Arkansas - UNC - Inquiries into Buy and Dry_May2008

Home Browse Search

c. Funding from this Account will reduce the uncertainty that the water activity will be implemented. For this criterion the applicant should discuss how receiving funding from the Account will make a significant difference in the implementation of the water activity (i.e., how will receiving funding enable the water activity to move forward). Although also intended to complement Super Ditch effortsa leading on-going private effort to develop a rotational crop management program, this work is also intended to advance all alternative forms of water marketing and to reduce important uncertainties about key issues in implementation of new opportunities. It is especially important to consider that without good information on the costs of "buy-and-dry" under modern revegetation requirements and under climate variation and potential TMDL standards affecting non-point-source pollution from former agricultural lands, there is limited ability to compare alternatives. And, without good information on foreseeable yield changes under crop rotations designed for use with the new alternatives, the costs of engaging in them cannot be well estimated, for the farmers or for those acquiring water. d. There is an urgency of need for the water activity and/or any compelling "window of opportunity" that maybe missed without funding from the Account. Given the increased awareness of competition for water supply, as shown by the SWSI and increasing awareness of climate change potential impacts, the earlier that alternatives to "buy- and-dry" can be usefully evaluated by potential users, the better the chance that significant transfers will remain to be made using alternatives. No public disclosure of a contract or option to transfer water is required, and no disclosure of terms is required even when proposed transfers are brought into the public awareness through Water Court proceedings. The urgency is therefore likely to be important, likely to be viewed differently by different parties and potential parties, and somewhat unknowable. It is also important that marginal costs tend to increase rather sharply as limits are approached. A local government that seeks water for non-agricultural development or amenity values in the future may expect to pay considerably more than in the present, unless there are major economic dislocations. The same general principle applies to future water acquisitions for purposes such as salinity reduction for a TMDL, or for support of a threatened or endangered species. Presumably, the Nonconsumptive Needs Assessment study will provide some information on the latter of these, but it does not appear to address local amenity values, as distinguished from recreational values. "Amenity" values for local quality of life and recreational uses can be usefully distinguished from "recreational" values which support commercial use by non-residents. Both may be very important in rural economies. Amenity, however, is important for long-term investments in attracting growth and residents (see USDA studies, McGranahan et al., cited in memorandum). The presence of amenities in urban areas supports higher tax bases through higher property values (e.g. proximity to open space, creeks or ditches, etc.), and is the focus of sales pitches for new developments. The presence of amenities in rural areas has traditionally been assumed, relying on small-town conditions which may change with consolidation of remaining agriculture into large non-local operations. Local governments which hope to attract residents and services