|
<br />Comments to SWSI, November 3, 2003, by John Wiener
<br />
<br />11
<br />
<br />planning." A thoughtful response to these issues appeared a few month later, from
<br />Hirschboeck (the off-putting title is "Respecting the drainage divide: perspective on
<br />hydroclimatological change and scale", Water Resources Update 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 don't know, although we
<br />are getting some familiarity with some of the tools available for working on the problem. So
<br />what?
<br />
<br />Donald Wilhite, 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 et
<br />al" 2000, "Planning for drought: moving from crisis to risk management," 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 called mitigation (actual risk reduction), in contrast to preparedness to respond
<br />to the event. Clearly, the SWSI can exert some influence on the will to invest in storage and
<br />distribution infrastructure, rehabilitated, new and preserved, which increases capacity and
<br />reduces risk.
<br />
<br />Wilhite's recommendations for drought planning circle right back to Lawford's point about
<br />contingency planning, in my opinion. 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 parts" in the water distribution system as well as
<br />increasing collection capacity. One of the classic debates in water management literature was
<br />summarized in 1954 in The Flood Control Controversy: Bio Dams. Little Dams, and Land
<br />Manaoement by Luna B. Leopold and Thomas Maddock, Jr., (NY: Ronald Press). The federal
<br />support for very large projects, with very large amounts of cost-sharing and with significant local
<br />enrichment, had a large impact on that debate, favoring multiple use water projects on the grand
<br />scale (Wiener, 1997, Research Opportunities in Search of Federal Flood Policy, Policv Sciences
<br />29 (4): 321-344). The "big dams, little 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 well 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., Valliant, J. C., and Broner, I. 2002,
<br />Monitoring and modeling flow and salt transport in a salinity-threatened irrigated valley. Journal of
<br />Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE, 128(2), 87 - 99. (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/spmappresentationl>).ltis becoming much
<br />more cost-effective to use ground and surface water conjunctively on all scales. There is also
<br />considerable progress in cheap leak-control fabric and pond-lining for small water storage.
<br />
<br />Also, there are now considerably different circumstances facing agriculture in terms of the
<br />desirability of crop and livestock choices, and in terms of the capacity to draw upon sophisticated
<br />financial assistance to fund improvements in technology and in marketing decisions. Some
<br />information is noted below 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 dramatically,
<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 />Greene, 2002, Recent Growth Patterns in the U.S. Organic Foods Market, USDA ERS, AIB-777,
<br />and a "briefing room" on the this topic: <www.ers.usda.gov/publications.aib7771> and
<br /><www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Organic/>. (USDA ERS also has information on the growing share
<br />
|