My Ten Cents: Why Must New Mexico's Top Water Official Be a Licensed Engineer?

So what am I doing commenting on whether New Mexico should not require its top water official be a licensed professional engineer? After all, I'm a native New Yorker who's working in Oregon, right? Yes, that's true, but I spent 17 wonderful years (1989 - 2006) at the University of New Mexico. There I co-founded an Environmental Science BS degree and revived a moribund Master of Water Resources Administration (MWRA) degree program and established a Master of Water Resources professional degree that has since thrived. The MWRA degree had an attorney as its director and since that time the MWR Program has had a hydrogeologist (me - 9 years), psychologist, economist, journalist, and two civil engineers as directors. A multidisciplinary steering committee and diverse faculty (scientists, engineers, planners, social scientists, geographers, economists, public administrators, attorneys, artists, et al.).

I thus felt a strong urge to reply to a letter by Bruce Thomson (my replacement)  and Scott Verhines (former NM State Engineer who now directs the MWR Program). Both are licensed engineers who directed the MWR Program. Bruce is a very good friend and an exceptional WaterWonk. Scott is a well-qualified engineer I barely know but supported his appointment to direct the program. Their letter replied to a proposed bill not to require a licensed professional engineer to be the State's top water official. I don't agree and would also change the name of the Office of State Engineer to the Department of Water Resources whose Director would be the State's top water official.

 Here is their letter that appeared in the Albuquerque Journal on 3 February 2022:

Download Thomson_Verhines_Engineer_Letter

I will now reply to their letter by pasting it in italics below and inserting my comments in non-italicized emboldened text.

Here goes!

Legislation has been introduced to eliminate the requirement that the state’s top water official be a licensed professional engineer to allow appointment of non-engineers to the position. We are concerned that eliminating this requirement may lead to appointment of unqualified individuals and politicize a position that should transcend politics.

There have been numerous attempts over the years to open the position of the state’s top water manager to anyone, regardless of qualifications, but these attempts have been unsuccessful in recognition that the qualifications and ethics of a professional engineer are critical to the equitable, effective and efficient administration of our most precious resource.

The State Engineer is a political position; like most state agency heads, s/he is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the Governor of the State of New Mexico.

We consider three reasons that the New Mexico Water Code requires the position be filled by a licensed engineer; there are many others.

First, the responsibilities of the state engineer include many technical components in areas such as hydrology and hydraulics, database management and mapping, and oversight of dam safety and stormwater management. For example, at its core, the lawsuit between Texas and New Mexico/Colorado that is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court is based on disagreement over technical and accounting issues regarding the hydrology of the lower Rio Grande. While there are many accomplished water professionals practicing in New Mexico, requiring the office be filled by an engineer assures competence in these technical areas.

The aforementioned tasks can be, and probably are, handled by qualified OSE staff members who have appropriate engineering and related expertise. Surely the State Engineer does not personally handle each and every task. Delegation and staff hiring are paramount. My note to the authors would be that the issue they cite involves groundwater (as do many other water issues in New Mexico). A licensed engineer does not necessarily have formal training in groundwater, especially if s/he have just a BS in an engineering discipline. I checked the civil engineering degree program at New Mexico State University (NM's land-grant university) and learned that for BS students courses in surface-water hydrology and groundwater are electives.

The authors might want to lobby for a hydrogeologist to head the OSE.        

Second, opinion polling has shown that engineering is among the most highly trusted and respected professions, second only to the medical professions. Administration of water in the Southwest is increasingly contentious. Structured negotiation and decision-making is a far better strategy for addressing water disputes than through expensive, lengthy, and uncertain legal proceedings. However, negotiations require that trust and respect be accorded to all participants. The public respect earned by engineers is important to collaborative resolution of water disputes.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, engineers have achieved their status through centuries of commitment to public service. The first canon of the National Society of Professional Engineers code of ethics is that engineers shall “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” We know of no other profession that requires this commitment. Ethics codes for professions such as lawyers, doctors, or teachers state that their first responsibility is to the client, patient, or student and make no mention of responsibility to the public.

I don't know which polls the authors consulted but in one I used - the Global Educational Charity Varkey Foundation - listed in these from top to bottom: doctor; lawyer; engineer; head teacher; police officer; nurse; accountant; local government manger; management consultant; and secondary school teacher. In a US-based poll, the Maru Public Opinion Poll (see graphic) of the most respected occupations engineers ranked #10 right above airline pilots and below grocery store owners/clerks. Firefighters were #1. Here's another poll that does not list engineers.

So maybe we should hire lawyers and firefighters! Seriously, the point I want to make is that we hire ethical and respected individuals, not groups. I am sure that to be sworn in, the State Engineer must take an oath to uphold the State Constitution. Wouldn't that be enough?

Using a code of ethics to argue that a professional engineer be the top water manager seems like an academic justification. But throughout their career licensed engineers must participate in continuing professional development which includes training in ethical practice. The consequences of violating the code of ethics can lead to sanctions up to and including loss of one’s license. The public’s trust in the engineering profession reflects its commitment to public service rather than to special interests.

The authors are suggesting that those of us who don't take such an oath are somehow less ethical than PEs. I reject that premise.  If that is the case, perhaps we should do nothing but hire engineers for all our agency heads.    

There have been only 17 state engineers since 1907, three of whom were interim and served for one year or less. This stability is critical to maintaining fair and consistent water management in times of drought and in times of plenty. We believe that the analytical nature of the engineering profession combined with its strong commitment to public service make it among the professions least influenced by pressure from political and special interests. Therefore, the position of the top water manager in the state should continue to be held by a licensed professional engineer.

Fair and consistent water management is good. But we also have to grapple with water issues that were unforeseen decades ago. So perhaps we don't want to keep people around for long periods of time. As an aside, one State Engineer, Steve Reynolds, served for 35 years. I am unsure that length is desirable.

Engineers are not the only professionals who have strong analytical skills. How about hydrologists? Economists? Atmospheric scientists? Geographers? And why do analytical skills relate to resisting political pressures?

In summary, their letter should/could have been written 60 years ago. It does not reflect the fact that water issues and analytical methods have changed and important disciplines have expanded into the water realm. Time was when you could get by with engineers, lawyers and maybe an economist. Who knew that to that group we would add hydrologists, geologists, geographers, ecologists, sociologists, political scientists, biologists, chemists, public health specialists, artists, climate scientists, et al. We want our water leaders to reflect more than just engineering. We need to broaden the scope and draw others to leadership positions. We also need to cast the net farther to engage a greater diversity of qualified individuals.  

We should also change the name of the agency to the Department of Water Resources headed by a Director who does not have to be an engineer. S/he will certainly have staff engineers (and lawyers, and...). The Director will be the official state water official. This is what we have in Oregon. The Director  (a political appointee) is a lawyer and he succeeded an agriculturalist.  

I will add one thing. Bruce Thomson, Scott Verhines and I have something in common: we all directed UNM's Water Resources Program, a professional Master's degree program that promotes the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach to water resources. That's what puzzles me about their letter. 

"All calculations, based on our experiences elsewhere, fail in New Mexico."     - Gen. Lew Wallace, Territorial Governor, 1878 (in a letter to his wife)

Comments

[Denise Fort]

Just for the record:
https://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/states-top-water-official-shouldnt-have-to-be-engineer/article_9436c7ae-4950-11ec-83af-5367111065a1.html

By Denise Fort and Sally Rodgers Nov 20, 2021

State Engineer John D’Antonio has resigned, leaving the job vacant on Jan. 1. With the governor just back from Glasgow, Scotland, with a renewed focus on combating climate change, we believe this vacancy provides an opportunity for our state to modernize water management.

Unfortunately, there is a major obstacle in our current state law that inhibits the governor from considering a deep bench of talented candidates for the state engineer position.

State law limits this position to professional engineers, greatly narrowing the pool of talented professionals in water management. This may have been sufficient in the early days of our state and before we understood the threats of climate change. Now we know our state is not just suffering from extended drought but faces long-term aridification, which means hotter temperatures and more evaporation, as well as less precipitation. We need a 21st century water manager who can help us navigate an uncertain future.

The job is not well known among everyday New Mexicans, although, along with the Interstate Stream Commission, the Office of the State Engineer has authority over the waters of New Mexico and its supervision, measurement, appropriation and distribution, requiring coordination among a vast array of stakeholders. There are multiple federal, state and tribal agencies, as well as water-rights holders, recreationists, conservationists and concerned citizens who all have some voice in the management of water.

Meeting the challenges of aridification will require a thorough rethinking of how the state manages its waters. Climate change has put us into a severe drought, which scientists tell us is just an indication of what is to come. We need to integrate water management to address water quality, providing water for healthy rivers, ensuring groundwater depletions are controlled, along with addressing major litigation, ongoing adjudications, water transfers and all of the other business of the office.

The skills required to manage this portfolio are many, including management, planning, law, economics, hydrology and, yes, engineering. It makes no sense to restrict this management position to those with an engineering degree. The good news is there exists a simple legislative “fix” to this problem, and with the upcoming legislative session around the corner, now is the time for our state to modernize the job qualifications. Several attempts have been made in the last 40 years to pass such legislation, but these previous attempts always died because of entrenched special interests who prefer the status quo. With this position vacant — and therefore the reform is not seen as a referendum on any particular state engineer — now is the moment to change course for our state’s future water management.

We request Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham add a bill on her “call” for the 2022 short session that revises NMSA §72-2-1 to include all other professions, such as scientists, hydrologists, water planners and attorneys. Let’s find the best person for the job, because it is indeed a challenging one.

Denise Fort is a professor emerita at the University of New Mexico School of Law and former director of UNM’s Water Resources Program. Sally Rodgers served as natural resources and energy adviser to Gov. Toney Anaya, environmental ombudsman to Gov. Bill Richardson and founded Conservation Voters New Mexico.

[Annalisemporter]

The announcement of these views from Mr. Verhines & Dr. Thomson are a sucker-punch to students who are passionate about water but who are not engineers, and thought we had our faculty’s support.

The WRP has been a special place for those of us who fall in the above demographic. It’s tough to realize that its new administration doesn’t believe in our capability to make sound decisions as professionals – to realize they believe engineers can “learn” ethics, but others cannot.

The OSE qualification debate is one thing. But it’s disheartening to have it framed so specifically as an ethics issue from Mr. Verhines and Dr. Thomson. It goes against the spirit of the program, feels exclusionary, and makes it harder to justify the $20,000 and three years’ worth of 60-hour work weeks I’ve put in to get through the program – now to be told my ethics aren’t worthy of a management position simply because I don’t have this specific license.

The WRP is far and away the best education I’ve ever received. I’ve felt strongly about water issues since I was a kid, and grew up struggling to find how I could contribute since I wasn’t aiming to be a lawyer or engineer – this program showed me that how.

I hope it can continue to foster that inclusive and encouraging community I’ve been lucky enough to experience here.

Right now though, I’m discouraged and am unsure how this disconnect between the program’s mission and its new leadership’s ethos can be reconciled.

[UNM Water Resources Student]

As a student in the UNM WRP, I feel it shows Mr. Verhines has a lack of faith in the students of his own program. Is directing this program just a feather in your hat? Have you actually taken the time to know your students? Do you believe we can contribute to water issues, but are not ethical enough to handle THE water issues? If it was a technical reason why only engineers could handle this job, sure- fine. But time again, I've heard "the oath that engineers take" to be enough reason for superior qualification. If its the power of the mighty all binding oath, then require an oath for this position. If you have a problem with THIS bill, help re-write it. But there are plenty of educated, technical, non-engineering professionals with hydrologic expertise and ethical compasses that might include disenfranchised stakeholders while providing policy solutions. I thought we were going to begin to be inclusive in our policy-making? Include native water users, non-ag users, and allow the environment and nature to be water users again? If NM’s water issues only required engineering solutions, then wouldn’t they be solved? Should engineers be the gate keepers to the multidisciplinary expertise required of water problem-solving? Its been a stance that MANY students in my program take. If you think engineers are the only qualified professionals for managing New Mexico’s water decisions, I respect your opinion. But should this be your opinion, you should not be directing a non-engineering water professional program. Thank you for making your post and having faith in the capabilities of UNM WRP students.

[EJ Hanford, PhD.]

Isn't it amazing that when looking to make politically appointments, being a knowledgeable and highly qualified technical person is the most important consideration?

[William M. Turner]

I think I agree with Dr. Mike, hydrologists and geologists who have years and years of experience in the water sphere should be considered. I am not asking for the job; but, I have a B.S. in Geology, M.S. in Geology and hydrolgeology, and a Ph.D in Geology and hydrology with enough credits to gain a degree in Hyrdogeochemistry. I have been in 80 law suits as an expert in hydrogeology, Plaintiff and Defendant. I am a qualified water rights expert by federal and state administrative agencies and court. I have carried cases all the way to SCOTUS. I have worked intimately with 10 State Engineers and their staffs for 50 years. I am a consulting hydrologist and a certified water rights examiner. I created Governor Johnson's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Water and was the New Mexico Natural Resource Trustee. I am a plenary member of International Society for Geoethics. I an licensed to practice in none state and they al require ethics training. I am also a licensed escrow agent and am audited every year. I know every water issue in the State and I know the actors. I have worked on the largest earth fill dam in the world and others. I would not put up with the crooked practices of the attorneys in the State Engineer Office and at present they run the office. OSE employees are great people saddled with overwork and underfunded.