Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments to SWSlj November 3, 2003. by John Wiener <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />Gleick, P~H., lead author, 2000, Water: The ootential consequences of climate variabilitv and <br />chanae for the water resources of the United States.... report of the water sector assessment team <br />of the national assessment of the potential consequences of climate variability and change, for <br />the US Global Change Research Program, September 2000. (A remarkable group was involved <br />in this.) Available on: <http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/default.htm> <br /> <br />This distinguished panel endorsed a variety of recommendations which wifl not surprise the SWSI <br />participants~ such as efficiency and demand management, re-evaluation of engineering designs <br />and operating rules, supply from reuse, and improved flexibility in water markets and transfers. <br />The panel was also impressed with the problems of relatively small changes leading to farger <br />impacts, such as modest varjation in the ratio of snow to rain and impacts on runoff vofume and <br />evaporation., and changes in the probability of ffooding~ <br /> <br />A quot8tion (page 13): t'Whife some kinds of actions should be taken now, expensjve <br />and long-lived new infrastructure should be postponed until adequate information on <br />future climate ;s available. ]f postponement is not possible, a wider range of climate <br />variability than provided by the historical record should be factored into infrastructure <br />design. n <br /> <br />The report as a whole supports resilience and flexibility in water management infrastructure and <br />caution in design of new structures. This is welJ within the traditionar advice in the literature, and <br />the traditional problem has been justifying the additional costs of added capacity in large projects <br />to provide flexibility in management (e.g., to provide flood pool space as well as storage). It is not <br />yet clear, however; what this kind of Ufortifying-- does to the cost~benefit comparisons between <br />fewer large versus more small projects, particuJarly considering the increased risK of frooding <br />which is nearly universally predicted. The water sector report also supports the fear that overaU <br />impacts on the US gross domestic product will not be sufficiently dramatic to warrant massive <br />new federal responsesJ presuming continuing fiscal austerity. <br /> <br />The water sector report also draws attention to fears that groundwater systems may be <br />unexpectedly sensitive to variations in recharge; as the Jefferson County official, Ms. BeU <br />mentioned at the meetingt this may be troublesome for mountain areas with less..investjgated <br />groundwater systems. Their recent collaboration with USGS on Turkey Creek is not apparentJy <br />grounds for Wild optimism about avoiding future increased demand on rural water supplies willing <br />to provide for their neighbors. <br /> <br />The agriculture sector report is unhappy for Colorado. It draws attention to threats to soil fertHity <br />and erosion increases, but in general, ruefuHy reports that cUmate issues are unliKely to alter the <br />driving forces currently squeezing agriculture and especially squeezing it in marginal areas. The <br />"good newsll for the U.S. as a whole. that there willlikery be relatively small impacts on consumer <br />food pricest is Ilbad newsu too, as the producer jncomes may be reduced, and there witt very likely <br />be regional winners and losers. The chances for increased total productivity appear a little better <br />than the chances for decreased nationa' production. IIAlthough improved productivity is good for <br />US consumers, it generally reduces income and wealth among farmers and agricultural <br />landholders" (Reilly at at 2001: 120). Marginal agricultures are likely to be worse off with added <br />economic pressure. <br /> <br />"Understanding what to do requires a far more detailed engagement of those who <br />are directry involved -- the farmers, legisJators, research managers, government <br />program managers, and rocal communities who wiU be affected and whose incomes, <br />livelihoods] and jobs are on the Une.11 (Reilly at at. 2001: 110)4 <br /> <br />liThe wide uncertainties in climate scenarios; regional variation in climate effects; <br />and interactions of environment~ economicsj and farm policy suggest that there are no <br />sjmpre and widely applicable adaptation prescriptions. Farmers will have to adapt <br />