SouthPlatteComments06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comments to SWSI, November 3, 2003, by John Wiener 4 See: McGranahan, D.A., 1999, Natural Amenities Drive Rural Population Change. USDA Economic Research Service~ Agriculturar Economic Report No. 781, Sap.. 1999. Thjs is downloadable from the USDA Economic Research Service Website alsot at: htto:/lwww. ers. usda ~QOV joublications/aer781 / Here.s the Itbriefing roomtr: htto:/lwww.ers.usda.aovltooics/view.asD?T=1 04024 and an articre: htto:/ /www.ers.usda.aov/Amberwaves/Feb03/features/ruralamerica.htm Hunting. fishing, and non-consumptive wildlife uses (birders spend a lot) are especially important benefits of riparian and wetland resources in rural Colorado, especially in areas away from skiing and where there has been littfe or no public investment in recreational or amenity development; typically, what there is consists only of motorboat faciJities. In addition, investment in habitat is insurance against further threatened/endangered species problems. As the current situation on the South Platte illustrates air too weU, ESA trouble is very serious trouble~ not only for the species and jts neighborst but for the peopJe who have buift around expectations and predictability which are threatened. That kind of trouble hurts everyone, and one cannot avojd noting that the rurar people are apparently more threatened than the cities, simply because the ruraf water users are more vulnerable to every kind of pressure, and far fewer in number than urban voters. (There is more discussion of these issues below). OBJECTIVE 7 -- Promote cost-effectiveness The necessary footnote is, costs and benefits ufor whom?-- The classic view has been IFfor those of us paying a 10 percent cost-share-\ itl public works development. In the current economy and fiscal pOlicies of federal and state governments, local cost-effectiveness is implied and might be noted somewhat more explicitly than only as "abirity of users to repay coststF. In addition, this overlooks the question of pubUc contribution for public goodst which is 'urking in many of the relevant issues. The pubHc does contribute indirectry and miserly to the cost of some public goods enjoyed (amenitYJ environmental qualities, agricultural heritage, etc.) See USDA Economic Research Service Report No. 815, by Feather et aI., downloadable also, on the pUblic interests of preserv;ng agriculturaJ land uses that have already led to programs in aU states~ A similar study of ditch benefits is apparently tacking, but there are studies of increased real estate vaJue from wa1er features, and this is self-evident but could be verified by consultation with reat estate agents and appraisers.) The main current contribution appears to be through use of State management of funds suoh as the drinking water and water treatment revolving funds for some kinds of infrastructure, and funding by the ewes and WRPDA for water and refated projects~ These programs provide an interest rate subsidy, which is important but not an overwhelming support. Compared to the values and benefits received, urban areas and suburban municipalities are free-roading on the infrastructure they wanted to be near. OBJECTIVE 8 - Protect curtural values Please see comments above on urban quaUty of life benefits from externalities of irrigation and IIjnefficienciesJl~ Information on agricultural facilities is sometimes a probJem, and the SWSI may harp in compiling that. An excellent map of lower South Platte ditches is available from the srides provided by Dr~ Luis Garcia and his colleagues in the SPMap presentation cited above; similar maps for other areas have eluded me. J do not know what was involved in creating that map. Denver Water has a ditch layer for its GIS systemt but had decided not to provide it for free and