30 ‎(3)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 5/21/2008
• Description: IWMD Section - Presentation of Agricultural Water Conservation Paper
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

To: Colorado Water Conservation Board
and, staff, Attn: Todd Doherty
Re: Alternative Agricultural Water Transfer Methods Grant and Loan Program, May 21, 2008
From: John Wiener
Dear Board and Staff:
I am unable to attend the meeting, but would like to add this note to the proceedings as what I would like
to say were I present.
Adding to the cover letter on the proposal, I wish to be sure my intention is clear. In response to my
inquiries before the forms and criteria were available, I've had several very good discussions with Todd
Doherty, going "above and beyond", as usual with the staff. I think I am well advised on the difference
between what I propose and what the program sought this time. Hence, I did not rewrite ~m new forms
since the proposal would not be favorably reviewed.
I do hope that your discussions will include the following issues, as I think they are under-appreciated.
I have great sympathy for urge to put shovels in the ground, and show activity. But, I am uncertain about
the extent of (earning and strategy development that will be available. A success may not easily indicate
what is needed for transfer, although there is enormous value in some kinds of demonstrations. It may be
even harder to understand a failure.
If it were possible, I would interview the members of the Board individually to ask what was learned from
the failure of the Arkansas River Basin Water Bank Pilot Program. It would be hard to find a better
informed and more concerned group than the Board, but even so I believe there would be different ideas
based on different sets of information. Despite several discussions and efforts, seven years after the first
authorization and four year after state-wide authority, the second try has not yet appeared. People know
that "it failed", but they don't know much about it. You're welcome to my work on this, but: the point here
is that the failure may have been much more of a set-back than it should have been.
This program to advance alternatives could include some insurance against the possibility that the Super
Ditch Project or others may not quickly succeed. The best way to guard against people just losing hope
in the big ideas is to explore them widely, and explore the range of decisions that are involved so that
potential users of the tool can see that one or two instances are not the onl}+ ones possible. That kind of
outreach and engagement promotes transferability and local .adaptation. The expert reviews of crop
rotation and revegetation would be valuable for all kinds of flexible transfers, of course.
Regarding the Staff discussion, I've noted the reason for staying with the earlier form, though I wonder
from the Staff notes if review was not done on the later submission. Identification of agricultural groups
potentially involved is done by noting the ditch companies (there are 7 major ones left as potential users
in the Lower Arkansas Valley); identification of potential transferees is not done, and treating this as a
look into the interests and views of transferors leads to getting to transferees after knowing what they
transferors might want to offer. The treatment of elements of a transfer is also left general, in the
proposal description, for the same reason, though my description with citations was attached. And, the
cash match is addressed in the eady cover letter with the submission. Finally, the role of the Arkansas
Basin Water Transfers Guidelines Committee is not as substantial as descr':bed. But, overall the proposal
surely does not meet the intent of the program as I understand it with Todd's help, though I believe it does
appropriately meet the intent of the statute.
I hope the Board will consider widening the scope of the program to include the kind of work that was
proposed, though it may be rather late if undertaken a year from now. Perhaps the proposals received so
far will I say something about the usefulness of more preparatory groundw¢rk before the seeds are
planted and the funding ~s gone.
With thanks for your consideration,
John Wiener