Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments to SWSI, November 3, 2003, by John Wiener <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />broadly to changing conditions in agriculture - of which changing climate is only one <br />factor. II (Reilly et at 2001: 122). <br /> <br />The most important implication, in my opinion, is that the unforeseeabfe future adds weight to the <br />wisdom of maintaining water distribution flexibiljty. The sector team identified changes in sowing <br />dates, fallowing practices, and changes in irrigation and drainage as likely to be useful in some of <br />the possible cjrcumstances, and they also were concerned with soil erosion reduction and <br />impacts of changes in rand use. This report is Reilry, J4' et aJ. 2001, Agriculture: the Dotential <br />conseauences of climate variabilitv and chance for the United States, US National Assessment of <br />the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, US Global Change Research <br />Program. It is available at: <http://www.usgcrp4gov/usgcrp/nacc/defauft.htm>. <br /> <br />There is also some up..dating from many of the same researchers: Reilly, J.1 at at, 2003, U.S~ <br />Agriculture and Climate Change: New Results, Climatic Change 57: 43-69 (may be available on- <br />line throug h universities: http://www.kJuweronline.com/jssn/016S..0009/contents ). <br /> <br />Again, they find with further work that climate impacts on US agriculture as a whole may be smarl, <br />in terms of production, and may be Jess decisive than the infJuence of other factors. <br />EconomicallY1 farmers and ranchers are not expected to benef;tf and some areas may suffer <br />considerably more than others, while some benefit. PersonaUy, I fjnd this depressing for the <br />Colorado prospects, and hope that Dr. Piefke Sr.. is right about the chances to modify larger<045Cale <br />processes by local and regional land and water use, <br /> <br />One persistent issue in the efforts to consider posslble changes is the countervailing influences of <br />increased precipitation, widery expected, though not everywheret and increased productivity for <br />some kinds of crops from the increased leveJs of carbon dioxideJ versus the decreased water <br />availability from warmer temperatures - the ET increase. The warmer night-time and longer <br />warm seasons expected are very worrisome for soH moisture, in terms of infiltration and retention. <br /> <br />Drought and the past variability <br /> <br />Turning to drought, the 2002 events brought to Ught a great deal of pareo.cUmatology on tree-ring, <br />lake sediment, and other evidence of past dry periods and variability in cfimate4 Since John Henz <br />addressed this alreadYJ I will not. And~ the Colorado State University Water Resources Research <br />Center and other water-related departments and services have provided excellent coverage of <br />both drought impacts and drought history in the State4 It is interesting and sad to read the report <br />of the 1977 Colorado Drouaht WorkshoDs, available from CSU WRRli Information Series No. 27, <br />under publicatrons < http://www.cwrrLcolostate.edu/>; things have not changed much. The CSU <br />WRRI publication on Water in the Barance (#9), A History of Drouaht in Colorado: <br />Lessons Learned and What Lies Ahead is very informative. The drought literature is quite large; <br />Wilhite and his National Drought Mitigation Center provide excellent sources and syntheses. <br /> <br />Butt from my own work (notably a forthcoming book chapter, soon to be available I hope) on <br />drought policy, f will note that Homer Kraenzel's powerful advice to f1be resUienUu from The Great <br />Plains in Transition (1955, OkJahoma) hasnlt been taken well enough and is still right. The great <br />majority of drought policy, as Wilhite has shown (noted above) is devoted to emergency <br />response. I call this I.the stability biasll .-- the urge to IImake it fike it wasl., to "get baok to normallF4 <br />The bias is in investing and re-investing in unormal.. when in fact this part of the wor'd has a highly <br />variable past and doubtless future. Why not invest in resilience - the quality of being able to <br />absorb shocks without breaking, and being able to - in practical terms - put aside some activities <br />and enterprises under adverse circumstances, and resume when conditions are more favorable. <br /> <br />t think it is well worth considering the costs and benefits of a State program, for instance, to <br />support work by the Extension and Experiment Station and cooperators on designation and <br />