Transcript Taking Water From the Farm: A Framework for Considering Water Transfers From Irrigation Presentation Seeking Comment John Wiener Loosely Affiliated with University of Colorado and.

Taking Water From the Farm: A
Framework for Considering Water
Transfers From Irrigation
Presentation Seeking Comment
John Wiener
<[email protected]>
Loosely Affiliated with University of Colorado and NCAR
(please contact if hand-outs are gone)
to Universities Council on Water Resources
July 2008, Durham, North Carolina
Acknowledgement: NOAA SARP funding
Minor editing for posting; references in “speaker notes”
Notes: Water Transfer Guidelines Committee Report was not final
when this presentation was made. Some photos are deleted because
of overlap with AWRA 2008 presentation posted.
IF this is an answer, what was
the question?
• Assessment of impacts from moving water
is not required in Colorado (not unusual!)
unless there is a significant federal nexus…
• Cumulative impact assessment is almost
entirely absent (of any kind of impact)
• Mitigation of impacts is not generally
required (without federal policy, e.g.
wetlands)
• Want cheap, voluntary, PR-favorable steps
2003 – NOT
CONSIDERING
CLIMATE
DESTABILIZATION –
WHAT
GROWTH
WILL DO…
(OPTIMISTIC!)
“…water supplies are or will be inadequate to
meet water demands, even under normal water
supply conditions.” – U.S. Dept. of Interior
Water 2025
IRRIGATION
DENSITY –
THERE IS A
LOT OF IT!
this is just to
show extent
STILL MORE
THAN 80%
OF THE
CONSUMPTIVE
USE OF WATER
IN THE WEST
1997 Data –
Map from Gollehon
and Quinby, 2000
Water Resources
Development 16(2)
Housing Density Change
1960 - 2050
(Tom Dickinson, C.U. Center for American West,
and IBS Social Sciences Data Analysis Center)
Colorado Front Range
(Center of the American West, on
the internet with two other cases)
Ag water is still cheap! Very few above-ground storage sites left…
even if you have water to store
This is for the sale of water rights, not one use or a lease
From Denver Water Integrated Resource Plan, and in Luecke et al., 2003, What the Current Drought
Means for Colorado… (on-line from Trout Unlimited, Colorado)
$700 to
Pueblo Chieftain Survey November 2005 - Retail Water Rates
$1400
“retail”
prices
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.
2030 M&I Water Demands and Gaps (Colorado Statewide Water
Supply Initiative slide -- except for comments)
Yampa/White/Green
North
Platte
South Platte
10,300 AF
Colorado
Gap
107,800 AF
107,600 AF
Gunnison
Dolores/
San Juan/
San Miguel
Identified
Projects
404,300 AF
Rio Grande Beware! Self- reported “identified projects”! –
--- If the big ones fail, the “gap” soars… THIS
“GAP” estimate may be way too cheerful! –
Arkansas
Climate destabilization
ignored here too…
12 to 23% of what’s
left – or more ? !
SWSI slide
BIG questions about this: water to acres varies, and the basis
of the demand estimate is uncertain… And, no climate effects!
The water
“distributary”
infrastructure
created much
of the current
riparian
environment!
(Water Resources Impact,
May 2008)
and source of
great real
estate value
in urban areas!
See work of
Robert Crifasi
– the amazing
ONE percent…
IF IT’S A
LAKE,
IT’S A
FAKE
Conversion of Best Farm
Land – Near Loveland, in
Weld County, CO
I25
Boyd
Lake
One square mile
NOT A SHORTGRASS STEPPE NOW!
Slide by Tom Dickinson, IBS and Geography, Source: National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP),USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field Office
March 2006
http://www.environmentcolor
ado.org/envco.asp?id2=232
75
An ironic diversion...
Name source and date for prize yet to be determined. Contest in
honor of Ed Sarachick.
not-fun facts (Pimentel 2006, etc)
• 90% of US cropland is losing soil faster than it can be
restored; 75% of range needs help
• ~ 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)
Not-fun facts…
• On average, 1.5 kg of soil is lost in the
production of 1 kg of corn in the U.S.
cornbelt
• Looks good compared to the Palouse:
average there 20 kg lost per 1 kg wheat
• Gardiner and Miller (Soils in Our Environment, 10th Ed.,
2004: 409)
• Their average erosion figures for US:
– 1982: 7.3 tons/acre
– 1992: 5.5 tons/acre
1987: 6.9 tons/acre
1997: 5.0 tons/acre (2004: 407)
SPREAD OF NO-TILL HAS DOUBTLESS HELPED, BUT HERBICIDE USE WAY UP
A note from October 2008– What now with input prices so high?
Money Talks…Crop Switching for ethanol
(before the food price spikes in late ’07 and ‘08)
LAND
PRICES
ARE
WAY UP
AND SO
ARE
PRICES
FOR
FERTILIZERS
AND
FUEL
ETC
ETC…
THE AG PICTURE CAN CHANGE VERY QUICKLY!
Where the land is
NOT
CONVERTED to
urban use?
What is now
happening to
the farmdependent
areas?
Howe et. 2003:
RED CIRCLE: 26%
of primary income
from agriculture
SOME ethanol
relief, but Long-term
questions – feed
prices… messy…
Population Growth is NOT evenly distributed
Percent of total population in poverty, 2005
WEALTH and CAPACITY are not evenly distributed, either…
but, CHILD poverty rates exceed 50% in only one county.
d
*
What now with
the ethanol
boomlet? Hmmm…
Who had the $$ to
rapidly respond?
Source: USDA ERS (downloaded 17 May 08)
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/PovertyRates/PovListpct.asp?ST=CO&view=Percent
Arkansas River Basin in Colorado
Map by Tom Dickinson, SSDAC, IBS, University of Colorado
The Green is HYBRID
ECOLOGY –
THE SUBSTITUTE
Data source: Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper, 2005.
Map by Thomas W. Dickinson, Institute of Behavioral Science,
University of Colorado at Boulder
See Water Resources
Impact, May 2008
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
What was the question?
Framework…
• Very little information on many kinds of
impacts
• Very few required assessments, and then,
accounting stance may be problematic,
spatially, temporally, and…
• The land use-water use connections are
missing
• And, much of (most of? almost all of?) the
public interest is unstudied…
The Range of Impacts is Too Big!
• Biological/Ecological – lots of categories
• Economic evaluation questions – e.g.
ecosystem services, irreversibility/ proper
accounting stance/errors
• Social/Human/Cultural Dimensions
• Agronomy/Agricultural capacity/soil
conservation/ industry structure/market
turmoil vs. evaluation of impacts
• Cumulative Impacts in all areas
• Equity – who is limited when limits appear?
Where we start… way behind…
• Prior Appropriation is Our Plan
– “Private competitive market; disclosure
optional ”
• Policy Discussions and public research: 2003 on…
– Statewide Water Supply Initiative
– Basin Roundtables and Interbasin Compact
Commission, 2006 on… looks nice, but…
• “Breaking impasse, Denver utility, W. Slope cut
deal…” (2007) (Talk while we make deals)
• “Water expansion builds worries for some…” $3
Billion on projects, racing… (keep talking, please…)
Forthcoming, but….
• Arkansas Basin Roundtable, Water Transfer
Guidelines Committee –
– A hardy band, very mixed membership – ditch
superintendent, former head of CO water quality control
commission, two big city water officials, an engineer, an
irrigator, the mayor of a small town in big trouble…and a
bunch more (13 total at end)… COLLABORATIVE
PROCESS – 20 months, mostly 2 days/month – >1400
hours, thousands of miles driven (big basin!)…
– Facilitator Smith, anthropologist Weber, Wiener
– 18 experts and officials who met with committee, usually
for half-day sessions
• Report release SEP 08…But:
• Not quite far enough, and too intimidating?
Water Transfers Guidelines Committee
• Preface material – explanation, issues
• Premises and Underlying Issues:
– present and future impacts
– cumulative as well as immediate impacts
– affected area is defined by the case
– basis for comparison, and “adequacy”
• “Adequate water for future municipal needs”
• the land use and planning needs revealed!
– environmental cumulative assessments
– public information and public participation
timing, disclosure, investment, water court…
WTGC Template (unofficial!)
• Size of transfer relative
to affected area
• Location of transfer
relative to affected area
• Period of time to
implement transfer
• Point of Diversion
• Time of Diversion
• Means of Conveyance
• Storage Issues
• Impact on environment
• Impact on recreation
Economic impact on
affected communities
• Non-economic social
impacts (psych., health
cultural, historical and
aesthetic)
• Local government
interests
• Length of lease
• Frequency of transfer
• Group transfer issues
• MISSING: Opportunities
Worries…
• Too Ugly? “You want me to do this????”
– But, this is serious! Please??? Look Green!
• Too complicated?
– Maybe… depends on who is looking
• Too expensive to assess?
– Big public interests… public externalities… high
costs of adverse impacts…
• Too expensive to mitigate impacts?
– Don’t know! Open questions…
• And, missing one: CHANCE FOR BETTER
which is in the hand-outs
What’s the state of the art?
What does the library have to offer?
• Look to literature about water projects and
project evaluation
• Some of the best economics is about how
to do this…
• Is there guidance we can afford to take?
• Looked (1996 article) at flood policy
projects… look again!
• Second Law: No Program Cannot be
Subverted.
Skeleton review – progress?
• 1962: Policies, Standards and
Procedures… Senate Doc. 97. Beyond
BCA? Inform alternatives… long efforts
• 1973: Water Resources Council: Principles
and Standards for Planning Water and
Related Land Resources – Rigorous
accounting, comparability emphasis ???
• 1983: Principles and Guidelines – Rigorous
accounting, theoretically improved, but not
clear whether outcomes were improved
Skeleton review – progress?
• 1989 and after… “Green Accounting” –
Repetto and after – Honored idea, but…
• 1994 National Research Council: Yes,
but… And Soils treated! But…
• 1999 National Research Council: Still,
yes, but… not yet… high priority… but…
This will be an easy “sell” for people who are thinking about getting more information
about soil moisture measurements… not!!!
TABLE 8-1 Soil Attributes and standard methodologies for their measurement to be
included as part of a minimum data set (MDS) for monitoring soil quality
(adapted from Larson and Pierce, 1991). Pierce, F.J., 1994, Soil Quality in Relation
to Value and Sustainable Management, Chapter 8 in National Research Council,
Assigning Values to Natural Resources.
SOIL ATTRIBUTE
METHODOLOGY FOR MEASURING
Nutrient availability for region
Analytical soil test
Total organic carbon (OC-T)
Dry or wet combustion
Labile organic carbon (OC-L)
Digestion with KCl
Texture
Pipette or hydrometer method
Plant-available water capacity (PAWC)
Best determined in field or from water desorption curve
Structure
Bulk density from intact soil cores field measure permeability or
Ksat
Strength
Bulk density or penetration resistance
Maximum rooting depth
Crop specific—depth of common roots or standard
pH
Glass electrode-calomel electrode pH meter
Electrical conductivity
Conductivity meter
TABLE 8-2 A Limited Listing of Proposed Pedotransfer Functions (adapted from Larson and Pierce, 1991).
Estimate
Relationship
PTF No.
Chemical
1
Phosphate-sorption capacity
PSC + 0.4 (Alox + FEox)
2
Cation-exchange capacity
CEC = A OC + b C
3
Change in organic matter
ΔC = + b OR
Physical
4
Bulk density
Db = b0 + b1 OC + b2 Si + b3 M
5
Bulk density
Random packing model using particle size
distribution
6
Bulk density
Db = f(OC, clay)
7
Water retention
q10 = b0 + b1 C + b2 Sy
8
Water retention
q = b1 (%Sa) + b2 (%Si) + b3 (%Cl) + b4
(%OC)
9
Random roughness from moldboard
plowing
RR = f (soil morphology)
10
Porosity increase
P = f (MR, IP, clay, Si, OC)
Hydraulic
11
Hydraulic conductivity
Ks = f (texture)
12
Seal conductivity
SC = f (texture)
13
Saturated hydraulic conductivity
Ds = f (soil morphology)
Productivity
14
Soil productivity
PI = f (Db, AWHC, pH, Ec, ARE)
15
Rooting depth
RD = f (Db, WHC, pH)
Any day now?
Conceptual progress,
theoretical clarity
and some
examples
of this are
available…
Cost?
We’re starting from almost scratch, in a state that has
resisted foresight and the public interest… Is there any
chance of much of this high-tech analysis?
WAY too expensive! We’re begging here…
Foolrushery – start again…
What’s involved in an answer?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Internalize costs, “real costs”
Recognize all interests (“AMAP”…)
Anticipate cumulative limits, thresholds
Recognize Accelerating Climate Destabilization
Recognize land use vs water quantity, quality
Address impacts in transferor areas; transferee
areas represented already
• AND, avoid the “Ideal is Mission Impossible” trap
• AND, get enough public and participant “buy-in”
to get some results!
Two Constants and the Low-Tech
Social Welfare Function
• Near-term Constant 1: Urban ability and will to pay -- for
water AND ALSO for amenity, environment, open space,
ag. preservation…. $24 billion locally voted in 5 years (US);
$3.8B in Colorado so far, passing 110 of 148 measures
(TPL)
• Constant 2: Soil formation is very slow; climate is faster!
• Suppose you owned all the pieces? What could you do to
maximize the outcomes?
• How to get to partnerships that can produce some of the
potential better outcomes?
Modifying* Bebbington’s Five
Capitals – as categories
•
•
•
•
Natural capital (resource base, quality)
Built capital (infrastructure, investments)
Financial capital (internal and external)
Human capital (individual capacities, local
knowledge, craft knowledge)
• Social capital (organizational and
collective capacities) – let’s be brave and
add legal/institutional issues – including
those that affect public capacity to act
* probably well out of his intentions…
Three Times to Consider
• Near term – conventional economic analysis
– some idea about prices, relative values
• Mid term – 20-50 -? years? – the life span of
bonded indebtedness, much of the water
infrastructure, the sunk capital
• Far term – the time scales for “sustainability”
– some physical processes
– beyond the discount rate… preferences
– predictability limited to some constants
– predictability for human activity very small
What a mess! Work back?
• Some relief if we work backwards from Far
• Far term: No regrets defense of the core!
• For social capital?
– knowledge (including local ecological/traditional)
– technologies of production and clean-up
– social continuity to maintain cumulation and to
prevent loss
• For human capital? not applicable –
– Keynes’ long run
What a mess! Work back?
• Some relief if we work backwards?
• Far term: No regrets defense of the core!
• For Built capital? Not much will last to the
far term – BUT, chemical pollution will…
• Financial capital? Waay out
speculations… (that whole sustainability
literature!) – Positive discount rate: no help
with far term.
What a mess! Work back?
• Some relief if we work backwards?
• Far term: No regrets defense of the core!
• For Natural capital? Four goals:
– Traditional conservation of biodiversity
– Connectivity conservation for restoration
– Adaptation capacity conservation
– And, soil capacity conservation: Good topsoil is
the closest thing to a free lunch (but we have to
redefine the opportunity cost!)
• NEED PROTECT THESE NOW, BONUS:
less cumulative impact mess? (ESA, TMDL)
5 Capitals: Near term
• Human: services,
TEK/LEK/Craft
• Social: rural viability
service thresholds,
QOL, tax base and
govt. capacity, lack of
alternative economy
• Built: Water distrib,
town infrastr., housing
• Financial: draining
• Natural: severe soil,
habitat issues, RRD
• Keep farmers working,
grow new ones
• Keep towns functioning
conservation upgrade,
AMENITY and QOL
values NEW idea
• Financial: Revolving
Fund (CW, DW) model
• TECHNICAL ASSIST
and urban relocates
• Natural: avoid revegetation nightmare/cost!
5 Capitals – Mid Term
• Human: New farming
and new markets
• Social: Limit consolidation, go to QOL base
• Built: Transportation
(RR due back now!)
and local people transit
• Financial: Urban pool
and economies of
scale partnerships
• Natural: Soil focus, new
$ from conserved area
• $ from Water into recapitalize with LT Plans
“Right-sizing”, flexibility
• Transport and tax base
stability to keep service
level goals (medical…)
• Govt role unavoidable
and long overdue
• Partnership Purchasing
Districts, Insurance, etc
• Buy those beneficial
externalities!
Ownership and Resource
Management Organization
• Fragmentation is for football/volleyball etc,
not for unequal access to planning and
management capacity, etc etc etc...
• Forget defending the status quo – tried it
• Municipal “permanence” in water supply
matches to rural long-term management of
long-term core resources – after that, the
rest is managing agency problems…
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…
We’re riding a tiger… in the dark
Pueblo Chieftain Photo,
Chris Mclean, 02 May 08
Phew! Thank you!
• More information and opinion available
from <[email protected]>
• Hand-outs on water transfer forms for
Colorado; general applicability
• All comment/criticism welcome
• Near term goal: get some of this into the
policy discussions, but can’t rush it with
Committee coming out soon… so time to
work quietly on this