ArkansasComments11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comments to SWSI, November 3, 2003, by John Wiener 4 See: McGranahan, D.A., 1999, Natural Amenities Drive Rural Population Change. USDA Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 781, Sep. 1999. This is downloadable from the USDA Economic Research Service website also, at: http://www.ers.usda.oov/oublications/aer781/ Here's the "briefing room": htto://www.ers.usda.Qov/topics/view.aso?T=104024 and an article: htto://www.ers.usda.qov/Amberwaves/Feb03/features/ruralamerica.htm Hunting, fishing, and non-consumptive wildlife uses (birders spend a lot) are especially 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 problems. 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 -- Promote cost-effectiveness The necessary footnote is, costs and benefits "for whom?" The classic view has been "for those of us paying a 10 percent cost-share", in 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 "ability of users to repay costs". In addition, this overlooks the question of public contribution for public goods. which is lurking in many of the relevant issues. The public does contribute indirectly and miserly to the cost of some public goods enjoyed (amenity, environmental qualities, agricultural heritage, etc.) See USDA Economic Research Service Report No. 815, by Feather et aI., downloadable also, on the public interests of preserving agricultural land uses that have already led to programs in all 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 self-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 kinds of infrastructure, and funding by the CWCB 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 municipalities are free-loading on the infrastructure they wanted to be near. OBJECTIVE 8 - Protect cultural values Please see comments above on urban quality of life benefits from externalities of irrigation and "inefffciencies". Information on agricultural facilities is sometimes a problem, and the SWSI 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