<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 />
|