORECAST INCREASED SUMMER NIGHTTIME TEMPERATURES DUE TO URBANIZATION

( LOW SUMMER TEMPERATURES FOR PHOENIX REGION – ACTUAL COMPARED TO ESTIMATED BUILD- OUT)

When all the water is gone, the deserts are paved, the temps are even more scorching, and the air is

sickening, then we will all learn that we cannot drink, eat, or breathe cars, super freeways, or money.

But by then it may be too late to save us. For the sake of all of us and all that is good in the world,

I hope it doesn't come to that. We are smart people and we can live cleaner.

Daniel R. Patterson, Tucson Ecologist

22 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

Reliance on a Growth- for- Growth’s- Sake Economy

The University of Arizona economist Marshall Vest may have

said it best: “ growth industries have been driving growth.”

Indeed, the construction industry in 2006 accounted for nearly

25% ofArizona’s jobs compared to a normal U. S. range of 5%

to 7%, according toVest. This, says Jon Talton, The Arizona

Republic’s former business columnist, gives growth “ a giant

economic footprint” in Arizona. With more than 1 million

new residents between 1990 and 2000, one would reasonably

expect the state’s housing and construction industries to look

strong, but as an economy it can’t be sustainable. Says one long-time

observer, Tony Davis of the Arizona Daily Star, “ We’re still

acting like we need to open up theWest and settle theWest.”

Historically, as long as the number of people and jobs

increased, many of Arizona’s leaders have considered the

state to be doing well. Arizona’s dependence on real estate

development and the service industry, however, is largely at

odds with creation of a globally competitive economy. A

population growth- centered economy raises concerns about

insufficient economic diversity, lack of innovation, declining

quality of life, and a preponderance of low- skilled workers

in the labor pool. While growth can sometimes bring an

influx of highly educated workers, it can simultaneously

undercut efforts to upgrade local education and job training.

Hung Up on Boundaries in a Boundary- less World

When it comes to managing our cities and towns, boundaries are necessary for some

functions, but they can complicate long- term regional solutions to cross- jurisdictional issues

such as transportation, economic development, business siting, revenue sharing, water

planning, and open space protection. Arizona has shown it can display regional thinking

on some aspects of transportation and economic development, but intergovernmental

competition continues to shape many policies. Regional collaboration on many issues has

been difficult to achieve in Arizona for a number of reasons:

• Counties remain relatively weak with few powers granted by the Arizona Legislature,

thus the most visible regional entity is often unable to act.

• Arizona’s municipalities rely on a sales- tax- dependent fiscal structure that leads them into

competition with neighboring cities for houses and retail businesses to generate revenue.

• Individual jurisdictions don’t have incentives or power to act across borders, making

it difficult to collaborate with their neighbors.

WhatArizona does have are youthful political structures, rapidly changing demographics, and

an involved business community that likes to work with government leadership. These assets

could be brought to bear on resolving boundary issues.

REPORT WHAT IT MEASURES YEAR RANK* OR GRADE

State Technology Capacity of a state’s 2004 17

& Science Index science and

technology assets

CFED Development Overall development 2007 42

Report Card capacity of states

State of the States Capacity of states 2001 31

to achieve sustain-able

development

Kids Count Key indicators of 2006 37

child well- being

CFED Assets and Overall financial 2007 F

Opportunities security of families

Measuring Up State performance 2006 D ( Preparation)

in higher education B ( Completion)

F ( Affordability)

From Cradle Performance of state 2007 43 ( K- 12

to Career educational systems Achievement)

and chance of 49 ( Chance

career success for Success)

for students

* Rank is usually among 50 states and Washington, D. C.; lower numbers are better.

Sources: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, ASU; data from ( in order) Milken Institute,

Corporation for Enterprise Development, Renewable Resources Institute, The Annie E. Casey

Foundation, Corporation For Enterprise Development, Measuring Up/ National Center for

Public Policy and Higher Education, Editorial Projects in Education Research Center/

Education Week.

NATIONAL RANKINGS SHOW MIXED VIEWS OF

ARIZONA’S PERFORMANCE ON SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

One encouraging

aspect of the

state is its

streak of

optimismthat

great things can

be accomplished

when appropriate

attention and

forces are

brought to bear.

TYPICAL

TYPE OF CYCLE TIME PERIOD

Business cycles 10 years

Election cycles 2- 4 years

Legislative cycles 8 years

Drought cycles 25- 35 years

Generations 30 years

Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy,

ASU, 2007.

MANY CYCLES AFFECT

PUBLIC POLICY

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 23

Staggering Scope and Scale of Expansion

Arizona is now the nation’s fastest- growing state, having increased by over 4 million people

between 1950 and 2000. Another 6 million people could be added by 2040. The reasons,

says economist MarshallVest, are familiar:

• The U. S. population continues to shift to the South andWest.

• Arizona and otherWestern states are perceived as offering second chances

and new opportunities.

• Arizona historically has benefited from a combination of relatively affordable

housing and a booming real estate market in California.

• Significant numbers of retirees and soon- to- be retirees are looking for the good life.

• A steady flow of immigrants are seeking jobs.

• High birth rates continue to shape Arizona’s growth future.

While the implications are serious, particularly for natural resources and land use,

Arizona already ranks among the best in the nation for low

energy usage per capita, and many cities and towns across

the state have lowered their per capita water use over the

last decade. In addition, the state’s two recent Growing

Smarter statutes have been credited for improving some

areas of municipal and county planning. Nevertheless,

with growth in the picture, it remains to be seen whether

Arizona will improve on its 2001 below- average ranking

by Renewable Resources Institute for the state’s capacity

for sustainable development.

A Strong Legacy of Optimism

Many signs point to the challenges Arizona faces in sustain-ability,

but the state is not without past achievements and

notable investments. As much as it has lagged in some areas,

Arizona has also been an innovator at times. One encouraging

aspect of the state is its streak of optimism that great things

can be accomplished when appropriate attention and forces

are brought to bear.

Because Arizona’s biggest obstacles to sustainability are mainly

rooted in political culture and choices, they can be changed.

History clearly shows us that wise choices, smart growth, and

sound investments are possible. But is there still time? Will

Arizona play against type and act quickly and broadly enough

to embrace a sustainable future? Arizonans are vitally inter-ested

in the answer. As environmentalist RobWatson has been

quoted by The NewYork Times: “ People see an endangered

species every day now when they look in the mirror.”

Why

Casa

Grande

Coolidge

Sasabe

Morenci

Sanders

Ehrenberg

San Luis

Colorado City

North Rim

Tuba

City

Ajo

Lukeville

Kingman

Page

Sedona

Flagstaff

Seligman

Ash

Fork

Chinle

Window

Rock

Kayenta

Holbrook

Snowflake

Heber

Show

Low

Globe

Florence

Phoenix

Gila

Yuma Bend

Tucson

Nogales

Willcox

Littlefield

Fredonia

Mexican Water

Peach

Springs

Grand

Canyon

Cameron

Ganado

Winslow

St Johns

Young

Douglas

Bisbee

Tombstone

Sierra

Vista

Benson

Green

Valley

Safford

Clifton

Quartzsite

Wickenburg

Parker

Lake

Havasu

City

Bullhead City

Cordes

Junction

Prescott

Camp

Verde

Clarkdale

Payson

Williams

Surprise

MARICOPA

PINAL

YUMA

PIMA

LA PAZ

MOHAVE

GILA

YAVAPAI

COCONINO

NAVAJO

APACHE

COCHISE

GRAHAM

SANTA

CRUZ

GR EENLE E

0 20 40 80

MILES

N

U. S. Bureau of Land Management

Indian Communities

Local or State Parks

Military Reservation

National Forest

National Parks

Private, Other

State Trust

Freeways and Highways

Counties

Cities and Towns

Wildlife Refuge

ARIZONA HAS MANY PUBLIC LAND OWNERS

Source: Arizona Department of Transportation.

24 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

Dan O’Neill, CEO, DJT Enterprises, LLC

In 2005, Arizona led all 50 states in gross domestic product ( GDP)* growth, a nearly 9%

increase. That is impressive, but for those who closely track the state’s competitiveness, it is

simply one indicator among many. In fact, Arizona’s economy remains competitive in some

ways but not others. After more than 20 years of starting businesses and working with entre-preneurs

– most recently atASUTechnopolis – I have come to learn that competitiveness and

the practice of sustainability need to go hand in hand. The task now is to develop Arizona’s

competitiveness and sustainability at the same time. As UK cabinet minister, David Miliband,

wrote while working to revitalize parts of that economy, “ Economic dynamism can be

combined with environmental and social responsibility. High financial returns can go hand in

hand with respect for human rights, and the preservation of the planet’s natural resources.”

The term “ sustainability” has been commonly used in business for some time. Consider the

concepts of a “ sustainable business model” or “ sustainable competitive advantage.” Recently,

however, sustainability has come to mean something else, referring to growth of the economy

while simultaneously improving environmental and social values. Given this new meaning,

what would a sustainable and competitive Arizona economy look like?

First, we must understand the classic definition of economic growth. It means a rise in living

standards, usually due to improvements in productivity and overall economic activity, and

often with a strong export component. Economic growth can be generated in many ways, but

one Arizona knows well is resource extraction and commodities production. Arizona’s

economy was dominated by such industries until the mid- 20th century, relying on copper,

cotton, cattle, and citrus. Another source of economic growth is to add value to products and

services through knowledge- based activities such as design, engineering, and continual

improvement. Related to this is innovation, which takes knowledge a step further by introducing

new products, services, processes, and business models. Innovation can occur in any part of

the economy from agriculture to semiconductors.

Innovation has proven to be one of the most important contributors to growth. Economist

Joseph Schumpeter was talking about innovation in the 1930s when he described the concept

of “ creative destruction.” This refers to the way innovative products and practices can spawn

new industries while eliminating old ones – in the process, generating enormous amounts

of new capital and income. Innovation, according to most economists, drives most produc-tivity

improvements and is the source of as much as half of economic growth nationally.

We need only look to the rise of the Internet and related technologies in the 1990s to find

CAN A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY

BE A COMPETITIVE ECONOMY?

Being a good

steward of the

environment and

our communities

and being an

efficient and

profitable business

are not mutually

exclusive. In fact

they are one and

the same.

Lee Scott, President and CEO of Wal- Mart

* State GDP is a counterpart to national gross domestic product ( GDP), which is the U. S. Bureau of Economic Analysis’s most comprehensive

calculation of U. S. economic activity. It measures the market value of goods and services produced by labor and property in a given entity.

State GDP was formerly known as gross state product ( GSP).

ARIZONA INCOMES

HAVE CONSISTENTLY

LAGGED THE NATION

( IN THOUSANDS)

Source: Morrison Institute for Public

Policy, ASU; data from U. S. Bureau of

Economic Analysis, 2007.

1984

$ 10

$ 15

$ 20

$ 25

$ 30

$ 35

$ 40

2006

Arizona United States

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 25

the source of many recent productivity improvements. Entrepreneurship, meanwhile, is

innovation’s close cousin. It often provides the primary vehicle for innovation to come to

market, especially for new technologies and business models.

To expand standards of living over time, Arizona must be competitive in global export indus-tries

characterized by innovation and entrepreneurship. Arizona is working hard to expand

innovation and entrepreneurship, but it still has far to go to match leading states. In the early

1990s and again in the early 2000s, economic leaders identi-fied

growth industries in which Arizona could be competitive

globally and then developed plans to foster expansion. From

2002 to 2006, roadmaps were drawn for biotech and life

sciences, advanced communications and information technology,

and sustainable systems and solar energy.* These roadmaps

identified existing strengths in research, technology, and

enterprise formation, and then suggested target markets and

action plans.

Some substantial investments have been made in these

industries and their support systems as a result. Science

FoundationArizona was created in 2006 to help fund science

research in the state through a combination of public and

private money. University research and technology transfer

have been enhanced with help from sales tax dollars ear-marked

by Proposition 301. New centers of innovation and

entrepreneurship are underway, such as SkySong, the ASU-Scottsdale

Innovation Center, a collaboration of city, university, and private entities on the

site of the former Los Arcos Mall. New programs to teach innovation and entrepreneurship

have sprung up in colleges and universities, spawning new research lines and ventures.

Arizona has long been recognized for expertise in advanced communications, information

technology, and health care, and these areas have grown and benefited from recent investments.

But the state’s new biotech and life sciences segments have had to be created almost from

scratch. Early bio successes include attraction of the International Genomics Consortium

and theTranslational Genomics Research Institute to Phoenix. Since their openings in 2002,

they have been catalysts for research investments, educational programs, and institutional

collaborations. Genomics accomplishments include identification of the genes responsible for

memory and childhood epilepsy, and discoveries about certain types of cancer and diabetes.

In addition, the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University debuted in 2003 and has

become the largest generator of bioscience research dollars in metropolitan Phoenix.

Top Ten

2nd Tier

3rd Tier

Bottom Tier

ARIZONA RANKED AS SECOND TIER FOR

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAPACITY IN 2004

Source: Milken Institute.

ARIZONA TRAILS

LEADERS IN JOB QUALITY

( RANKING AMONG 50 STATES)

Note: 1 is highest rank.

Source: Morrison Institute for Public

Policy, ASU; data from Corporation for

Enterprise Development, 2007.

50

40

30

20

10

1

2000 2007

Arizona

Colorado

Minnesota

Utah

* For copies of the various roadmaps and economic plans, see www. azcommerce. com.

26 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

All of this activity has been enhanced by a new partnership led by the University of Arizona

and ASU to create a medical school in downtown Phoenix that admitted its first class in

July 2007. The medical school will serve as a research and development site as well as the

training ground for physicians, pharmacists, and other health care professionals. In addi-tion,

support from The Virginia G. Piper Charitable Trust will help attract a significant

number of world- class researchers to Arizona to augment the state’s research capacity.

These initiatives are already having a positive economic impact, though it will be years

before we see the full value of new products, services, and ventures.

To become sustainable, however, Arizona must achieve global competitiveness while improving

social and environmental qualities. This will require an appropriate mix of consumer and voter

choices, free market mechanisms, and regulations. It will demand leadership, vision, and

long- term commitment. Sustainability considerations will need to be embedded in all of our

economic and workforce development priorities and plans. We will need to educate our children

that these choices matter.

Centrally important is that more and more of theArizona business community embrace sustain-ability

as a competitive advantage instead of a cost. This should not be a stretch since Arizona

already contains leading examples and the numbers are compelling. Conscientious Commerce

suggests that a sustainability focus in a 50- person manufacturing firm could result in a 40%

increase in profits through more efficient processes, better use of raw materials, and reduced

waste. And as the ranks of sustainability- conscious consumers grow, good practices should

result in improved images, greater customer loyalty, and stronger brands. Innovations in

sustainable technology will also generate new profits by providing solutions to worldwide

challenges created by exploding population growth and rapid urbanization. These should pro-vide

ample market opportunities for Arizona businesses.

From both the sustainability and competitiveness viewpoints, some of the greatest future

opportunities for Arizona will be in emerging sustainability industries. With a wealth of

university expertise in water management, forestry, and engineering, and a large number of

new enterprises including solar energy, biodiesel suppliers, and “ cool” building materials,

many of the state’s next big economic successes are expected to come from innovations in

areas that are, at once, sustainable and profitable. These can lead to a wide variety of technologies,

products, and services that could be sold around the globe.

Pavement is one example of a market opportunity. Considering that sidewalks, streets, and

parking lots cover as much as 60% of an urban area, and that the majority of urbanization

over coming decades will occur in arid and semi- arid climates, pavement will be a significant

contributor to the heat island effect, energy waste, water pollution, and other problems.

Arizona innovators are already working to create new types of paving to mitigate these issues.

Future Arizona entrepreneurs could turn one of the results into a truly sustainable business

– one that contributes to world livability, while creating wealth for its stakeholders.

Other sustainability market opportunities await in waste management, energy, transportation,

and community development, to name a few. Arizona could, and should, be a dominant global

player in many of these areas, given the state’s research and technology base and the need to

solve the challenges presented by our arid climate. Fortunately, we have innovators and entre-preneurs

in the race who are running hard.

SCIENCE & ENGINEERING

DEGREES ARE DECREASING

IN ARIZONA

( AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL DEGREES)

Source: Morrison Institute for Public

Policy, ASU; data from National Science

Foundation, 2006.

15

20

25

30

35

1993 2003

Arizona United States

1998

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 27

So, what might a competitive and sustainableArizona look like from an economic perspective?

Arizona’s economy would prosper from our ability to be entrepreneurial and globally

competitive in high value, high growth global export industries that are driven by innovation.

Arizona would dominate a few large market segments in targeted industries and, especially, key

market segments of the sustainability industry. Arizona might even lead the world to a better

urban development paradigm with new policies, practices, and technologies.

With these advantages, Arizona would attract substantial outside investment and major corpora-tions.

Homegrown innovators and entrepreneurs would launch ventures that grow to

become Global 2000 companies. Sustainable entrepreneurship would generate tremendous

new capital and income, while addressing many of the environmental and social challenges

of our time. All in all, Arizona would reap the benefits of economic growth at the same time

it improves environmental and social conditions.

Dan O’Neill is an experienced and well- traveled entrepreneur who has advised more than 200 early- stage innovators and company

start- ups in the U. S., Europe, and Australia. He also serves as senior entrepreneurial coach for ASU Technopolis.

Large and small Firms Embrace Sustainability

GE SEES SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS AND TECHNOLOGIES AS KEY TO BUSINESS SUCCESS

After more than a century of successful operation, General Electric realized that its customers were seriously

concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency. In response, the company launched a major

sustainability initiative called “ Ecomagination” with plans to capitalize on the global need for environmentally

sensitive products and technologies. GE – ranked by Forbes as second largest in the world with revenues in excess of

$ 160 billion – believes that one of the best ways to make money in coming years will be to develop products and

technologies that address environmental problems. Among its eco- friendly products are new high efficiency washing

machines and fuel- saving hybrid locomotives. Its environmental technologies include systems for desalination, coal

gasification, and solar and wind power. The company’s environmental technologies R& D budget is set to increase

annually to $ 1.5 billion by 2010 – a 100% increase over the 2005 budget – but GE expects that investment to double

environmental revenues to $ 20 billion annually.

NAVAJO FLEXCRETE RECYCLES AIR POLLUTANT TO BUILD AFFORDABLE ENERGY- EFFICIENT HOMES

Facing a shortage of high quality affordable housing on the Navajo Nation, the Navajo Housing Authority ( NHA)

decided in 2005 to invest in a new manufacturing plant near Page that can produce an innovative and environmentally

friendly building material largely out of waste. The product, called Navajo FlexCrete, is an aerated concrete block

containing 70% recycled flyash, a combustion by- product

from the nearby coal- fired Navajo Generating Station.

Navajo FlexCrete is expected to reduce the cost of housing

on the Navajo Nation and elsewhere, making homes

more affordable to buy and maintain. It also provides

more insulation than conventional construction, which

should lower energy costs for homeowners. Blocks from

the Navajo FlexCrete factory have already been used in the

construction of dozens of new homes, including a model

Green Home built through a partnership between NHA

and ASU’s Stardust Center. At full capacity, NHA’s factory

is expected to recycle hundreds of thousands of tons of

flyash to produce enough material to build many hundreds

of Navajo FlexCrete homes per year.

ARIZONA REMAINS BELOW

U. S. AVERAGE IN GDP PER

EMPLOYEEE ( IN THOUSANDS)

Source: Morrison Institute for Public

Policy, ASU, data from Bureau of

Economic Analysis, 2007.

$ 50

$ 60

$ 70

$ 80

1997 2005

Arizona United States

Right: The “ Guadalupe House” exemplifies sustainable, affordable housing using Navajo

FlexCrete blocks. Photo Credit: ASU Stardust Center for Affordable Homes and the Family.

28 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

David Berns, Executive Vice President, Casey Family Programs and

Former Director, Arizona Department of Economic Security ( 2003- 2006)

I have long felt a deep dissatisfaction with society’s system for protecting those most in

need. My whole career, therefore, has focused on changing the system. So I was surprised

to be asked to state my views on sustainability from a social perspective. Why would we

want to sustain a system that is often inadequate, inefficient, and ineffective, leaving huge

gaps between the “ haves” in our communities and the “ have nots”?

It took a while to recognize that sustainability in the social realm does not mean we want to

sustain a status quo that is broken. Rather, it means we want to create and sustain new and

better systems of human services in which every child, adult, and family is healthy, educated,

safe, and economically secure. In short, we have to improve our systems – and be able to maintain

the improvements – to bridge the divides.

To do this, we need new guiding principles for carrying out this mission. We need improved

safety nets for the most vulnerable. We need a continuous upgrading of our resources, expertise,

policies, and practices. Indeed, to realize this new vision for human services, we must let go

of the old, ineffective, not- worth- sustaining practices and embrace positive new ways to

improve the lives and families of those we serve.

Understanding the Mission

Vice President Hubert Humphrey once noted: “ The moral test of government is how that

government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the

twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy,

and the handicapped.”

In Arizona, the primary agency responsible for meeting Humphrey’s moral tests is the

Department of Economic Security ( DES). This agency was created in 1972 for the expressed

purpose of consolidating and coordinating a wide array of services and supports intended

to address the economic well- being and protection of the state’s most vulnerable people.

Today, DES operates programs that include child and adult protective services, foster care,

adoption, welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid eligibility, employment programs, vocational

rehabilitation services, child support, and services for those with developmental disabilities.

It also provides community supports in the areas of domestic violence, homelessness, work

force development, aging, and family support services.

Unfortunately, the original dream of DES consolidation has never been implemented fully.

As with many areas of government, DES programs tended to be driven by annual budgets,

DOES SUSTAINABILITY MEAN

BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN

“ HAVES” AND “ HAVE NOTS”?

Sustainability

is equity

over time.

Robert Gilman, Astrophysicist and

President, Context Institute

sustainability in the social realmmeans wanting to

create and sustain new and better systems of human services.

ARIZONA INCARCERATES

A HIGH PROPORTION

OF ITS POPULACE

( PER 100,000 POPULATION)

Source: Morrison Institute for Public

Policy, ASU; data from U. S. Bureau of

Justice Statistics.

300

400

500

600

1995 2005

Arizona United States

2000

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 29

legislative mandates, and line- item appropri-ations.

Consequently, individual programs

operated in isolation as they focused on

compliance with state and federal rules. Their

workers, in turn, were held accountable more

for the timeliness of their paperwork than

for their success in helping families get jobs

or keeping children safe. The problem with

this approach became apparent my first day

on the job in 2003.

Recognizing the Problem

When I became director of DES inAugust 2003, I was told we did not have enough money in our

budget to make all of our committed welfare payments for the year. Instead, we were projected

to experience a shortfall of $ 28 million dollars. In human terms, that translated as 50,000 fam-ilies

who would not receive cash payments for the last two months of the year. This was

intolerable. How we could be in such a disastrous situation only one month into the fiscal year?

The reason for the shortfall was thatArizona was experiencing the fastest growing welfare case-load

in the country. In the previous 21⁄ 2 years, Arizona’s welfare caseload had increased by an

incredible 56%, while the nation’s caseload had declined 3%. Some felt the reason forArizona’s

caseload growth was its poor economy; but the state was actually better off economically than

most of the rest of the country. Others suggested the cause was rapid population growth; but

Arizona’s population increase was only about 7.5% and most of the new people were coming to

Arizona either because they had jobs or they were comfortably retired. None of the caseload was

due to undocumented people from other countries; they simply did not qualify for benefits.

In reality, the main cause of the rising caseload and resulting budget deficit was that DES had

become highly effective at getting people into the system, but woeful at getting them out.

More specifically, the division that determined eligibility was admirably efficient at placing

needy families on welfare, while the division that helped welfare clients find employment had

them backed up for four to six months just to see a job counselor. This was a shock to me.

In Colorado, where I previously worked, 50% of the people who applied for financial assis-tance

never had to take a welfare check because they were helped to find a job within days

of visiting the office. In contrast, Arizona DES had diverted only 13 people from welfare to

work in the entire previous year.

This clearly had to change. Instead of the status quo, we had to find a way – a sustainable way – to

provide peoplewhat they needed, when they needed it, so they could become economically secure

and safe. Fixing the problem would require immediate overhaul of our approaches and practices

such that we would invest our resources, not in more welfare checks, but in finding more and

ARIZONA U. S.

1990 2000 1990 2000

% Children below poverty 22.0 19.3 18.3 16.6

% Own children in single- parent households 20.9 23.5 20.2 23.3

% Teens who are high- school dropouts 14.4 14.8 11.2 9.8

% Children living in high- poverty neighborhoods 29.1 29.4 23.0 20.4

Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, ASU; data from Population Reference Bureau,

analysis of data from the U. S. Census Bureau, for The Annie E. Casey Foundation.

MORE ARIZONA CHILDREN MUST COPE WITH HIGH- POVERTY NEIGHBORHOODS

THAN IN THE U. S. AS A WHOLE

ARIZONA HAS CLIMBED

ABOVE U. S. AVERAGE IN

PERCENT OF CHILDREN

WITH NO EMPLOYED PARENT

Source: Morrison Institute for Public

Policy, ASU; data from The Annie E. Casey

Foundation, 2007.

25

30

35

40

2000 2005

Arizona United States

30 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

better paying jobs for our clients and increasing supports to help themmaintain that employment.

We did just that. By June 2006, the number of families diverted from welfare to work increased

from 13 to 1,750, and overall Arizona had 11,000 fewer families on welfare. And with the

turnaround, Arizona quickly went from the fastest growing welfare state to one of the fastest

declining, a much more sustainable direction. It all started with setting common goals.

Developing a Unified Vision

In an organization like DES it is difficult to define a few overarching goals and measures of

success because the agency operates so many programs and its workers perform such a variety

of roles. Despite the difficulty, we learned that we would never function in a sustainable

manner if we did not have a clear understanding of what we needed to work on together.

Using a collaborative approach, we settled on three goals that had crosscutting implications

for nearly all aspects of our agency.

• GOAL ONE: INCREASE THE ECONOMIC SELF- SUFFICIENCY OF OUR CUSTOMERS.

Most of our divisions have a role in promoting the economic self- sufficiency of our

customers. This includes helping welfare recipients get jobs, assisting persons with

developmental disabilities become as independent as possible, and helping the elderly

supplement a modest retirement income. Even the child welfare area is involved

because most of the families in our system are living below poverty levels. To sustainably

improve the well- being of adults and the safety of children, we must provide employment

and other economic supports for clients and their families.

• GOAL TWO: REDUCE INSTITUTIONAL PLACEMENTS FOR CHILDREN AND ADULTS

WHILE INCREASING COMMUNITY SUPPORTS FOR OTHER VULNERABLE

POPULATIONS. Many vulnerable children and adults need to be with their own families

in their own communities, butArizona has a mixed record in this regard. The state has had

a higher percentage of young children placed in institutions than any other state, yet it is

among the best in the country for providing home- based supports for the elderly and

those with developmental disabilities. To become sustainable in this area, we decided to

focus on building on our strengths supporting vulnerable adults while finding new ways

to overcome our shortcomings with children. We made progress. From June 2005 to June

2006, the number of children under 7 in group homes decreased by 62% and children

under 4 in shelters decreased by 55%.

• GOAL THREE: STRENGTHEN FAMILIES TO PROVIDE FOR THE SAFETY OF

CHILDREN AND REDUCE THE NEED FOR REMOVAL OF CHILDREN FROM THEIR

PARENTS WHEN POSSIBLE. Strengthening families is the goal of virtually every program

in DES. To help us become more sustainable in this effort, we decided to measure agency

success based on the increases in supportive in- home services that actually result in a

reduced need for foster care.

Measuring Success as Outcomes

The agency’s three goals constitute both the vision and the measures for sustaining quality

human services inArizona. The means for achieving these goals, however, must always remain

flexible. Past experience has shown that approaches that do not change and evolve tend to

become obsolete and ineffective. Our effort, therefore, always has to be directed toward the

outcome, not the activity. Our resources must be invested in child and family well- being, not

in simply maintaining old programs. In this way, our greatness as an agency will be measured,

COMPONENT RANK*

Poverty rate 38

Income distribution 42

Income distribution change 37

Economic disparity between

urban and rural areas 15

Overall Index Rank 37

* Among 50 states and District of Columbia.

1 is the best in this case.

Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy,

ASU; data from Corporation for Enterprise

Development, 2007.

ARIZONA RANKS LOW

ON CFED’S EQUITY INDEX

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 31

not by what we do, but rather by what our families accomplish – how well they close the gap

between what they have and what they need. Similarly, our practice will become sustainable

only when our success is defined by the accomplishments of those we serve.

What does it take to approach sustainability for the state’s most vulnerable families and

children, and by extension, its communities? With a staff of more than 10,000 employees and

annual funding of nearly $ 3 billion, DES possesses significant resources to carry out its

mission. Yet even with all these people and the substantial sum of money, the problems faced

by vulnerable people far exceed available state resources. Such a situation places great pressure

on DES and other agencies to use their resources wisely, efficiently, and effectively. Not only

must agency programs work seamlessly together toward a common goal, but their public

resources must be used to leverage private and community support organizations so that we

work together with them rather than compete with or replace them.

In the end, the key to sustainable success is the concept of partnership. Public agencies

must apply their resources and services in ways that effectively partner them with indi-viduals,

families, and communities, as well as with businesses, faith- based organizations,

nonprofits, and other service providers. This will give Arizona the means to strengthen

and sustain its communities.

David Berns previously served as director of the El Paso County Department of Human Services in Colorado and director of

two social services agencies in Michigan. The Casey Family Programs is a Seattle- based organization serving children, youth,

and families in the child welfare system.

Sustainable

ecosystems

require

sustainable

economies,

and vice versa.

Sustainable

systems also

require social

stability.

G. Jon Roush, Board Member,

Indian Law Resource Center

State and International Programs improve Lives and Communities

MINNESOTA ACT LINKS HOUSING, JOBS, AND SERVICES TO ENCOURAGE AFFORDABLE, LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

As Minnesota’s cities began feeling the strain of rapid population growth in 1995, its legislature passed the Livable

Communities Act ( LCA). The LCA funds an incentive- based grant program to encourage redevelopment projects and

affordable housing for middle and low income families. LCA funding also helps create parks, hiking and biking trails,

and greenways in local neighborhoods. Grant programs promote three main goals: 1) developments that closely link

housing, jobs, and services, 2) clean- up of brownfields for redevelopment, job creation, and wetlands, and 3) new

and rehabilitated affordable housing for purchase and rental. From 1996 through 2006, the LCA provided 472

grants leveraged by private and other public investments. Related projects are expected to produce 25,000 new

and retained jobs, over 23,000 new and rehabilitated housing units in infill and redevelopment projects, and a $ 67

million increase in tax capacity.

GRAMEEN BANK EXTENDS MICRO- CREDIT TO END POVERTY IN BANGLADESH AND THE WORLD

Since 1976, Grameen Bank has been extending small loans to the poorest people of Bangladesh – one of the world’s

most poverty- stricken nations. Its ambitious goal is to end poverty worldwide. For this work, Grameen Bank won the

2006 Nobel Peace Prize. The bank operates under the belief that the neediest people should be given highest priority

in getting loans. These loans – often less than $ 25 – can kick off entrepreneurial activity that lifts entire families out

of debt and squalor. The bank requires no collateral and often charges no interest, but after making a loan it monitors

clients’ welfare and capacity to survive disasters and emergencies. Since its founding, Grameen Bank has disbursed

more than $ 6 billion in loans, with a recovery rate of 98%. The vast majority of its clients are women in almost 77,000

villages. Astute entrepreneurs, the bank’s clients have also proven to be capable savers. In 2006, deposits in savings

accounts were 138% of outstanding loans.

32 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

Luther Propst, Executive Director, Sonoran Institute

Arizona is a unique and magnificent place with a landscape that stirs deep passion – wide

open spaces, historic ranches, unique vegetation, and a distinctively Western character.

Arizona also shares with much of western North America a desirable, competitive niche in

the global economy. Nowhere else in the world do we find advanced, diverse economies

thriving in close proximity to a combination of expansive public lands, abundant wildlife

habitat, and vast wild areas that make it possible for many to enjoy world- class recreation

and scenery as part of their daily lives. Being surrounded by this diversity of natural amenities

is one of Arizona’s key economic advantages in an increasingly global economy. As technology

allows the global economy to reach into once remote areas, our natural amenities draw

bright, talented people with ideas and investment capital.

But dramatic changes are at work inArizona and theWest. Resource extraction such as logging,

mining, and ranching – once the region’s economic mainstays – account for an ever- shrinking

share of employment and income. Instead, knowledge- based services, health care, and related

industries have become the dominant sources of prosperity, along with retirement and

investment income.

The Sonoran Institute recently published Prosperity in the 21st Century: The Role of Protected

Public Lands, which shows that theWest’s economy is increasingly driven by people’s decisions

about where they want to live, rather than where they have to live; indeed, the trend has shifted

from “ jobs first, then migration,” to “ migration first, then jobs” as entrepreneurs choose quality

of life over other business factors. In addition, retired or “ downshifting” baby boomers are

drawn to communities that are surrounded by scenic landscapes and protected public lands.

As a result, protecting the state’s magnificent scenery and open lands is now an essential strategy

for promoting economic prosperity. A study by the Sonoran Institute and the Theodore

Roosevelt Conservation Partnership reports that hunters and anglers, alone, spend more than

$ 548 million annually in Arizona.

Like other states in the IntermountainWest, Arizona has a difficult set of tasks to, at once, preserve

our natural heritage, promote a diverse economy, and deal with the state’s rapid growth. To

accomplish these complementary goals, we must come to agreement on how to address the

acute challenges that confront Arizona’s progress toward a sustainable future. We need to find

solutions for the effects of rapid population growth, sprawling development patterns, ineffective

regional growth planning, and an outdated system for managing groundwater.

WILL INACTION AND GROWTH

STYMIE SUSTAINABILITY AND

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFORTS?

Humanmisuse of environmental assets is driving

environmental change, and this demands action now.

The World Conservation Union

ARIZONA GREENHOUSE

GAS EMISSIONS ARE

PREDICTED TO RISE

( MILLIONS OF METRIC TONS

OF CARBON DIOXIDE)

Source: Center for Climate Strategies.

50

100

150

200

1990 2020

2

ARIZONA’S WATER

QUALITY IS IMPROVING

( PERCENT IMPAIRED WATER)

Source: Morrison Institute for Public

Policy, ASU; data from National Water

Quality Inventory Report to Congress,

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.

10

20

30

40

50

60

1996 2004

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 33

Four Policy Reforms for a Sustainable Future

The scale and pace of projected growth requires a degree of innovation and policy reform

in Arizona that we have not seen since the passage of the Groundwater Management Act in

1980 and creation of the Heritage Fund in 1990. Due to differences of opinion, however, our

leaders have been slow to act. Fortunately, Arizona voters recognize that the state’s economic

prosperity requires safeguarding our environmental quality and ensuring our quality of life.

Over the past decade in Arizona, according to the Trust for Public Land, voters have

approved all 22 municipal, county, and state ballot measures to raise money for protection

of sensitive lands. These have collectively provided the funding for a $ 1.7 billion dollar

investment in preserving our desert heritage. Successful ballot measures have ranged from

Scottsdale’s approval of over $ 700 million since 1995 for open space, habitat, and wildlife

protection to Pima County’s approval in 2004 of $ 271 million to implement the Sonoran

Desert Protection Plan. The latter has become a model for counties across the nation seeking

to balance economic growth with wildlife protection.

Sustainable develop-ment…

requires

maintaining the carrying

capacity of the resource

base and, at the same

time, developing the

knowledge and the

technology to increase

carrying capacity.

Charles Wilkinson, University of Colorado,

Professor of Law and Author of The Eagle

Bird: Mapping a New West

ARIZONA’S DEVELOPED LAND AREA WILL GROW DRAMATICALLY

Note: Populated areas shown in red.

Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, ASU; map adapted from Maricopa Association of Governments.

Protecting the state’smagnificent scenery

and open lands is now an essential strategy

for promoting economic prosperity.

2000 POPULATION – 5.1 MILLION EXPECTED 2050 POPULATION – 16 MILLION

We must put aside our differences and come together to

address four of the most pressing, important, and feasible

policy reforms needed to steer Arizona toward a more

sustainable future. State leaders must:

• Promote cross- boundary thinking and effective

regional planning among Arizona’s major cities

• Update management of groundwater in Arizona

• Create a statewide funding source to provide

adequate funds for protecting and restoring natural

resources, natural areas, and other community assets

• Make Arizona a leader in promoting clean, renewable, and sustainable energy

Promote Cross- Boundary Thinking and Effective Regional Planning

Between 1990 and 2000, the state’s population grew by 40%, making Arizona one of the

fastest growing states in the nation. As of July 1, 2005, Arizona’s population was almost 6

million according to the Arizona Department of Economic Security – and the population is

projected to double by 2040 to almost 12 million. This growth is causing the greater

Phoenix andTucson metropolitan areas and beyond to merge into a single megapolitan area

known as the Sun Corridor. Dealing with it requires thoughtful planning to ensure that

services that cut across municipal and county boundaries – including transportation, water

management, and conservation of natural areas – are sufficient. In short, Arizona badly needs

a more regional, comprehensive, and creative approach to managing the state’s growth.

Update the Management of Groundwater

Arizona is experiencing a long- term drought that exacerbates the demands of a growing

population on finite water supplies. The system for managing Arizona’s groundwater has

not kept pace with either population growth or changing climate conditions. The 1980

Groundwater Management Act ( GMA) established a detailed system for managing ground-water

resources within designated Active Management Areas ( AMA) in the major urbanized

areas of Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, andYavapai counties, as well as a few rural areas

in which severe groundwater overdrafts were occurring as a result of irrigation. In the 26

years since passage of the GMA, no other AMAs have been designated, despite rapidly

increasing use of groundwater throughout the state. In fact, outside of the AMAs,

groundwater use is essentially unregulated. Consequently, Arizona faces

ongoing ecological decline – especially along the state’s remaining

intact river systems – as unregulated groundwater pumping

increases. This pumping threatens to deplete the aquifers that

sustain some of the most important rivers and streams remain-ing

in Arizona, such as the BillWilliams, San Pedro, Santa Cruz,

and Verde rivers. To protect our quality of life and economic

prosperity, we must update and reform the GMA to address

current realities for the state’s population, climate conditions, and

sprawling urban footprint of cities and towns.

ARIZONA WATER SOURCE %

Groundwater 40

Colorado River 20

Central Arizona Project 19

Other Surface Water 19

Effluent 2

Source: Arizona’s Rapid Growth and

Development, 88th Arizona Town Hall, 2006.

ARIZONANS CONTINUE TO

DEPEND ON GROUNDWATER

% EMPLOYEES

RANK AMONG WORKING

50 STATES STATE AT HOME

1 South Dakota 6.1

2 ( tie) Colorado 6.0

2 ( tie) Montana 6.0

15 ARIZONA 4.0

Average U. S. 3.6

MORE ARIZONANS WORK

AT HOME…

% EMPLOYEES

RANK AMONG COMMUTING BY

50 STATES STATE PUBLIC TRANSIT

1 New York 25.8

2 New Jersey 10.3

3 Maryland 8.5

Average U. S. 4.7

20 ARIZONA 1.9

… THAN COMMUTE BY

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, ASU; data from American Community Survey,

U. S. Census Bureau, 2005.

34 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 35

Create a Statewide Funding Source for Protecting and Restoring

Natural Resources, Natural Areas, and Other Community Assets

A key factor in Arizona’s landscape, economy, and quality of life is its mosaic of public and

private lands. Almost half ofArizona is public land managed by the National Park Service, U. S.

Forest Service, U. S. Bureau of Land Management, and U. S. Fish andWildlife Service. In

addition, Arizona has an important and growing system of state and local parks and wildlife

preserves. Together these lands protect drinking water for our cities, provide wildlife habitat,

and offer opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, mountain biking, bird watching, and other

forms of outdoor recreation.

Increasingly, we realize that protecting these public lands and ensuring the state’s economic

prosperity are compatible; that our lands and waters are a principal long- term advantage in an

increasingly global economy; and that the recreational opportunities they provide attract the

bright, creative people who are the backbone of a modern economy. That is why, in 1990,

Arizona voters created the Arizona Heritage Fund, designating up to $ 20 million a year from

lottery sales for protecting the state’s wildlife and natural areas. The Heritage Fund provides

essential funding for parks, open space, trails, historic preservation, and endangered species

protection, as well as urban wildlife projects. Regrettably, this source of funds is inadequate,

given the magnitude of the challenges today. What Arizona needs is a new, more flexible, and

assured source of funds for protectingArizona’s natural treasures and our long- term prosperity.

Make Arizona a Leader in Promoting Clean,

Renewable, and Sustainable Energy

To promote a prosperous future, protect the health of our watersheds and water supplies, and

restore our wildlife habitat and open lands, Arizona must develop alternative energy sources.

Fortunately, Arizona has vast and largely untapped fuel resources, particularly solar and wind

power, and we have started to encourage the use of these and other alternative energy sources.

In 2006, the Arizona Corporation Commission voted to ensure that an increasing percentage

of our electricity, up to 15% by 2025, be produced from solar, wind, and other renewable

sources. The Corporation Commission is also requiring that more of our power be generated

from“ distributed” sources, closer to where it will actually be used. Meeting the goal of 30% of

Arizona’s power coming from distributed sources by 2011 will motivate solutions such as solar

TOTAL CONSUMPTION ( TRILLION BTU) PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION ( MILLION BTU)

YEAR ENERGY ELECTRICITY ENERGY ELECTRICITY

1980 755.3 396.3 277.8 145.8

1990 950.5 654.1 259.3 178.4

2001 1,353 926.3 255.4 174.8

Source: Arizona’s Rapid Growth and Development, 88th Arizona Town Hall, 2006.

ENERGY AND ELECTRICITY ARE IN EVER- HIGHER DEMAND IN ARIZONA

ARIZONA RENEWABLE

ENERGY GENERATING

CAPACITY ( IN MW)

Source: Morrison Institute for Public

Policy, ASU; data from U. S. Department

of Energy and APS.

1970 2002 2025

Anticipated Future Need

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

WHO USES WATER IN

ARIZONA? ( WATER DEMAND

IN ACRE- FEET BY SECTOR, 2003)

Source: Morrison Institute for Public

Policy, ASU; data from Arizona

Department of Water Resources,

Arizona Water Atlas, Vol. 1, 2006.

Agriculture 5,436,500

Municipal 1,566,700

Indian 420,600

Industrial 402,800

TOTAL 7,826,600

protecting public lands and ensuring

the state’s economic prosperity are compatible.

36 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

State Policies and City Services Promote Sustainable practices

CALIFORNIA’S MILLION SOLAR ROOFS PLAN WILL BOOST CLEAN POWER FOR THE STATE

California plans to capitalize on its sunshine by creating a million solar roofs on homes and businesses by 2017. One

million roofs would generate an estimated 3,000 megawatts ( MW) of clean electricity, and reduce greenhouse gas

emissions by 3 million tons compared to the use of coal- fired power plants. This initiative is modeled after a successful

Japanese program in the 1990s that used financial incentives to spur demand and achieve economies of scale for

photovoltaic ( PV) systems, making Japan the top solar powered country in the world. California’s primary incentives

of cash rebates and tax credits are expected to help the state capture a major share of the PV industry and place

California in close competition with world solar leaders Japan and Germany.

PORTLAND AGENCY HELPS CITY AND ITS BUSINESSES OPERATE MORE EFFICIENTLY

Portland, Oregon was named America’s most sustainable city in 2006 by SustainLane, a firm that tracks government

sustainability metrics. One reason for that honor is Portland’s Office of Sustainable Development ( OSD), which helps

businesses build energy- saving structures and supports local food growers. OSD also enables the city to function

more sustainably by leveraging funds to increase recycling, reduce landfill use, decrease carbon dioxide emissions,

and improve energy conservation. A recent report credits OSD with helping the city reduce greenhouse gas

emissions to 1% above 1990 levels and save $ 2.2 million per year in energy costs through greater efficiency and

use of renewable supplies.

panels on homes, shopping centers, and schools. Arizona also

needs to embrace other steps to reduce carbon emissions and

fossil fuel dependence, including new community designs

that promote alternatives to automobiles, such as bicycling,

transit, and walking.

The Choice? A Sustainable Future

or Immeasurable Loss

The signs are there: Arizona’s rapid and largely unmanaged

growth threatens to undermine the foundation of our quality

of life and economic prosperity. If we wish to protect our

natural assets, Arizona’s political leaders and voters must

join forces to create a more environmentally sustainable and

healthy future. Specifically, we must acknowledge and agree

that regional challenges, such as transportation and protection

of regional open space networks require regional thinking and

regional solutions; that water management in the state lags

behind the reality of growth and water consumption; that the

state needs a new, more reliable and sustained source of funds

to protect and restore our landscapes and river systems; and

thatArizona will be a more vital and prosperous state when we

tap fully into the state’s vast reservoir of clean, renewable

energy, especially solar and wind. Only then can we focus on

the actions necessary to make Arizona more sustainable.

Luther Propst is cofounder of the Sonoran Institute, coauthor of Balancing Nature

and Commerce in Gateway Communities, and adjunct professor in the School of

Renewable Natural Resources, The University of Arizona.

Tucson

Yuma

Phoenix

Flagstaff

Solar Insolation Annual Average in kWh/ m2/ day for Flat Plate Collector

Very Good

5.1- 5.5

5.6- 6.0

Excellent

6.1- 6.5

6.6- 7.0

ARIZONA’S SOLAR POTENTIAL RANGES FROM

VERY GOOD TO EXCELLENT STATEWIDE

Source: U. S. Department of Energy, 2002.

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 37

Sports fans use detailed statistics for comparing teams and players. Businesses tally a myriad

of measures to calculate the bottom line. And nearly every head of household balances a

checkbook or tracks savings. The idea of keeping score is basic to our lives; it is essential for

evaluating the performance of the things we care about. In the past 10 to 20 years, numerous

benchmark and indicator projects have measured the status of important issues, including the

What Matters* series from Morrison Institute for Public Policy, which reports on quality of

life data for metropolitan Phoenix. While these efforts provide a valuable snapshot of how

things look at any given time, their greatest strength is in illustrating the trajectory of progress

across defined time intervals, be it a month, a year, or a generation. A trajectory tells us at a

glance whether something is going in the right direction or the wrong one. In sustainability,

trajectories are a key part of knowing what path we are on.

With more and more interest focused on sustainability, both the public and private sectors

have a need for appropriate measures to monitor and evaluate the effects of sustainability poli-cies.

The task is challenging, however, because of the difficulty inherent in integrating measures

across the environment, economy, and society. Generally, indicators in each of these areas have

been viewed in isolation from each other. For example, common measures of economic output,

such as gross domestic product ( GDP), have usually failed to value either the benefits of infra-structure

and ecosystem services or the social costs of poor health and natural catastrophes.

Nevertheless, an increasing number of products have been developed that balance the value

of environmental and social goods with economic indicators to determine the overall sus-tainability

status of nations, states, and localities. Related products have been created to

assess how ready states are to make sustainability an everyday reality. Some notable models

worthy of further examination follow.

• GENUINE PROGRESS INDICATOR ( GPI) Developed by the nonprofit group, Redefining

Progress, the GPI has been applied at both the national and county level. This set of indi-cators

distinguishes itself by adding to standard GDP the value of non- market goods, such

as the value of household and volunteer work, services from consumer durables ( e. g., cars

and refrigerators), and services of infrastructure, such as streets and highways. It also

subtracts from GDP the non- market value of such things as money spent defensively ( e. g.,

for repairs, home security, insurance, and water filtration), the social cost of divorce, and

the depletion or degradation of environmental resources.

HOW CAN ARIZONA KEEP

SCORE ON SUSTAINABILITY?

While modern thinking

has expanded to

encompass the concept

of sustainability, our

capacity to manage

for it is just beginning

to take shape.

The State of the States,

Resource Renewal Institute

* See www. morrisoninstitute. org for reports from 1997- 2004.

An increasing number of products have been developed

that balance the value of environmental and social goods

with economic indicators

38 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

• OREGON BENCHMARKS A broad set of 90 indicators, Oregon Benchmarks measures

progress toward the state’s three sustainability goals: quality jobs; engaged, caring, safe

communities; and healthy, sustainable surroundings. These goals resulted from a strategic

vision created by a task force of Oregon business and community leaders called the

Oregon Progress Board, which was created by the legislature and is chaired by the gover-nor.

The benchmarks are in seven categories: economy, education, civic engagement,

social support, public safety, community development, and environment. State agencies

must link their performance measures to the benchmarks, which have been in place for

more than a decade.

• U. S. CITY SUSTAINABILITY RANKING This product of SustainLane, an independent

online resource on sustainability for government and businesses, rates the status of sus-tainability

programs, policies, and practices for the nation’s 50 largest cities, including

Tucson, Phoenix, and Mesa. It covers 15 categories that include metro congestion, air quality,

tap water quality, city innovation, planning/ land use, green economy, and energy/ climate.

• SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVENESS INDEX San Diego’s sustainability benchmark tool

monitors the balance among economic, environmental, and equity elements for the region.

These are considered essential elements for developing and maintaining a competitive

business climate. Developed by a joint effort of the San DiegoAssociation of Governments

and the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, the index evaluates 20

indicators in 14 categories such as standard of living, air quality, income distribution, housing

affordability, childhood education, investment in waste management and water supply, and

investment in goods movement infrastructure. The index is also used to compare San Diego

against 18 metro competitors including Seattle, Denver, and Phoenix.

• LIVING WITH THE FUTURE IN MIND New Jersey’s set of 41 sustainability indicators

is organized around 11 goals developed by a 1995 stakeholder process that involved

business, government, and community participants. Goals for the state include economic

vitality, quality education, healthy people, efficient transportation, decent housing, and

ecological integrity. Each indicator associated with one of the goals is intended to have

a target value and date, though not all targets have yet been established. The project is

administered by an independent institute called the New Jersey Sustainable State

Institute, which originated with New Jersey Future, a nonprofit organization that organ-ized

the 1995 stakeholder initiative. All state agencies are required to enact policies

compatible with the project’s goals.

• GREEN PLAN CAPACITY INDEX The GPC Index from Resource Renewal Institute

combines 65 indicators in environmental management, environmental policy innovation,

fiscal and program commitment, and quality of governance in order to assess the ability

of individual states to implement viable policies for sustainability. The GPC Index was

featured in the group’s 2001 report, The State of the States: Assessing the Capacity of States

to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning. Arizona was ranked 29th

overall by the 6- year- old index, but was cited for strong commitment to innovation and

strategic planning. Green planning, according to Resource Renewal Institute, applies the

business model of managing for results to achieve long- term environmental and economic

goals and to secure a high quality of life for present and future generations.

Indicators... show trends

in what is happening,

letting us understand

where we have come

from and where we are

now. From there we can

begin analyzing why

things are happening,

and determine what we

want to do next to help

move our society in the

right direction.

Living with the Future in Mind,

New Jersey Sustainable State Institute

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 39

What sets the described benchmarks and indicators apart from earlier attempts to measure

economic and quality of life issues? Each method is unique in approach and execution, yet

viewed as a whole they contain a number of practical and advantageous characteristics.

These scorecards:

• Originate from a major long- term planning process

• Comprise a cohesive, long- term view of progress in a state or locality

• Involve achieving balance among different categories of indicators

• Stimulate action by setting goals and targets for results

• Stay in the public eye through reports and media attention generated by their champion,

which is often an appointed board, nonprofit institution, or public agency

• Benefit from public interest as well as political leadership to give them lasting power

• Build on experience, allow for adaptation and modification, and spell out their own

shortcomings

• Require states and localities to face hard facts by expecting and measuring improvement

in even the toughest problems

A scorecard needs a leader and champion

with the resources and authority to build

consensus and complete a prototype.

A sustainability scorecard for Arizona should be unique to the state’s specific conditions and

interests. Building on the experiences of others can help Arizona develop its own scoring

system. Such a project needs a leader and champion with the resources and authority to

build consensus and complete a prototype.

This report already illustrates the state’s current trajectories in many key areas. Additional

assessments of Arizona’s sustainability can be found in many places, including the Resource

Renewal Institute’s State of the States report. When Arizona has a unified strategic vision for

statewide sustainability, a set of comprehensive goals with indicators and targets, and a

monitor to oversee the process, Arizona will possess the tools it needs to measure progress

on its sustainability journey. These will help

state and local leaders solve Arizona’s

sustainability policy puzzle.

The issue is that virtually

every new invention,

every problem that we

solve, every policy that

we implement disad-vantages

some people

and advantages others.

What we need to do

is to ensure that our

approaches to sustain-ability

don't, in fact,

widen the gap between

the haves and have-nots.

I would challenge

every engineer, every

business person, and

every politician to ask

when making decisions

from the smallest to

the grandest: What

are the cascading

implications of this

decision for all

segments of the

population?

Charles Redman, Director, School of

Sustainability, Arizona State University

Whosoever desires constant success must change

his conduct with the times.

Niccol ` o Machiavelli, 16th Century Italian Political Theorist

The subject of sustainability is undeniably deep and wide- ranging.

Not surprisingly, people have expressed numerous opinions from

diverse perspectives on what to do and how it should be done. In

the following pages, 24 leading thinkers from Arizona and the

national discourse tender their ideas. These thought- provoking

essays are organized in the following categories:

Improving practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Leveraging assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

defining needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

Making decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

3

Part three

leading thinkers

speak out on

sustainability

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 41

he Dial Corporation has been a part of the greater Phoenix

community for over 30 years. In March 2004, we became a sub-sidiary

of the Henkel Corporation, a global consumer products

company with headquarters in Germany. We have actively joined

them in support of Henkel’s global program of sustainability.

Even prior to that, however, Dial had built sustainability into the

basic way in which we think and operate as part of our stated

“ Corporate Vision and Values.”

From a product development

perspective, sustainability is meet-ing

today’s consumer needs for

household, laundry, and personal

care products while sustaining

the envi ronment for future

generations. We see growing

consumer interest and activism

for products and packages that are

good for them and good for the

earth. Sustainability also means

employing manufacturing and

supply systems that optimize effi-cient

use of resources throughout

the supply chain. With our focus

on sustainable practices, we have

been able to reduce the cost of our products, packaging, manufacturing,

and supply chain, and then pass those savings on to our customers.

Simply stated, sustaining our resources makes good business sense.

This is underscored by the fact that our largest trading partner, Wal-

Mart, has recently taken a very proactive and visionary approach by

making sustainable practices a key criterion for their vendors and

manufacturers. As a result, sustainability is not just a nice- to- have,

but a business imperative for Dial. Significantly, our R& D strategy

includes three key components that relate to sustainability:

 ABILITY TO RECYCLE – We currently utilize liquid laundry

detergent bottles that are composed of over 25% recycled resin,

bar soap cartons that use 90% recycled fiber, and personal care

body wash bottles that are 100% recyclable.

 SOURCE REDUCTION – We have developed a concentrated

version of our Purex liquid laundry detergent that requires a

bottle only half the previous size, which means we use less

plastic in the bottle, less paperboard in the shipping case, less

fuel per bottle to ship the detergent, and less energy to manu-facture.

In addition, the compact container is easier and safer

for consumers to store and easier to grip and dispense.

 USE OF RENEWABLE MATERIALS – In our translucent body wash

bottles, we have substituted calcium carbonate, a renewable

resource, for a portion of the plastic resin. This reduces the use of

plastic while maintaining the bottle’s ability to be 100% recyclable.

In Dial’s move toward more sustainable consumer- packaged goods,

we have encountered one noteworthy obstacle – limited availability

of recycled materials, especially plastics. While all plastics are poten-tially

recyclable, only two types of containers ( HDPE and PET) have

been collected, sorted, and recycled to a significant degree. Thus,

communities are only taking partial advantage of the recycling

opportunities that exist. With the large and geographically compact

industrial and consumer base we have in the Phoenix metro area, we

should be able to develop a self- sustaining recycling, composting,

and even incineration infrastructure. I encourage Arizona business

leaders and environmental scientists to build greater sustainability

into future regional development plans.

Prior to joining Dial Corporation in 2000, Brad Casper served as a division

president at Church & Dwight and spent 16 years at Procter & Gamble where

he was a vice president.

Sustaining Resources Makes Good Business Sense

Brad Casper, President and CEO, Dial Corporation

42 ARIZONA POLICY CHOICES: SUSTAINABILITY FOR ARIZONA

“ With the large and geographically compact industrial and consumer base we have

in the Phoenix metro area, we should be able to develop a self- sustaining recycling,

composting, and even incineration infrastructure.”

Improving practices | for sustainability

WASTE REDUCTION

BY BUSINESSES CAN HAVE

A HUGE IMPACT

ON SUSTAINABILITY

SOURCES OF U. S.

NON- HAZARDOUS WASTE %

Manufacturing 59

Mining 16

Oil/ Gas 13

Agricultural 9

Municipal Solid Waste 2

Other 1

Source: Morrison Institute for Public

Policy, ASU; data from Tufts University,

Tufts Recycles.

ARIZONANS ANNUALLY GENERATE

NEARLY ONE TON OF WASTE FOR EVERY PERSON

MUNICIPAL SOLID MSW GENERATED

WASTE GENERATED PER CAPITA

( TONS/ YEAR) ( TONS/ PERSON) % RECYCLED

Arizona 5,195,330 .9 19.7

U. S. 387,855,461 1.3 28.5

Source: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, ASU; data from Governing Sourcebook, 2006.

T

Arizona Ranches Plan to Protect Land

and Adapt to a Changing Economy

Mandy Roberts Metzger, President, Diablo Trust

Improving practices | for sustainability

MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: NOVEMBER 2007 43

“ Ranches are increasingly threatened by global competition and incentives

to convert to subdivisions. To sustain the Bar T Bar and Flying M, two ranch families joined

with Flagstaff environmentalists and state and federal agencies to create the Diablo Trust.”

wo independent working Arizona ranches – the Bar T Bar and

the Flying M – comprise what is known as the Diablo Trust. Located

in northern Arizona 160 miles northeast of Phoenix, the boundaries

of Diablo Trust encompass 426,000 acres of intermingled private,

state, and federal lands. The ranches have protected open space and

recreational opportunities for five generations.

Ranches, however, are increasingly threatened by global competition

and incentives to convert to subdivisions. To address sustainability of

the Bar T Bar and Flying M, two ranch families joined with a group of

Flagstaff environmentalists and state and federal agency personnel to

create the Diablo Trust in 1993. Today, Diablo Trust is one of the West’s

oldest and largest grassroots collaborative land management teams.

What is the advantage to Arizona for sustaining these ranches?

Summer rainfall and winter snow feed clean water through Diablo

Trust rangelands. The moisture creates a diverse plant community that

supports wildlife, healthy watersheds, and food production. Wildlife

and livestock seasonally rotate between

higher and lower elevations allowing the

land rest time to build next year’s forage.

It is a beautiful and productive place.

In contrast, Maricopa County has grown

an average of 313 people a day since

2000. Americans, for the first time,

import more food than they grow at

home. Deserts and high plains are con-tinually

devoured by new development.

Water supplies have been endangered by

growth and the neglect of watersheds.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “ When the

well’s dry, we know the worth of water.”

The same can be said of open space.

With many places seeming to abandon

any notion of sustainability, Diablo Trust

partners feel the responsibility to become

a leader in building sustainable rural

economies. Their first task has been to

create a workable long- term plan to guide land use. This has not been

historically supported in rural areas.

Fortunately, Coconino County leaders have long thought “ outside the

box” when it comes to rural land use planning. They first began fostering

community- generated plans to guide development of unincorporated

population centers. More recently, they authorized one of Arizona’s

first rural plans to guide county actions in places where no population

centers exist. This was the Diablo Canyon Rural Planning Area. The

resulting plan completed by Trust participants and collaborators in

2005 provides a toolkit and pathway for finding grazing- compatible

economic opportunities that will keep the ranches operating into the

next generation and beyond.

Among the conclusions of the plan: Trust lands can be used to supply

substantial amounts of alternative energy – wind, solar, and biomass.

Native seeds can be marketed sustainably alongside local beef. The

restoration of 75,000 grassland acres can create opportunities for

research and watershed management. Open

space, as well as historical and archaeo-logical

sites, can be preserved by employing

transfer of development rights, directed

development, and conservation easements.

Most important, the county and Diablo

Trust can continue to work together to

preserve sustainable open space. Around

the planet, billions of acres exist that are

similar to the American West in geology,

topography, soils, habitats, watersheds,

and food and fiber production. The Diablo

Trust experience will provide a hands- on

laboratory for new ways to address sus-tainability

in many of these places.

This is a hopeful effort, filled with promise.

Mandy Roberts Metzger has worked as a senior

natural resource policy advisor in Washington,

D. C., and currently serves on the Arizona Growing

Smarter Oversight Council, the Arizona Water

Institute Advisory Board, and the board of the

Coconino County Sustainable Economic

Development Initiative.

MOHAVE COCONINO

APACHE

NAVAJO

GREENLEE

GRAHAM

PINAL

PIMA

MARICOPA

YUMA

SANTA CRUZ

COCHISE

YAVAPAI

LA PAZ

Flagstaff

Phoenix

Tucson

Y