Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments to SWSI, November 3,2003, by John Wiener <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />amenities, bringing employers and retirees and retaining (stjll 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 "the water was our future", sometimes dismissed as huffing and puffing... Where <br />amenities drive rural economies, water flows and environmental quality 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 population engages in wildlife viewing, and one fourth participates in fresh- <br />water fishing; more than half visits a beach or waterside for recreation. This involved expenditure <br />of about $100 Billion 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 aI., 1999, <br />Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits and the Taraetina of Conservation Programs: The <br />Case of the CRP. Washington: USDA ERS: Agricultural Economics Report No. 778 (available <br />on-line through Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture).) Meanwhile, 3/4 <br />of watersheds are degrading in quality (Heimlich, R.E. et aL, 1998, Wetlands and Agriculture: <br />Private Interests and Public Benefits. Washington: USDA ERS Agricultural Economics Report <br />No. 765, available on-line.) <br /> <br />But, public wlllingness to pay for farmland preservation is quite high (Heimlich, R.E. and W.O. <br />Anderson, 2001 , Development at the Urban Fringe and Bevond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural <br />Land. Washington: USDA ERS Agricultural Economics Report No. 803 (available on-line from <br />Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture). And, there are strong public <br />preferences for farmland protection and the defense of the rural amenities provided (HelJerstein et <br />aL, 2002, Farmland Protection: the Role of Public Preferences for Rural America. Washington: <br />USDA ERS Agricultural Economics Report No. 815). <br /> <br />In Colorado, 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 fact, there are programs in all of the states <br />(Hellerstein et al. 2002). <br /> <br />These public preferences and values are driving policy now (Pulver, 1996, "New Avenues for <br />Public Policy" and see rest of symposium "Economic Forces Shaping the Heartland", Economic <br />Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, available at: <br /><http://www.kc.frb.org/PUBLlCAT/heartlnd/hrtmain.htm>. so that decisions are no longer local, <br />and the urban interests are increasingly powerful. The agricultural future may be affected by the <br />symbiosis or antagonism that develops over public interests in resource management, or public <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 normal soon; in fact, as the assorted <br />reports to the Senate Agriculture Committee over the years make clear, on "The 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 Development Perspectives, available at: <br /><http://www.ers. usda.gov/publ ications/rdp/rdp298/rdp298. pdf>.) <br /> <br />The advice to rural areas has changed little since the 19505, except for the addition of the <br />importance of rural amenity as a major resource for economic viability. 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 />