Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments to SWSI, November 3f 2003. by John Wiener <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />Gleick, P.H~J lead author, 2000, Water: The Dotential conseauences of climate variabiHtv and <br />change for the water resources of the United States -- report of the water sector assessment team <br />of the national assessment of the potential consequences of climate variability and change, for <br />the US Grobar Change Research Program, September 2000. (A remarkable group was jnvolved <br />in thiSt) Avairable on: <http~IIWWwtusgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/default.htm> <br /> <br />This djstinguished panel endorsed a variety of recommendations which will not surprise the SWSI <br />participantsl such as efficiency and demand management, re-evaluation of engineering designs <br />and operating rules, supply from reuse, and improved flexibility in water markets and transfers. <br />The panel was atso impressed with the problems of relatively sman changes leading to larger <br />impacts, such as modest variation in the ratio of snow to rain and impacts on runoff vorume and <br />evaporation., and changes in "fhe probabiUty of frooding. <br /> <br />A quotation (page 13): "While some kinds of actions should be taken now, expensjve <br />and long-lived new infrastructure should be postponed until adequate information on <br />future orimate is availablet If postponement is not possible, a wider range of cJimate <br />variability than provided by the h,storical record should be factored into infrastructure <br />designt II <br /> <br />The report as a whore supports resilience and ffexjbility in water management infrastructure and <br />caution in design of new structures. This is wen within the traditional advice in the literature} and <br />the traditional probrem has been justifying the additional costs of added capacity in large projects <br />to provide fl6Xibility in management (e.g~, to provide flood pool space as well as storage). It is not <br />yet clear, however, what this kind of ..fortifyingl. does to the cost...benefit comparisons between <br />fewer rarge versus more smarl projectsj particularly considering the increased risk of flooding <br />which is nearly universaUy predicted. The water sector report a'so supports the fear that overall <br />impacts on the US gross domestic product will not be sufficiently dramatic to warrant massive <br />new federal responses~ presuming continuing fiscal austerity. <br /> <br />The water sector report also draws attention to fears that groundwater systems may be <br />unexpectedly sensitive to variations in recharge; as the Jefferson County official, Ms. Bell <br />mentioned at the meeting, this may be troublesome for mountain areas with less-investigated <br />groundwater systems. Their recent coUaboration with USGS on Turkey Creek is not apparently <br />grounds for wird optimism about avoiding future increased demand on rural water supplies wining <br />to provide for their neighbors. <br /> <br />The agriculture sector report is unhappy for Colorado. tt draws attentjon to threats to soil fertility <br />and erosion increases, but in general, ruefully reports that climate issues are unUkely to alter the <br />drivjng forces currently squeezing agricuJture and especiaJly squeezing it in marginal areas~ The <br />ngood newsl~ for the U.S~ as a whoret that there will likely be relatively smaU impacts on consumer <br />food pricest is ~.bad newsu too, as the producer incomes may be reduced, and there will very likely <br />be regional winners and rosers. The chances for increased total productivity appear a little better <br />than the chances for decreased nationa' productiont J'Although Jmproved productivity is good for <br />US consumers, it generalJy reduces income and wealth among farmers and agricultural <br />fandholdersll '(RejlJy at al. 2001: 120). Marginal agricurtures are likely to be worse off with added <br />economic pressure. <br /> <br />uUnderstanding what to do requjres a far more detailed engagement of those who <br />are directly involved - the farmers, legisrators, research managers, government <br />program managers, and Jocal communitjes who will be affected and whose incomes, <br />livetihoods, and jobs are on the line... (ReUJy at at 2001: 110). <br /> <br />..Th e wide uncertainties in climate scenarios; regional variation in climate effects; <br />and interactions of environment, economics, and farm poUcy suggest that there are no <br />simple and widely applicabre adaptatfon prescriptions. Farmers will have to adapt <br />