Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments to SWSI, November 3, 2003, by John Wiener <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />amenjties, bringing employers and retirees and retaining (stUI some) manufacturing jobs is <br />increasing, and may be the source of any real growth in Colorado.s rural areas. <br /> <br />In fact, as noted above in regard to the criteria~ rural amenities are critical for growth, 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 ulhe water was our futurell, sometimes dismissed as huffing and puffing".. Where <br />amenities drive rural economies, water flows and environmental quarity are critical in the absence <br />of glorious mountain scenery or other natural features. In the East Slope, the rivers and the water <br />distribution systems are the natural features, and the recreation for locals as well as visitors <br />relates to the water and the habitat created or maintained. <br /> <br />One third of the US popuJation engages in wildlife viewing, and one fourth participates in fresh- <br />water fishing; more than half vjsits 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. et af., 1999, <br />Economic Valuation of Environmenta' Benefits and the Taraetina of Conservation proarams: The <br />Case of the CBP. Washington: USDA ERS: AgricuJtural Economics Report No. 778 (avairable <br />on-Una through Economic Research Service. US Department of Agriculture).) Meanwhile, 3/4 <br />of watersheds are degrading in quatity (Heimlich, R.E~ at ar., 1998, Wetlands and Aariculture: <br />Private interests and Public Benefits. Washington: USDA ERS Agricultural Economics Report <br />No. 765, available on-Une.) <br /> <br />Butt public willingness to pay for farmland preservation is quite high (Heimlich, R.E. and W.O. <br />Anderson, 2001, Develooment at the Urban Frinae and Bevond: Imoacts on Aariculture and Rural <br />Land. Washington: USDA ERS Agricultural Economics Report No. 803 (available on-Une from <br />Economic Research ServiceJ US Department of Agriculture). And, there are strong pUblic <br />preferences for farmland protection and the defense of the rurar amenities provided (Hellerstein at <br />al.1 2002, Farmland Protection: the Role of Public Preferences for Rural America. Washington: <br />USDA ERS Agricultural Economics Report No. 815). <br /> <br />In Colorado1 these values were clear to the Governor's Commission on Saving Farms, Ranches, <br />and Open Space, whose report is available from the office of the Governor or their website. The <br />SWSI participants will be aware of several programs here designed to preserve farmland and <br />open space, as well as the surge in public investment in recent years, through local governments <br />using voter-approved taxes for these amenities. In factf there are programs in all of the states <br />(Hellerstejn at 8.1. 2002). <br /> <br />These public preferences and varues are driving policy now (Pulver; 1996, "New Avenues for <br />PubJic policyn and see rest of symposium IIEconomic Forces Shaping the Heartfandtt, Economic <br />Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, available at: <br /><http://www.kc~frb.org/PUBLICAT/heartlndlhrtma;n.htm>. so that decisions are no longer roeal, <br />and the urban interests are increasingly powerful. The agricufturar future may be affected by the <br />symbiosis or antagonism that develops over public interests in resource management, or pubric <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 normaf soon; in fact, as the assorted <br />reports to the Senate Agriculture Committee over the years make clearJ on uThe status of the <br />family farm'\ normal is not very attractive to many, anyway. (Another thoughtful overview of the <br />Great Plains situation was provided by the Economic Research Service in 1998, in a special <br />issue of Rural DeveloDment Perspectives, available at: <br /><http://www . ers. usda .gov Ip u bUcati ons/rdp/rdp298/rd p298. pdt>.) <br /> <br />The advice to rural areas has changed Jittle since the 1950s, except for the additjon of the <br />importance of rural amenity as a major resource for economic viabtUty. 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 />