Arkansas - UNC - Inquiries into Buy and Dry_May2008

Home Browse Search

To: Board and Staff, Colorado Water Conservation Board 25 March 2008 Re: Advancing Alternative Agricultural Water Transfers Program From: John Wiener Dear Board and Staff: I am writing with the benefit of a thorough discussion with Todd Doherty, with whom it was established that this proposal will not qualify under the current guidelines adopted, adding to the legislation. The merits of the proposal were not discussed or reviewed. Having already used valuable staff time, I ask that the proposal's disqualification be noted and that it be left in the submissions for future consideration if the guidelines and criteria adopted are modified. Working from a university, it is not proper or possible to meet the 10% cash requirement. The goal of providing objective study of issues with public interests and values cannot always be met while working with a private project, whether completely private or supported by public funding but conducted as a private project. The public interests in the advancement of alternative transfers are confirmed by the legislation and continuing public investment, and it seems appropriate that university contributions continue to be public as well. The proposal is motivated by previous inquiries which reveal four areas of work which would support development of alternative transfers. (By alternative transfers in this case, I refer to ideas elaborated in some of the "one-pagers" appended to the proposal.) First, there are two sets of outreach/listening visits, one with a set of local governments serving more than 500 population. Some are very advanced in their visions and planning for the future, and some are not, and may have not seen advantages in such efforts, or have had capacity to engage the important issues of land use, future development, amenity and quality of life that are related to their interests in water transfers. The second similar set of visits would be with the major ditch companies in the Arkansas Valley, who may face similar situations and may not have been stimulated to consider potential future issues. Second, there are two technical areas in which lack of public information inhibits development of alternatives due to unknown costs, delays and potential benefits. These areas are revegetation of formerly irrigated lands (not approached in the 1996 Smith et al. CSU study; perhaps last treated in Sutherland et al. 1992), and the design of crop rotations and BMPs for land in alternative transfer. These inquiries are compatible with other projects. Two observations stimulate my own interest in pursuing this, despite the interest in "shovels in the ground..." First, I have encountered almost no understanding of the reasons for the failure of the Arkansas River Basin Water Bank Pilot Project; people only know it failed, not why, nor how to remedy the problems, nor what good was accomplished (a one-pager summarizes some of this). It was not conducted with knowledge of how agricultural innovation takes place, though it was far more than a legal change, and it was not developed with modern and adequate public involvement. Despite the legislative and Governor endorsement of the water bank idea in three statutes, the Colorado 64 principles, and the South Platte Task Force's most recent set of recommendations, what people know is "it didn't work." Second, the controversy over the agricultural efficiency change permitting rule- making in the Arkansas reminded me that rulke-making alone excludes the application of modern understanding of public involvement. The people involved are excellent, but they were not working within a set of procedures that would help educate, listen, and ameliorate the fears and concerns. It would be good to advance the other alternatives as well as possible, with the right kind of homework, to avoid the risk of years of delay in "getting it right" if there is another failed experiment. Learning by doing is not the only approach, as people handling hot things sometimes find out. These changes in the management of water, farming, and rural-urban relations are hot things worthy of great public respect for the issues and concerns. This grant program may be the only way to do the kind of work that may reduce the risks of experiments that by necessity involve many private interests and decisions which may never be well-understood, and some of which should not be public, even if they are heavily subsidized by public support. State support for these inquiries might make them substantially more welcome, and make the results more likely to be used. With thanks for your consideration, John Wiener (303-492-6746; <John.Wiener@Colorado.Edu>; writing solely as an individual.)