|
<br />Comments to SWSI, November 3,2003, by John Wiener
<br />
<br />11
<br />
<br />planning.1I A thoughtful response to these issues appeared a few month later, from
<br />Hirschboeck (the off-putting title is uRespecting the drainage divide: perspective on
<br />hydrocUmatological change and scale", Water Resources Uodate 126: 48-53). In some
<br />situations, the usefulness of the modeling is greater than in others, but complementary and
<br />contrasting methods are critical.. Meanwhile, we mostly know that we donlt know, although we
<br />are getting some famiUarity with some of the tools avairable for working on the problem.. So
<br />what?
<br />
<br />Donald Wilhitet the leading scholar in drought mitigation and director of the National Drought
<br />Mitigation Center, has often noted the leadership of Colorado in drought planning (e~g. Wilhite at
<br />al., 2000t ..Planning for drought: moving from crisis to risk management,t1 Journal of the American
<br />Water Resources Association 36: 697-710, and see the Drought Mitigation Center website for
<br />great information)~ I think it is fair to say that he has been internationally important in leading the
<br />shift from the first step of planning for drought to the second step of increasing capacity to cope,
<br />which is generally caUed mitigation (actual risk reduction), in contrast to preparedness to respond
<br />to the event. Clearly, the SWSI can exert some influence on the win to invest in storage and
<br />distribution infrastructuref rehabilitated, new and preserved, which increases capacity and
<br />reduces ris k.
<br />
<br />Wilhjtels recommendations for drought planning circle right back to Lawford's pOint about
<br />contingency planning, jn my opinion4 The practical implication is that the insurance available for
<br />water supply planning and water management involves retaining maximum flexibility in the
<br />management capacity - for ..keeping all the partsll in the water distribution system as weH as
<br />increasing collection capacity. One of the classic debates in water management literature was
<br />summarized in 1954 in The Flood Contro' Controversy: Bia Dams. Little Dams. and Land
<br />Manaaement by Luna B. Leopold and Thomas Maddock, Jr., (NY: Ronald Press). The federal
<br />support for very large projectsJ with very large amounts of cost-sharing and with significant local
<br />enrichment, had a large impact on that debate, favoring muftiple use water projects on the grand
<br />scale (Wiener, 1997, Research Opportunities in Search of Federal Flood Policy, PoUcv Sciences
<br />29 (4): 321-344). The lIbig dams, littte dams controversy faded for a long time, but now, there are
<br />good reasons to revisit this issue and consider what the costs and benefits are~
<br />
<br />In particular, there are now substantial increases in understanding the potential of conjunctive
<br />management and use of the alluvial aquifers, as well as improved technology for pumping and
<br />distribution of ground water. Conjunctive use can be on the small as wen as great scale. With
<br />the kind of progress made in groundwater engineering by the Colorado State University
<br />researchers" among others, we can certainly achieve better results within a reasonable time.
<br />See Gates, T. K., Burkhalter, J. P.., Labadie, J. W., VaUiant, J. C4' and Bronert I. 2002,
<br />Monitoring and modeling flow and salt transport in a salinity-threatened irrigated vaUeY4 Journal of
<br />Irrigation and Drainage /Engineering, ASeE, 128(2)t 87.. 9~. (This is available on internet by
<br />download; browse to the journal name~) There is also a powerful demonstration of the CSU
<br />capacities at <:http://www.ids.colostate.edu/projects/spmappresentation/>).Itis becoming much
<br />more cost-effective to use ground and surface water conjunctively on all scales. There is also
<br />considerable progress in cheap feak-control fabric and pond-lining for smalf water storage4
<br />
<br />Also, there are now considerably different circumstances facing agriculture in terms of the
<br />desirability of crop and Uvestock choicesr and in terms of the capacity to draw upon sophisticated
<br />financiaJ assistance to fund improvements in technology and in marketing decisions. Some
<br />information is noted be~ow in discussion of the futures for agriculture~ The kinds of activities that
<br />make the most money are changing, and may continue to change in Colorado rather dramaticalJy,
<br />as commodity production loses attractiveness compared to direct sales, organics, and high..value
<br />horticulture. What sounded silly ten years ago is now growing faster than the rest of farming, at
<br />rates of 20% per year, and the market seems to be increasing steadily (see Dimitri, C. and C.
<br />Greenej 2002, Recent Growth Patterns in the U.S. Organic Foods Market, USDA ERS, AIB-7771
<br />and a lIbriefing roomu on the this topic: <www.ers.usda.go.v/publications~ajb777/> and
<br /><www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Organic/>. (USDA ERS also has information on the growing share
<br />
|