Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments to SWSI, November 3, 2003~ by John Wiener <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />amenities, bringing employers and retirees and retaining (stiH some) manufacturing jobs is <br />increasing, and may be the source of any real growth in Coloradols rural areas. <br /> <br />fn fact, as noted above in regard to the criteria, rural amenities are critica' for grovvth, now, and <br />therefore in some cases perhaps for preventing decline (McGranahan 1999, cited above). These <br />conditions are important for water management decisions because they strongly support the <br />claims that lithe water was our future'1t sometimes dismissed as huffing and puffing... Where <br />amenities drive rurar economies, water frows and environmental quality are critical in the absence <br />of g'orious mountain scenery or other natural1eatures. In the East Slope, the rivers and the water <br />distribution systems are the natural features, and the recreation for locals as wen as visitors <br />relates to the water and the habitat created or maintained~ <br /> <br />One third of the US popuration engages in wildlife viewing~ and one fourth participates in fresh.. <br />water fishing; more than half visits a beach or waterside for recreation. This involved expenditure <br />of about $100 Binion in 1996.. And the wildlife benefits from the Conservation Reserve Program <br />may be greater than the water quality benefits (these claims from Feather, P. at al., 1999J <br />Economic Valuation of Environmenta' Benefits and the Taraetina of Conservation Proarams: The <br />Case of the CRP. Washington: USDA ERS: Agricultural Economics Report No. 778 (avaiJable <br />on-line through Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture).) Meanwhile, 3/4 <br />of watersheds are degrading in quality (Heimlich, R.E~ et at, 1998, Wetrands and Aariculture: <br />Private Interests and Public Benefits. Washington: USDA ERS Agricultural Economics Report <br />No. 765, available on-Una.) <br /> <br />But, public willingness to pay for farmJand preservation is quite high (Heimlich, R.E. and W.D. <br />Andersonl 2001 t Develooment at the Urban Frirloe and Bevond: Imo8cts on Aariculture and Rural <br />Land. Washington: USDA ERS Agricultural Economics Report No. 803 (available on-line from <br />Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture). And. there are strong public <br />preferences for farmland protection and the defense of the rural amenities provjded (Hellerstein at <br />aL, 20021 Farmland Protection: the Role of Public Preferences for Rura' America. Washington: <br />USDA ERS Agricultural Economics Report No. 815). <br /> <br />In Colorado, these values were clear to the Governo(s Commission on Saving Farmst Ranches, <br />and Open Space, whose report is available from the office of the Governor or their website.. The <br />SWSt participants will be aware of severaf programs here designed to preserve farmland and <br />open space. as well as the surge in public investment in recent years, through 'ocal governments <br />using voter-approved taxes for these amenities. In fact~ there are programs in all of the states <br />(HeUerstein at at 2002). <br /> <br />These public preferences and values are driving policy now (Pulver, 1996, .-New Avenues for <br />Public Policyll and see rest of symposium "Economic Forces Shaping the HeartJandll, Economic <br />Review. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, available at: <br /><http://www.kc.frb.org/PUBLICAT/heartlnd/hrtmain.htm>. so that decisions are no longer Jocar, <br />and the urban interests are increasingly powerful. The agricultural future may be affected by the <br />symbiosis or antagonism that develops over public interests in resource management, or public <br />support for some transformation of the current stewardship. Commodity farming is under too <br />much stress to presume that things will just get back to normar soon; in fact, as the assorted <br />reports to the Senate Agriculture Committee over the years make clear, on liThe status of the <br />family farmEl, normal is not very attractive to manYt anyway. (Another thoughtful overview of the <br />Great Plains situation was provided by the Economic Research Servjce in 1998, in a special <br />issue of Rural Development Perspectives, available at: <br /><http://www .ers. usda. gov Ipu bf rcati ons/rdp/rd p298/rdp298. pdf>.) <br /> <br />The advice to rural areas has changed IittJe since the 1950s, except for the addition of the <br />importance of rural amenity as a major resource for economic viability. Otherwise! investment in <br />an educated labor force and diversification are the constant refrain. The Kansas City Federal <br />Reserve Bank's economists echoed the advice from the Eisenhower Administration~ offering <br />