ISSUE #35: Blaine County (Un)Sustainability

I know this is "TLDR"--but before you complain, try reading the Blaine County Sustainability Commission Plan yourself

Follow Up to ISSUE #33

Monday’s post on the Council’s anti-child approach was not my best. While I stand by my point that the Council has ignored the Comp Plan’s requirement that they adopt measures that bring families into Ketchum, my data points were not great.

In particular, base on a poorly reported IME article, I went too far in my rumination that the Hemingway school site would make a nice place for tourism development. BCSD owns that site, and realistically, there is no way they are giving it up. School Board member Dan Turner schooled me on that one, as well as my pick-up from the not great IME article that the middle school might close. He pointed out that this an unlikely outcome.

The families left in Ketchum look like they are doing what they can to hold on, for now.

Who Amongst Us Lives “Sustainably?”

I am all for sustainability.¹ There is no Planet B. Like most people in the WRV, I am a mass of contradictions on this topic.

I try to be sustainable. I refill my water bottle and compost food waste. My yard is tiny; the plants are native. I recycle. I ride my bike into town (okay, not to be sustainable but to avoid searching for a parking spot).

On the flip side, I travel frequently globally for remote work jobs, to visit my kids, and to get out of town during Slack. I drive a pick-up. I eat meat. I downhill ski. I order from Amazon. My Patagucci outdoor gear is made of plastic and comes from Asia.² My driveway is snow-melted. The more of my unsustainability I think of, the worse I feel about myself. Ugh.

But I take comfort in the universal rationalization of mediocrity: I am not much worse than anyone else. We are all guilty of living a non-sustainable lifestyle.

Living on the edge of the wilderness, ninety miles from the nearest metro area, is inherently not “sustainable.” Living here is a consumption choice, regardless of whether you are retired, work from home, or work locally. Living off a tourism economy is one of the least sustainable economic activities.

Let’s face it: living in the WRV is an exercise in selfishness.

The most significant impacts we have on the environment come from the choices we make in the following areas:

• Existing.

• Having children. The best choice for the environment is to have no children.

• Living outside a city. Our lowest carbon footprint comes from living in the smallest footprint possible in the most dense concentration of humanity.³

• Buying new things. We should never buy a new car, buy only used clothes, and never build a single-family house.

• Eating animal protein. We have to go vegan.

Given that sustainability derives from choices and is a question of degree from non-existence to decadence, what can we do at the community level to at least reduce our impact? You can skip to the bottom to see a few ideas. Or you can wade through the 150+ pages of the Blaine County Sustainability Commission’s “Climate Action Plan,” which was recently adopted by the Blaine County Commission.

Lots of Time and Money Spent on Sustainability Planning—to What Outcome?

Good news. Sustainability is a priority for our community! It is a deliverable in all the local comprehensive plans, including Ketchum’s. Ketchum is in its fifth year of funding the Blaine County Sustainability Commission (“BCSC”).

What have Ketchum taxpayers received for over $500k in contributions? Two decks of paper. The first one is from 2020 and includes a greenhouse gas audit of the WRV from 2018. The second one just came out, and you can find it here.

As far as I can tell, for those six years and $500k, we have not achieved any net reduction in our community’s GHG emissions—not a single ton of carbon.

What’s in The BCSC Plan

The latest BCSC report is a tough slog. I got stuck toward the beginning, where they listed the Community’s positive climate actions and called out Sun Valley Co. as an example of sustainability.⁴ They claim a Jerome County business as a Blaine Country sustainability story.⁵ I get that they have to grasp at straws to find corporate sustainability examples in Blaine County, but maybe it would be better to have just left this out of the report.

Then, they list all the Blaine County municipalities’ pro-sustainability actions. Some haven’t been done yet, like the 2023 GHG inventory, but I am sure we will see that soon.

The section on Vision (1.5) prioritizes three goals (in this order):

1. Social Equity

2. GHG Reduction

3. Adaption to Inevitable Changes

It is an interesting prioritization, no? It carries through to the Plan Principles (1.7) of Equity, Efficacy, and Outcomes. Call me crazy, but if your base assumption is that the world is on fire, wouldn’t your highest priority be to put out the fire?

Then I get to page 34, the SWOT Analysis, which I think misses the primary point of the weaknesses and threats to the plan—the fundamental basis of the WRV economy is greenhouse gas generation (air travel-based tourism). Almost no one in the echo chamber seems to want to do what it will take to achieve any of the Visions or Principles.⁶

Now that I am 50 pages into this report, I have gleaned the following data regarding climate: The number of people, the number one driver of climate impact, is slated to grow faster in Blaine County than in the US. 81% of the County is public land. 11% is agricultural land, mostly in conservation easements. That leaves 8% to be developed.

I also learned that Sun Valley Co’s water usage for golf course irrigation and snowmaking is almost equal to all of the municipal water usage in Blaine County. Those greens are nice and…green.

Now we get to the areas of focus, the first one being Resource Conservation (Section 4). The way we will achieve the Plan’s goals is to focus on land conservation, water conservation, and habitat conservation (4.1).

BCSC’s implementing partners in producing the report included none of the producers of GHG in Blaine County. None of them.⁷

On page 54, we get to the Key Performance Indicators. They all sound nice, but none of them are directly tied to greenhouse gas reduction.

• KPI 1: Adoption (# farms + # acres) of climate-smart agriculture practices

• KPI 2: Adoption of water-smart landscaping (# acres and/ or reduction in water use for specific sites)

• KPI 3: Access to locally grown food (# farms selling food locally, # farms accepting SNAP and WIC)

• KPI 4: Acres preserved through conservation easements, wilderness designations, national monuments, etc.

• KPI 5: Water Plan KPIs TBD

• KPI 6: Acres dedicated to wildlife corridors and connectivity

• KPI 7: Restoration / treatment projects completed (acres treated)

Section 5 attacks Transportation and Mobility. It calls for increased housing density and people to walk and bike more. This section seems specifically aimed at Ketchum and downtown Hailey because it ignores the massive new residential developments that have been approved for Hailey, Bellevue, and the County.

In Ketchum, this plan would require people to move from their homes to apartment buildings, which isn’t going to happen. So, the BCSC must view population growth as the key to achieving density. Given their concerns in Section 4, how is bringing more people into Ketchum “sustainable?”

Here is how they rationalize that:

“Goal 4: Housing: The further the workforce has to travel, the more GHG emissions we typically create as a community. Therefore, Blaine County and its partners should increase the volume of community housing units throughout the county.” Note the jump from “workforce” to “community” housing.” They are not the same thing. See my “Liar Liar Liar” post for the lies about that. Read Ketchum’s Housing Action Plan for how they define “workforce” to include people who choose not to work (page 7) so they can make that jump.

Of course, this ignores human nature. Do they think people want to live in Bluebird forever? That those people don’t want a nice big house in Sun Valley or Hulen Meadows? That the people who got here first get to live in a nice place while the new people will be happy living in a box? This is the classic “the rules I make will apply to you but not to me.”

Section 6 on page 94 established the goal of carbon neutrality. I had no idea that was a goal until I got 2/3 through the Plan. They make some assumptions about Idaho Power Corp (IPC) that reveal a lack of understanding of wholesale electricity markets. No one at BCSC seems to understand that comparing MW of wind to solar to geothermal is apples to oranges to kumquats in terms of electrical generation.⁸

But that is a nit—my substantive comment is we could pursue all of the actions in this section and not be carbon neutral. BCSC knows that: they rightfully point to the State legislature for prohibiting some of the actions required to achieve it.

Section 7 is about Waste. We generate about 100mm lbs of waste a year. We recycle 5% of it. We “divert” 23% of it, which is supposed to be a good thing, but I suspect we are just shipping our methane somewhere else. The vast majority is shipped elsewhere in Idaho to be burned to generate electricity. I have no idea how they managed those emissions. The goals in this section are per capita goals, but it is unclear how visitors and non-permanent residents in Blaine County figure into that.

Section 8 caused me to chuckle. Blaine County scores at “high” risk for flood, fire, and drought, and the plan says all this will worsen.⁹ Yet, we want more people to move here. At least we don’t have plagues of locusts.

What’s Not in the BCSC Plan

There is no model. If we take all the actions that they recommend. What does our community look like? Is that the community we want? What are the trade-offs? The costs and benefits? This plan is social engineering with no engineering.

What I was looking for and could not find, was math that showed any of this would have any measurable impact on global temperature, local climate, net GHG emissions, the sustainability of the local economy or resilience (I’m not even sure what they mean by resilience in this report). Any specific quantified goal¹⁰. How much GHG can we mitigate, at what value and cost? Over what time frame? What are the easiest things to accomplish fastest? What are the highest potential ROI actions? Will our efforts plausibly lead us to net zero?

While there is discussion about population growth, there is no discussion about tourism growth. The number of tourists and their impact isn’t addressed. Sun Valley’s expansion plans aren’t addressed. Given how much of the impact on the WRV comes from the volume and activities of tourists, this is…surprising.

I couldn’t find inclusion of the views of the people the BCSC wanted to change their behavior. For example, if by 2028, they want 54 farms to adopt at least one regenerative agricultural practice, what do the farmers think about that? Were they consulted? Why is 54 a reasonable goal? How was it derived? What is the difference in effort/cost/benefit between 54 and 64? One goal is a reduction in water usage for landscaping. Sun Valley Co is the County's largest single water user for that purpose—what do they think about this goal?

There isn’t any discussion on how we get the two largest impactors of our mobility infrastructure to take a more sustainable approach. For the plan to achieve its HOV lane and special land for Mountain Rides on 75, the “controller” is the Idaho Transportation Department. BCSC’s plan is not consistent with ITD’s plan for 75. It is unclear who will work with ITD to get them to achieve Plan goals. While there is a reference to SUN, there is no call for SUN to inventory or reduce the GHG emissions from flights, which are 95% of its emissions. Friedman Memorial Airport Authority, FVSA, and VSV are all working to increase flights and, thus, emissions. This is probably the biggest source of GHG emissions for the entire County. BCSC just ignores it.

And, as is the norm with most of the plans I read that come out of our local governments, there is no accountability. There isn’t even any plan for reporting on progress against the actions. In the real world, all plans have who is responsible for what, by when, and what the check-in points are along the way. These are the bare minimum for a plan. None of these are in this document. Why not?

Bottom Line: This is Not The Way To Become Sustainable

Directional goals are nice. They make people feel better. But they are not impactful or a good return on resources. Here is a specific example from page 57: “At the moment, one of the barriers to accessing locally grown food is cost. Therefore, our second land goal is to increase the supply of and access to regionally grown and culturally relevant food.”¹¹. Anyone who has taken an economics course knows this “therefore” is a non-sequitur.

Setting goals that are not achievable because they are out of your control (like widening 75 to include an HOV lane) is not planning; it is wishful thinking.

This begs the question: is this Blaine County sustainability thing just an expensive, feel-good exercise with substantial costs but no benefits? Or, worse, is it governmental greenwashing?

It could, of course, be both.¹²

A more charitable interpretation would be that this Plan is not the plan. It is the plan to develop the plans in the various areas of conservation, transportation, etc. If that is the intent, then it needs revision. This plan has many steps to develop equity, efficacy, and outcomes, but it does not assign specific accountability to any specific entity or person to achieve the actions by any specific deadline.

The Budget for Sustainability Goes Up; So Does Our Carbon Footprint

Indeed, when the new GHG audit is issued, I will bet anyone a coffee¹³ that our GHG emissions as a community have risen. I will bet a second cup of that coffee¹⁴ that our per capita GHG emissions have also gone up.

Why am I so willing to make these bets? I go to public meetings, and I observe that, despite their sustainability rhetoric, almost every vote by the Ketchum City Council increases our GHG footprint. Here are just a few examples:

• elimination of 37 parking spots with the Main Street Project. This increases search time for parking spot which increases emissions. Until The Troika achieve their goal of a car-less Ketchum, taking away parking is not environmentally sustainable.

• making land more valuable for development. The Troika has loosened up the zoning code in the name of density and has unleashed a building boom in Ketchum. Is this good for our local environment? Not if people are moving from cities to Ketchum. Development approval takes up the bulk of public meeting agendas in Ketchum.

• all the corporate welfare for the tourism industry, including for Sun Valley Co. Tourists either drive here, usually in a gas car, or fly here. When they arrive, they go downhill skiing. Tourism is one of the world’s dirtiest industries, and downhill skiing is one of the dirtiest sports.¹⁵

What Should Ketchum Do to Be More Sustainable?

The most sustainable policy to reduce local GHG emissions would be discouraging more people in Ketchum. Tourists, in particular, as their only purpose to come here is to consume. However, too many people are too interested in having more people in Ketchum for this to be a likely policy outcome.

The next best thing we could do is reduce per capita GHG emissions. People have to live somewhere, and we won’t stop them from coming here, so less per person seems pretty reasonable. But even then, that approach has an economic cost and a quality-of-life cost. How do we make rational decisions?

Start with the numbers.¹⁶ Do cost/benefit analysis about the decisions we make. Put them out publicly for comment and hold off on the decision until the people can weigh in. It’s not that hard; the framework exists. There are generally accepted prices on GHG and a generally accepted Level 1/2/3 approach to analyzing how much are generated. The harder part of the equation is valuing the quality of life costs (benefits?).

There are some things the Ketchum City Council could do:

• End taxpayer subsidization of the tourism industry. (See Issue #28).

• Diversify our economy beyond tourism. So far, they haven’t assessed alternatives to our all-tourism growth approach. I’d start with that.

• Stop subsidies for short-term rentals.¹⁷

• Raise LOT on Lodging (and eliminate it on locals).

• Shrink government bureaucracy.¹⁸

• No more Bluebirds (see Issue #26). We could shrink our government if we did that—added bonus.

• End the “in lieu” fee.

• Repeal LOT for AIR

• Charge companies for the value of public services provided.

• Eliminate tourism industry control of spending of taxpayer money (FSVA/VSV).

• Sell the city-owned visitor center to the tourism industry.

• what would you add to this list?

Ketchum City Council isn’t doing any of these pro-sustainability things.

Instead of doing things that will reduce GHG, the Council does things that increase it. To make it look like they are doing something for sustainability, they fund half of BCSC’s budget and have a Sustainability Committee that hasn’t publicly reported on its activities in years.¹⁹

Who Thinks We Have a Sustainability Problem?

They say the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have the problem. The people who make decisions in the WRV don’t seem to think we have a sustainability problem. If they did, they would make different personal and political choices.

But maybe we can get some GHG reductions for the money we spend on sustainability. That would be a step in the right direction.

1. Well, I am all for it as long as I don’t have to sacrifice too much time, money, or personal comfort to be sustainable. Does that make me a bad person?

2. Isn’t everything made in China?

3. This is exactly what the City of Ketchum is pushing us towards, as is BCHA. Surprisingly (to me), this is also true of the Wood River Land Trust.

4. All corporations make sustainability claims. The majority of it is greenwashing.

5. The CEO /Founder lives in Ketchum.

6. It’s worse than that. The housing program championed by the City of Ketchum/BCHA and seconded by organizations such as the WRLT and Hunger Coalition will subsidize expansion of the tourism industry at taxpayer expense (see last week’s post).

7. Here are their partners (page 53).

4.5 Partners and Resources The objectives and actions in this section cannot be completed without help from our municipal, non-profit, and private partners, who each play an important role in the Land, Water, and Habitat conservation space. Partners may include: ● Blaine County Extension ● Blaine Soil Conservation District ● The Nature Conservancy ● Regenerative Agriculture Network of Idaho ● Sun Valley Institute for Resilience ● The Hunger Coalition ● Wood River Land Trust ● Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides ● Environmental Resource Center ● Climate Action Coalition ● Winn's Compost ● Public Works Departments (municipal) ● Blaine County Noxious Weeds Department ● Parks and Rec Departments (municipal) ● The Keystone Concept Group

8. They all have dramatically different capacity factors and on-demand availability. This is why LCOE does not work when you add renewables into the calculation.

9. They left out earthquake risk. You cannot buy earthquake insurance at any reasonable rate in Idaho. After the little one in Custer County I looked into it.

10. Ok, I found one quantified goal on page 48. But it’s not in Blaine County, it’s in Richfield.

“The Big Wood River Ground Water Management Area (BWRDGWMA) was established in 1991 under the findings that the surface and ground waters of the Big Wood River are interconnected. A new BWRGWMA management plan was adopted in 2022. Groundwater diversions from wells can deplete surface water flows in streams and rivers, causing broad impacts for a diverse range of stakeholders. The primary action of the plan is to maintain a 32 cfs four-day moving average streamflow from May 1 to September 30 at Station 10 near Richfield. This goal has been identified to maintain the supply of water of senior surface water right holders, stream health, and aquifer health.”

11. the bolding is not mine—it is from the original.

12. Especially this sentence in 4.4 on page 52 which I do not think I am taking out of context and which, if the BCSC really believes to be true confirms my conclusion.

“Investing in the health of our natural environment in turn means an investment in our recreation and agricultural industries, which keeps money in the valley and boosts our local economy. Not only do these goals encourage recreational tourism and the economic opportunities that the tourism industry provides, but they also have the potential to reduce costs for farmers and create alternate streams of income. With more agricultural land being converted across the country every year, investing in this local industry is ever more important.”

13. roasted by natural gas (or worse, wood), shipped from Africa or Latin America, and packaged in plastic-coated paper.

14. with milk from a non-grass-fed cow and sugar imported from Brazil grown where the rainforest was cut down

15. Skiing is greener than snowmobiling. I guess there is that.

16. As far as I can tell, the City of Ketchum is allergic to cost/benefit analyses. They almost never do one, and even when they do something mathy, like setting the “in lieu of” fee, after they do some math, they just give up and make up a number. I know the Mayor can do the math because he ran Global Utilities research for JP Morgan before moving here. And Mr. Cordovano asked the City to do some math on the cost of road repair. But I worry that math, in general, just makes the Council’s heads hurt, so they avoid it in favor of narrative.

17. The City has never penalized anyone for a short-term rental violation. Consequently, the City admits that despite an ordinance requiring registration and a safety inspection, about one-third of Ketchum’s STRs flout these requirements. And the Council recently approved a policy to encourage more ADUs, which it admits could just be more STRs.

18. The City's employee headcount only goes up. I particularly enjoyed the Housing Director’s request for an extra person. She provided job descriptions for every member of her growing empire—except herself. Meanwhile, ARCH and WRCHT have far more productivity per employee if you measure it by housing units built.

19. Does it still even meet? If so, why is public business done in secret?