Transcript Saving All the Pieces, Staying Grounded (Climate, Water, Soil, Cities) -- a policy argument, with news… John D.

Saving All the Pieces, Staying Grounded
(Climate, Water, Soil, Cities)
-- a policy argument, with news…
John D. Wiener
American Water Resources Association
2009 Spring Specialty Conference
Anchorage, Alaska, 04-06 May
<[email protected]>
hand-outs, other materials posted (occasionally updated) at
<www.colorado.edu/ibs/eb/wiener/>
this presentation is tailored for the AWRA specialty meeting
references may be located in “speaker’s notes”
Conclusions (1)
• Better water transfers are possible
– Using 3 forms IN COMBINATION (handout)
– PARTICIPATION of all interests is needed
– COST COMPARISONS needed, short-term
– GOALS and VALUES needed, long-term
– PARTNERSHIPS – not just talk
• Better water transfers ARE NOT ENOUGH
– Threats to marginal conventional agriculture
– Water too valuable for some farming (under
current market conditions)
– Sustainability needs land and water
Conclusions (2)
• Cumulative costs of transfers matter
– Loss of agricultural capacity is LONG-TERM
– Loss of agricultural capacity is NOT VALUED
• literally, in economic evaluation
• metaphorically, in policy
– Biological issues – almost unknown now,
future impacts even less known
– Opportunity Costs – the loss of chance to
make better use of land and water –
– irreversibility of semi-arid land use change?
• The next frontier – Seeing a better future
Conclusions (3)
• Need useful participation of the full range of
interests affected by water transfers –
compensation and security of interests.
• Politics is the likely alternative to a market – good
idea? Who gets to decide what? Outcome so far?
• CLIMATE CHANGE – THE BIG STRAW?
• “Keep things as they are” is not on the menu
• SO, WHOSE RULES WILL CONTROL? Property
rights in a “no-plan” state…but whose property in
what?
• No such as “NO PLANNING” – someone plans!
• But, for whom and for what?
What’s a “Better” transfer? (1)
From whose point of view?
• Better than “buy-and-dry”… traditional
transfer: no future irrigation on that land
– drop in production and CAPACITY
– drop in tax base and rural economy
– drop in labor and farm families
– drop in inputs used and drop in stewardship
• LESS RANDOM than traditional? Water
right values not strongly linked to soil
qualities, environmental values, spatial
coherence with other values – important
unknowns!
What’s a “Better” transfer? (2)
From whose point of view?
• Better for Counties than “ranchettes” that
are financial vampires and biological
problems as the only way to recapitalize
• Better for Farmers who want farming to be
attractive for their families
• Better for Cities that have citizens with a lot
of interests beyond their water bill alone
• Better for Future capacity to produce food
and fiber near urban areas, sustainably –
Not just water transfers!
• “If it was just losing the water, why did we
lose so many farms in the wet years?”
– Often asked; not answered often
• My argument: farmers and ranchers need to
use all their assets, with water as key
• Cities are critical partners
– Where states don’t act or are self-crippled
– Citizen potential to get full representation of wider
interests than managers avoid hassles
– Cities have capacity to act responsibly!
Latest News from Colorado (1)
• Surge of water projects show little coordination
-26 APR 2009, Denver Post:
• “A $3 billion scrum of water projects… cumulative impacts,
and whether there is water enough for all, remains to be
sorted out.”
• “The concentration of projects worries federal officials who
are left to sort out the multiple impacts.”
• “ ‘It would be nice if we could coordinate, but each of us has
our own projects and responsibility for serving our own
communities’, said Greg Baker, and Aurora Water
spokesman.” [agency problem: who represents what?]
• Public interest? Planning for everyone? No, thanks…
• “ ‘We don’t have a water plan; prior appropriation is our plan
and it’s every man for himself’, said Melinda Kassen…”
Latest News from Colorado (2)
• April 26 2009 story, continued:
• “Since 2005, through the Interbasin Compact Committee
and nine basin roundtables, the state has tried to do more
water planning and forge voluntary agreements.”
• “ ‘It is an experiment,’ said Harris Sherman, director of the
state Department of Natural Resources.”
• “ ‘As we get closer to appropriating the water that’s left in
Colorado, we really ought to be able to set priorities,’ Trout
Unlimited’s Kassen said.
• “ ‘The state has been reluctant to support one project over
another,’ said…Sherman. ‘As we enter water scarcity, that
may change.’”
When will that be? Who decides?
Latest News from Colorado (3)
• “Colorado water war ends in deal” – Denver Post, 01 May
• “A peace treaty in a decade-long water war between Grand
County and the Front Range has been struck.”
• “For almost a year, the water utilities negotiated with Grand
County and environmental groups, said Denver Water
manager Dave Little.”
• “The agreement may become a model for other water
negotiations, said Reagan Waskom, director of the Colorado
Water Institute…”
• “ ‘This is the kind of cooperation we’ve been looking for in
Colorado,’ he said.”
• So, why did we spend all that money on the public process?
So, who is acting? For what?
• City water managers are acting… but…
• Some local governments in the alpine
recreation-economy are acting
• Some environmental interests are acting
• BUT what’s missing?
– City interests other than water rates? FUTURE?
– Regional interests and efficiencies?
– Other public and environmental interests?
– Hard to tell without planning and transparency
Housing Density Change
1960 - 2050
(Tom Dickinson, C.U. Center for American West,
and IBS Social Sciences Data Analysis Center)
URBAN DEMAND
FOR WATER KEEPS
GROWING
Ag water is still relatively cheap – old numbers but proportionally may be OK
This is for the sale of water rights, not one use or a lease –
NOTE: prices paid have gone up, sometimes greatly, but
prices for new construction have risen very radically, too
From Denver Water Integrated Resource Plan, and in Luecke et al., 2003, What the Current Drought Means for Colorado… (on-line from Trout Unlimited,)
$700 to
Pueblo Chieftain Survey November 2005 - Retail Water Rates
$1400
“retail”
prices – up
more now!
not counting
tap fees,
etc…
Even with
ethanol…
WATER
WILL
MOVE
Front
Range
City
Golden
Highlands Ranch
Aurora
Thornton
Broomfield
Westminster
Northglenn
Arvada
Colorado Springs
Pueblo
Boulder
Lafayette
Pueblo West
Englewood
Denver
Louisville
Pueblo
150,000 g
$645
$632
$590
$511
$498
$490
$475
$472
$471
$452
$432
$409
$374
$354
$352
$345
$327
Without block
increase, charge for
325,000 g -- one
acre-foot
$1,397
$1,369
$1,278
This is likely $1,107
$1,079
not correct
$1,062
- with
$1,029
$1,023
inclining
$1,020
block rates,
$1,020
prices may be $936
higher in
$886
most if not all $810
$767
cities.
$763
$747
$708
Based on annual use of 150,000 gallons and 1-inch meter
rates. Figures are rounded.
12 to 23% of what’s
left – or more ? !
Doesn’t address quality of land lost
SWSI slide
BIG questions about this: water to acres varies, and the basis
of the demand estimate is uncertain… And, no climate effects!
Prime Farmland in Colorado
Only 2.5% of Colorado’s land WAS prime (all of it
irrigated)... …but the precise location of this land is unknown.
There is
evidence
that people
prefer good
land and
biologically
valuable land
to dull and
dry spots, for
development
(except some
view-points)
Colorado Dept of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA),
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)
Magnitude of Ag Land Conversion
(1987-97) – 12 years ago!
2.5% of Colorado’s land was converted from ag to other
uses over a 10-year period (1.4 million acres)
But, rate of
conversion
is widely
believed
to have been
much
faster
from 1997
to the 2008
slump slowed
it some
Colorado Dept of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service(USDA),
Natural Resources Conservation Service(USDA)
Conversion of Best Farm
Land – Near Loveland, in
Weld County, CO
I25
Boyd
Lake
One square mile
Slide by Tom Dickinson, IBS and Geography, Source: National Agriculture
Imagery Program (NAIP),USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field Office
What is now
happening to
the farmdependent
RURAL areas
where the land
is NOT
CONVERTED
to urban use?
Population Growth is NOT evenly distributed
Percent of total population in poverty, 2005
WEALTH and CAPACITY are not evenly distributed, either…
d
Source: USDA ERS (downloaded 17 May 08)
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/PovertyRates/PovListpct.asp?ST=CO&view=Percent
State Programs?
• Budget? What budget? Cuts every year
starting long before the 2008 “crash”
• Resource Planning? Prior Appropriation.
• Land Use Planning? Only in a few cities?
• Economic Development? See Arkansas
Basin Roundtable Water Transfers Guidelines Committee Report: visit from the
official working hard to bring big employers
to the Front Range.
Changes in
extreme events
are very serious
for agriculture
and future
national
well-being
Plenty of
climate
impacts
and
information
already
here
at this
conference
so just one
impact to
mention
right now
Intensity of Precipitation, Erosion
• Soil and Water Conservation Society, 2003:
Increased precipitation intensity could undo all the
progress in reducing soil erosion since creation of
SCS!
• CCSP SAP 3.3 (2008,p. 4) : “Extreme precipitation
episodes (heavy downpours) have become more
frequent… and now account for a larger percentage
of total… intense precipitation… (the heaviest 1%...)
in the continental U.S. increased by 20% over the
past century while total precipitation increased by
7%...”
Climate Change Vs Western Irrigation
• USGCRP Sectoral Assessments (Water, Ag.):
– Small changes with big water consequences in West, but nationally,
moderate effects, no “crisis” (Gleick 2000, Reilly 2001) (1950s Problem?)
• USGCRP: Central Great Plains (Ojima et al 2002)
– With less water, irrigation hurt, with more water, irrigation loses to dryland
• USGCRP: Great Basin/Rocky Mtns. (Wagner et al. 2003)
– Ag declines in all scenarios
• Recent Integrated Assessments (2004, 2005):
– Current management in trouble
– Ag. Loses water, all scenarios, even “best case” (references, interpretive
memo available) -- changes in comparative advantage of irrigation versus
dryland
• IPCC Fourth Assessment, 2007 – <www.ipcc.ch>
• US Climate Change Science Program, see CCSP website”
<www.climatescience.gov>
• Climate Change in Colorado <www.cwcb.state.co.us> and Citizens’
Guide < http://www.cfwe.org/CitGuides/CitGuides.asp>
Housing Density Change
In Colorado
Housing Density Change
1960 - 2050
(C.U. Center for American West, Tom Dickinson)
2000 - 2020
2020
PEOPLE MOVING
INTO THE RIPARIAN
CORRIDORS
2000
David M. Theobald. “Targeting Conservation Action
through Assessment of Protection and Exurban Threat.”
Conservation Biology, 17(6):1624-1637. Dec. 2003
Environmental Limits? (scarcity!)
• Endangered Species Act – What’s next?
– lack of information on private land
• Minimalist Minimum Stream Flow Vs Climate
Change? (Trout Unlimited studies: Dry Legacy 1 and 2)
• Wetlands-related limits? Invasives?
• Changes to land and water already extensive
• Re-Redistribution of water?
– (Water Resources Impact May 2008)
• Almost no cumulative impact study: stay
blind until you get sued into response?
The green area includes land
unintentionally wetted by
irrigation return flows and
conveyance loss -- it may
now be important habitat –
the “natural” is long gone.
Data source: Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper, 2005.
Map by Thomas W. Dickinson, Institute of Behavioral Science,
University of Colorado at Boulder
What if we hit cumulative limits?
• Water quality issues –
– TMDLs? (total maximum daily loads)
– Only very recently can Colorado Water Courts
even consider water quality… Will there be a
limit? How will transfers interact with NPDES?
• Effects of erosion and changes in runoff
from termination of irrigation? PLUS climate!
• HOW WILL A LIMIT WORK? WHO BEARS
THE COSTS? Business as usual means:
• RACE TO BEAT THE LIMIT? Door slam?
On whose future choices? Whose growth?
Meanwhile, HIGH SOIL EROSION – Is
this sustainable? No.
• 90% of US cropland is losing soil faster than it can be
restored; 75% of range needs help… Loss 17 times
faster than soil formation, average
• ~ 1/3 of US topsoil was lost 30 years ago (Pimentel 1980)
• HALF of Iowa’s topsoil is gone – and still losing average
30 t/ha/yr (soil formation rate 0.5 to 1 t/ha/yr)
• 40% of Palouse topsoils were gone, 1995
• Costs to US, 2001: ~$37.6B/yr (but not with good
ecosystems valuation or replacement of services
costing)
• $20B/yr for fertilizer replacement for lost nutrients
(eroded soils take NPK away, as well as biological active
fractions and potential)
• And then there’s the incredible costs of pesticides, with
1000-fold increase in organophosphates (Pimentel 2005)
INPUTS TO MAKE UP FOR LOSS OF GOOD LAND AND LOSS OF LAND QUALITY?
U.S. Nitrogen Use
1,000 nutrient tons
12,044
Series1
2,738
1960-2006
We’re using an awful lot of this stuff (as water quality people know…)
Whose Urban Interests Count Now?
• Simplicity, Reliability, “Invisibility”: Water
System Management Values
– Traditional is understood and predictable
– New kinds of deals would require much more
intensive collaboration – NOT SECRET!
• Management Preference for Permanence
(please see handout – principles page)
– “We sell a tap forever”
– Life of facilities and financing not a factor
– Partnerships and long-term planning? Too new!
– No incentive to match benefits and costs
Whose urban interests might count?
• Urban constituents are ratepayers BUT ALSO
tax-payers paying bonded debt
• Supporters of open space, agricultural
preservation, and rural areas
• Consumers and Purchasers of food, amenity
• Voters for conservation etc – See Trust for Public
Land “Conservation Vote”
– Even in No Plan, No Foresight Colorado: 110
elections, $3.8 Billion
• Recreators and Users of rural places
• Members of a lot of groups… mixed bag!
• Any one ask them? Haven’t heard of it yet…
Why Would a City Change?
• Because of Grassroots pressure from citizens
with many interests
• Because of full accounting for
– revegetation of dried-up, in destabilized climate
– and financing costs of “up-front” with bonding vs
“pay-as-you-go” when you use the water
• Recognition of externalities, long-term…
• Because a city recognizes long-term interests
in partnership with rural areas
Two Constants and What Could
Be Done?
• A way to think about this mess…
• Constant 1: Urban ability and will to pay -- for water AND
ALSO for amenity, environment, open space, ag.
preservation and new desirable development….
• Constant 2: Soil formation is very slow; climate is faster!
• Suppose you owned all the pieces? What could you do to
maximize the outcomes?
– Problem: you don’t own it all. So, how to organize so as to get the
biggest and best possible pie, for owners and others affected?
• We use markets, mostly… Can they work better? (econ 101
is not being applied, let alone 201 or 301…)
Making Markets Work for YOU
• What you keep is not the result of the
maximum yield – it is the result of the
maximum difference between costs and
revenues. What is the real farming goal?
• Scarcity increases value: good farm land is
getting more scarce, quickly – especially land
that can grow without expensive imported
high-energy inputs that run-off into other
expensive consequences
• How do we hang on to the best land through
the mess now, and transition to sustainability?
The red fields here are
the fallow AND also
the not-irrigated in
2003 – that’s a large
amount of land!
Given a goal… (other materials posted on how to
think usefully about defining the goal for a place)
• Landowner organization – TDR, crosseasements, create security of value
• Use all the assets, create value!
• Development that supports remaining ag;
• Value created from security of high level of
amenities (recreational and environmental)
• Local Government benefits from smart land
use and improved tax base
• Citizens get more of what they want!
Or, you could blow it off…
A drainage ditch near Ordway,
CO,
after the wind erosion
after the fire
after the wet spring and winter
after an average year
after the multi-year drought
after years of water erosion
on the formerly irrigated lands
after farming from 1860s -70s
until the 1960s…
When the water was sold
and there was no idea of
revegetation…
Pueblo Chieftain Photo,
Chris Mclean, 02 May 08