Colorado Water Dec 2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The report also documents that a thinned forest helps protect water quality. And the report emphasizes the beneficial effect of retaining for- ests to encourage infiltration and re- duce overland flows. These facts will help antagonists see what they have in common about forests and water. Finding common ground helps people come together. Also inside the report, an important misconception is debunked when it is explained why increased water flows resulting from forestry sometimes can- not be measured. Measurement limi- tations, the report says, does not mean that additional water is not there. It is. However, natural streams and wet- lands do not perform like engineered pipes and valves and concrete ditches. The report explains how increased water yields in an upper drainage may end up hidden in the lower reaches of the drainage as it raises underground water tables and expands the boundar- ies of wetlands, or extends a period of inundation beneficial to some wildlife. Many people outside of the narrowly focused water community can em- brace these hidden benefits of forestry. Again, there are partnership possibili- ties in watershed management that, up to this point, may have been consid- ered impossible. Forestry for favorable water flows is a good fit with many other forest initia- tives already started or in develop- ment stages. For example, thinning to produce more water and to protect forest from too - intense wildfire can be the same project that restores a for- est condition in a recreational forest, where the primary goal is safety of visitors and serenity. The report recognizes a recurring question water agencies face when it comes to funding. Because addi- tional water sometimes may not end up in a claimant's pipe or reservoir, the question of who benefits and who pays must be addressed. The report gives hope, however, by eliminating negative arguments and misconceptions that previously cast enough doubt that inaction was reasonable. Now it is not. With this report, instead of wondering if forestry for water is worth it, people can understand why it is. The report eliminates previous ambiguity. There is another significant question raised in the report and it is one that the report did not address. How should Colorado deal with the myriad of issues that must be examined before an alterna- tive is chosen and a project becomes operational? I offer this. Make sure that every proposed forestry project is a local one. By working together at a community level, people quickly determine which of many different issues are important and appropriate. Unnecessary problems and time consuming complications are elimi- nated. Each potential forestry project becomes unique and worthwhile to its own set of stakeholders. Furthermore, community -based forestry usually incorporates private owner- ships. The report reminds us that of Colorado's 35,300 square miles of forests, 28 percent is privately owned by almost 200,000 people. Private forest land is subject to the goals and decisions of each private landowner. The large number of individual decision - makers and fractured forest ownership patterns are not necessarily a deterrent. Land- owners represent an opportunity to share responsibility for appropriate action. My own experience working with pri- vate forest owners proved this: people choose to conduct forestry for many reasons. When their choice is of free will, and they achieve understanding first, most people take action to improve their forests. People want to leave their forest in a little bit better condition than when they got it. With this new report, more people can achieve understanding about the tremendous water improvement opportunities that forestry provides, consistent with private property and community values. Public and private decision - makers have a new tool to help them see why the forests under their own jurisdiction are important for water, and how individual actions on a small scale help achieve positive results on a large scale. We learn from the report that small increments of additional water per unit of forest can become significant. The opportunity to reverse the trend of reduced water yields from dense forest growth exists on a very, very large landscape scale. Small incre- ments of additional water over whole areas of forest result in almost unbe- lievably large volumes of additional water over time. It took almost 100 years for Colorado forests to grow into their present condition —one that yields reduced amounts of water with high risk for intense and damaging wildfires. Ex- pecting extensive changes to correct this unnatural condition immediately is unreasonable. Priority projects can be conducted incrementally over time. In a society that expects immediate gratification, restoration forestry for water must be explained in the context of long -term forest care. Water benefits are so im- portant that people need to understand that forest improvement started in one generation will continue into the next. The authors of the report are to be commended for their work. Except for one photo on the cover, the report is an information source and a tool for learning. With its help, people can see what they have in common, come together and say, "Yes, we under- stand. Let's get started!" That is my expectation. 15