Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Biological issues, comment to SWSI, August 2004 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Biological Considerations for Water Transfer Planning <br />A comment to the SWSt7 August, 2004 . <br />John Wiener Oohn.wiener@colorado~edu; 303-492~6746; Campus Box 468, University of <br />Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309.0468), writing solely as an individual. <br /> <br />The reason for these comments (3 pages of notesj annotated references following): <br /> <br />It is not apparent to an outside observer than anyone is charged to take an overview of the range <br />of potential consequences of the coming large.scale water transfers. It is an historical outcome <br />that water policy based in market allocation and traditional water law has resulted, so far, in <br />"segmentation of analysisH.. That js, when a broad policy is implemented in small incrementst <br />analysis of any given increment may overrook cumulative and synergistic impacts resulting over <br />time and in summation.. The simple example is environmental impact analysis of only a mile of <br />road at a timet where there will be a network of many miles and many roads in total. Because <br />transfer has been by markets in private property, no planning or evaluation criteria have been <br />generally developed or accepted. Encountering critical thresholds of cumulative impact can be <br />expensive and responses can be sto.w (Platte River Recovery Program DEtS, Freeman 2003)~ <br /> <br />} <br /> <br />Therefore, it is my intent to nput some issues on the table.', without intent to disparage the work <br />done and underway. Rather, I hope this will help the SWSI groups with their discussion, and <br />perhaps herp the Water ConseNation Board consider further staff and interagency investigations <br />of these issues. Andt I hope that public interests may be better identified and better served, <br />perhaps through opportunities for private contributions, and perhaps targeted support for <br />contributions such as conservation easements~ Private support for public benefits may be <br />surprising,. and should certainly not be sought only from the agricultural and rural people most <br />likely to be impacted by the coming water transfers; everyone, including the urban and suburban <br />population, benefits from extemalities now provided by water distribution. The Water <br />Conservation Board staff win surely take the lead in these issues, given its role and evolution of <br />expertise with in-stream flow issues, and it is hoped that this comment will support such work.. <br /> <br />Since the social and economic issues involved with moving water from agricultural uses have <br />been raised. this comment is directed to support of a "biological alternativell, in which the <br />productivity of the environment is the thing to be maximized. Such an alternative would be <br />valuable to help avoid inadvertently or unknowingly reaching some criticaf threshold, and to know <br />how weJl this alternative matches other alternatives. These comments do not duplicate previous <br />comment on other subjects.. <br /> <br />These comments are in three parts: (1) Two pages of very brief djscussion of themes that <br />emerged from a survey of scientific literatures; (2) the bibliography from the survey; and (3) a set <br />of annotations on the referencesf for interested readers, and a few additional remarks. <br />The following 'hemes. emerged from sUlVey of some of the literature. The annotations provide <br />explanation of sources. <br /> <br />Theme: The Big Picture is Missing <br /> <br />Too much has been changed already in the Eastern Plains of Colorado to presume we know <br />much now j or can easily foresee consequences of more dramatic change from changes in water <br />managementt agricultural policy~ or enmate variation. Extreme losses of wetlands, drastic <br />declines in plains fishes and birdst ross of native grasslands, and a great dear of research at <br />scales of better value to science than management leave us in a difficult position.. There are <br />continental scale estimates, and micro-scale research, but regionally, little in the way of a -big <br />picture" helpful for identifying thresholds, avoiding problems, or anticipating consequences. <br />Agriculture accounts for well over 85 percent of consumptive use of water; but there is almost <br />nothing on ditches and canals as part of the environment, or as partial substitute for converted <br />and drained riparian and wet lands of all sorts. This is especially problematic for Colorado since <br />there is regional research on the few remaining prairie potholes to the north, and the few <br />remaining playas and -depressional features to the south; in the middfe, there are rivers and <br />distributional features" beyond the foothills, and research on the natural but not much on the <br />