|
January 20086, Notes to accompany presentations and posters 4
<br />CRISIS/OPPORTUNITY FOR DITCHES AND WHY IT MATTERS
<br />CRISIS: Water will move to cities in Colorado, as shown by the Statewide Water Supply Initiative studies. Competition for
<br />water may move a great deal of water before management innovations can be fully developed (e.g. Denver Post by Olinger, et
<br />al. Nov. OS). Benefits and costs from traditional "buy-and-dry", even with lease-backs, are not evenly distributed, and third-
<br />party impacts are very important in some rnral areas. Ditch and Reservoir Companies are now a few hundred mostly small
<br />farming interests with limited technical capacity facing cities and water providers with substantial technical capacity and also
<br />bonding and financing capacity. Drought severely impacted many agricultural operations between 2001 and the recent past,
<br />and last winter, blizzards did great damage to many livestock operations. Agricultural land prices, however, are up under the
<br />spur of very high corn prices for the ethanol boom (Guebert, Ag Journal and others, Nov. 2007), as are fertilizer prices, and
<br />feed prices, increasing turmoil while providing some great profits for some producers. The ethanol boom and rising corn
<br />prices stimulated a very high level of crop-switching, but it is not known how long this will last; uncertainty is constant.
<br />OPPORTUNITY: There is now more support than ever for alternatives to "buy-and-dry" and mitigation or management
<br />impacts, as shown in the Colorado 64 Principles, adopted by all counties and the General Assembly (HJR03-1019), the SWSI,
<br />the HBOS-1177 Inter-Basin Compact Process (charter adopts Colorado 64), and the South Platte Task Force. If the new tools
<br />can be developed fast enough to provide assurance of eventual success and reduce "water wars" and chaotic markets, the
<br />opportunity for greater rnral stability and agricultural sustainability exists.
<br />POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF BETTER TRANSFERS:
<br />Agricultural income stabilization from long-term contracts, partnerships or sales, of two kinds, likely involving both
<br />annual and "use of water payments" to transferor farmers, and ditch management payments for infrastrnctural and
<br />accounting innovations needed. Aurora and the Rocky Ford Highline Canal lease demonstrated possibilities.
<br />• Long-term Rotational Crop Management with predictable "base load" supply to municipal partners while farming
<br />continues; scale mustbe worked out to manage potential problems ("principles" memo). (C.R.S. 37-92-103, 37-92-
<br />305 authorize such contracts, but at present there is no known Colorado model; California example of this and of
<br />"salvage water" transfer: see websites for Palo Verde Irrigation District and Imperial Irrigation Districts.)
<br />• Long-term Interruptible Supply contracts for drought and drought recovery supply, and wet-year transfers to
<br />conjunctive use and aquifer storage projects. (C.R.S. 37-92-309 is limited-use and short-term only.)
<br />• Water banks for "spot market" surprise and opportunity deals on a quick short-term basis at low cost after initial
<br />establishment or acceptance of transferable quantity determinations and limits on use.
<br />Agricultural economy stabilization from sustainability of farming with great improvements in capitalization possible,
<br />retention of appreciation of the asset value, and continuation of the forward and backward linked businesses in the regional
<br />and local economies. Investment depends on a future.
<br />Rural economy support from stabilization of these parts of the tax base and establishment of a more foreseeable and
<br />manageable future, enabling county cost management, resource allocation improvements, and increased attractiveness for
<br />small towns. Defense of the core activities and quality of life are necessary though perhaps not sufficient for regional rural
<br />revitalization adding incremental small business growth, tax-rational residential and second home growth, and
<br />cooperatively developed service improvements. Some impacts would be reduced and spread, others eliminated.
<br />Municipal advantages: "pay-as-you-go" for water matches costs to benefits, avoids interest/bond debt, and avoids
<br />ownership of farms or revegetation obligations which may be unpredictably expensive and lengthy. May avoid major
<br />infrastrncture if supplies replace (firm) drought-reduced supply.
<br />ROLE OF DITCHES: We should treasure and defend agricultural water distribution for many reasons.
<br />• Many of the richest parts of the rural landscape were created by water distribution, partly replacing the riparian areas
<br />converted to other uses and affected by flow regulation; the highest values in urban and suburban land reflect proximity to
<br />amenity, often ditches as linear parks and recreational ways, and reservoirs and other water features and their
<br />environmental benefits to all, from the birds to the tax base.
<br />• The groupings of interest that can act on the landscape, for better or for worse, are the owners of the land, and their
<br />interests rise and fall as the group together -this is social as well as physical capital, symbolically and literally. New-
<br />comers want what these people created and we should support continued provision of these benefits, and allow a better
<br />market to develop including local interests.
<br />
|