My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SouthPlatteComments06
CWCB
>
SWSI
>
DayForward
>
SouthPlatteComments06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 10:33:57 AM
Creation date
1/4/2008 2:44:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
SWSI
Basin
South Platte
Title
Comments 6
Date
11/3/2003
SWSI - Doc Type
Comments
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Comments to SWSI, November 3. 2003J by John Wiener <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />when I fast inquired, had not decided on charges. USGS data can be used to create some maps, <br />but their coverage of ditches is not known.. <br /> <br />Watershed groups may have additional information available, and there are efforts to provide <br />basic GIS information for such groups; the CDM firm may have substantial resources in this <br />areas, and I am noting that because it may be important for the Roundtabre groups to be able to <br />see such maps. The ditches are an important cultural value in themselves. <br /> <br />OBJECTiVE 9 Ih Provide for healthy Colorado economy -- Yeah! <br /> <br />OBJECTIVE 10 - Provide for operationar flexibUity <br /> <br />For the record, why not add a subhead recognizing that water rights are private property for <br />which most (not aU) owners have paid, and that an important part of this objectjve is "Create <br />infrastructure and institutions needed to enable sufficient marketing and transfers to provide <br />equitable outcomes in water transfer markets'~? Or just, .-Enable fair water markets?" <br /> <br />COMMENTS ON RELEVANT ISSUES <br /> <br />Small acreages as a factor In hay, feed and water demand <br /> <br />The popularity of uhorse propertiesU and demand for quality feed for recreatjonal animals is <br />apparently a high-growth opportunity and rapidJy...increasing land use in Colorado, all over. <br />Anecdotal evidence is that there was a substantiaJ boost to focal farming from very high prices <br />paid for hay for pets during the 2002 drought. In the long term, it may be important that a large <br />number of properties have been sold to horse..lovers who cannot feed their animals on the <br />acreage they ownt and are not seeking to engage in serious or commercial agriculture~ These <br />smarl-acreage holders should be considered as a different category from the rather large group <br />that owns small or moderate sized farms and supports them with off..farm emproyment (see <br />annual reports on family farmJ from USDA Economic Research Service~ or numerous discussions <br />availabJe through the USDA ERS website or government documents Iibrarians)4 This farm.. <br />supporter group seems to be maintaining commerciar-like farmsJ as distinct from Ilrecreatronalll or <br />IIhobbyu farms such as the horse...supporters maintain. As the horse group grows in Colorado. the <br />demand for feed may growt perhaps in the way it grew in 2002. (Partial coverage of this is <br />provided in USDA ERS FDS-2003, April 2003, Feed Situation and Outfook Yearbook; it may be <br />covered in various updates as weU; and see arso Henderson and Novack 2003. cited below). <br /> <br />The increasing density of wells and septic systems may arso influence the interests of these <br />people in water from other sources. Groundwater availability cannot be presumed on the basis of <br />ownership of a buildable Jot, even if the counties and state wish that were so. This may result in <br />increased competition for wens and the right to pump groundwater, or increased use of other <br />water supplies. Small town supplies are now often important for ex-urban users. <br /> <br />Another consideration is that many small properties are subdivisions or parcels from irrigated <br />acreaget and these new pieces may have or may want to have irrigation rights or shares in the <br />irrigat;on company. The interests in amenities and environmental benefits of those ditches <br />appear to increase attractiveness for real estate development probability (work by John Wilkins.. <br />Wells, Colorado State University Sociology Water lab, partly in progress; see <br /><http://waterJab.colostate.edu>).. Proxi,mity to water features; even with increased flood risk, has <br />been shown to increase real estate values (Wiener 1997, and see on-Une bibliography on <br />socioeconomics of flooding, Wiener, available through Natural Hazards Research Applications <br />and Information Center, University of Colorado). This creates the chance for both increased <br />financja~ support for ditches, and the chance for decreased interest in modernizing irrigation, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.