ColoradoComments13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comments to SWSlt November 3t 2003, by John Wiener 4 See: McGranahan, D~A~t 1999, Natura' Amenities Drive RuraJ Population Change. USDA Economic Research Service, Agriculturar Economic Report No~ 781, Sap. 1999~ Thjs is down'oadable from the USDA Economic Research Service website also, at htto :llwww.ers.usda.Qov/oublrcations/ae r781/ Herers the "briefing roomll: htto:/lwww.ers.usda.aov/tooics/view.asP?T=1 04024 and an article: htto:/lwww~ers.usda.oov/Amberwaves/Feb03/features/ruralamerica4htm Hunting, fishingJ and non-consumptive wildrife uses (birders spend a lot) are especiaUy important benefits of riparian and wetland resources in rural Colorado, especially in areas away from skiing and where there has been little or no public investment in recreational or amenity development; typically, what there is consists only of motorboat facilities. In addition, investment in habitat is insurance against further threatened/endangered species probremsi As the current situation on the South Platte illustrates all too well, ESA trouble is very serious trouble, not only for the species and its neighbors, but for the people who have built around expectations and predictability which are threatened. That kind of trouble hurts everyone, and one cannot avoid noting that the rural people are apparently more threatened than the cities, simply because the rural water users are more vulnerable to every kind of pressure, and far fewer in number than urban voters. (There is more discussion of these issues below)~ OBJECTIVE 7 111111 Promote cost-effectiveness The necessary footnote is, costs and benefits Iffor whom?U The classic view has been "for those of us paying a 10 percent cost-share-\ hl public works development. In the current economy and fiscal policies of federal and state governments, local cost-effectiveness is implied and might be noted somewhat more explicitly than only as Uability of users to repay C05tSIl~ In addition, this overlooks the question of public contribution for pubJic goodst which is lurking in many of the relevant issues. The public does contribute indirectly and miserly to the cost of some public goods enjoyed (amenitYt environmental qualities, agricuitural heritage, etc.) See USDA Economic Research Service Report No~ 815, by Feather at aI., downloadable also, on the public interests of preserving agricultural land uses that have already led to programs in aU states~ A similar study of ditch benefits is apparently lacking, but there are studies of increased real estate value from water features, and this is seJf...evident but could be verified by consultation with real estate agents and appraisers~) The main current contribution appears to be through use of State management of funds such as the drinking water and water treatment revolving funds for some kJnds of infrastructure, and funding by the ewes and WRPDA for water and related projects. These programs provide an interest rate subsidy, which is important but not an overwhelming support. Compared to the values and benefits received, urban areas and suburban municipalitjes are free...loading on the infrastructure they wanted to be near~ OBJECTIVE 8 -- Protect cultural vaJues Please see comments above on urban quality of Ufe benefits from externalities of irrigation and lIinefficienciesH~ Information on agricultural facilities is sometimes a problem, and the SWSf may help in compiling that. An excellent map of lower South Platte ditches is available from the slides provided by Dr. Luis Garcia and his colleagues in the SPMap presentation cited above; similar maps for other areas have eluded me~ I do not know what was involved in creating that map. Denver Water has a ditch layer for its GIS system~ but had decided not to provide it for free and