SouthPlatteComments06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comments to SWSI, November 3r 2003J by John Wiener 11 planning.u A thoughtful response to these jssues appeared a few month Jatert from Hirschboeck (the off-putting title is uRespecting the drajnage divide; perspective on hydrocUmatorogical change and scale", Water Resources Uodate 126: 48-53). In some sltuationst the usefu~ness of the modeling is greater than in others, but complementary and contrasting methods are critical. Meanwhite, we mostly know that we donrt know, although we are getting some familiarity with some of the tools availabre for working on the problem.. So what? Donald Wilhite, the leading scholar in drought mitigation and director of the National Drought Mitigation Center. has often noted the leadership of Colorado in drought planning (e~g_ Wilhite et ai.t 2000, "PJanning for drought: moving from crisis to risk management," Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36: 697..710, and see the Drought Mitigation Center website for great information). I think it is fair to say that he has been internationally important in reading the shUt from the first step of planning for drought to the second step of increasing capacity to coper which is generally called mitigation (actual risk reduction), in contrast to preparedness to respond to the event Clearly, the SWSI can exert some influence on the wilJ to invest in storage and distribution infrastructure, rehabilitated, new and preservedJ which increases capacity and reduces risk~ Wilhitels recommendations for drought pranning circle right back to Lawford's point about contingency pJanningJ in my opinion. The practical impfication is that the insurance availabfe for water supply pfanning and water management involves retaining maximum flexibiUty in the management capacity - for "keeping all the parts II in the water distribution system as wen as increasing coUection capacity. One of the classic debates in water management literature was summarized in 1954 in The Flood Control Controversy: Sic Dams_ Little Dams. and Land Manaaement by Luna B~ Leopold and Thomas Maddock, Jr4, (NY: Ronald Press). The federal support for very large projects, with very large amounts of cost-sharing and with significant loca' enrichmentJ had a large impact on that debate, favoring multipre use water projects on the grand scale (Wiener, 1997~ Research Opportunities in Search of Federal Flood Policy, Policv Sciences 29 (4): 321-344)~ The Ubig dams, little dams controversy faded for a fong timet but now, there are good reasons to revisit this issue and consider what the costs and benefits are. In particularr there are now substantiar increases in understanding the potential of conjunctive management and use of the aUuvial aquifers, as well as improved technology for pumping and distribution of ground water. Conjunctive use can be on the smaU as well as great scale. With the kind of progress made in groundwater engineering by the CoJorado State University researchers" among others, we can certainry achieve better results within a reasonable time. See Gates, T. K., Burkhalter, J. P., Labadie, J. W~, Valliantr J. C~, and Broner, t 2002, Monitoring and modeling flow and salt transport in a salinity-threatened irrigated vaUey. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering~ ASeE, 128(2), 87 .. 994 (This is available on internet by download; browse to the journar name.) There js also a powerful demonstration of the CSU capacities at <http://www.ids4colostate.edu/projects/spmappresentation1>)4 It is becoming much more cost"effBctive to use ground and surlace water conjunctively on aU scales4 There is also considerable progress in cheap leak-control fabric and pond-lining for smaff water storage~ Also, there are now considerably different circumstances facing agriculture in terms of the desirabitityof crop and livestock choicest and in terms of the capacity to draw upon sophisticated financial assistance to fund improvements in technology and in marketing decisions. Some information is noted below in discussion of the futures for agriculture. The kinds of activities that make the most money are changing, and may continue to change in Colorado rather dramaticaJlYJ as commodity production loses attractiveness compared to direct sales, organics, and high-value horticulture. What sounded silly ten years ago is now growing faster than the rest of farmingt at rates of 20% per year, and the market seems to be increasing steadily (see Dimitri, C~ and C. Greene, 2002, Recent Growth Patterns in the U,S4 Organic Foods Market, USDA ERSt ArB...???, and a IIbriefing roomtl on the this topic: <www.ers~usda4go:v/publications.aib7771> and <www.ers4usda.gov/Briefing/Organic/>. (USDA ERS arso has information on the growing share