John D. Wiener American Water Resources Association 2009 Spring Specialty Conference

1. 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 <John.Wiener@Colorado.Edu> 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”

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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?

5. 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!

6. 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 –

7. 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!

8. 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…”

9. 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?

10. 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?

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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,)

14. $700 to $1400 “retail” prices – up more now! not counting tap fees, etc… Even with ethanol… WATER WILL MOVE This is likely not correct - with inclining block rates, prices may be higher in most if not all cities.

15. 12 to 23% of what’s left – or more ? ! Doesn’t address quality of land lost BIG questions about this: water to acres varies, and the basis of the demand estimate is uncertain… And, no climate effects! SWSI slide

16. 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)

17. 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)

18. Conversion of Best Farm Land – Near Loveland, in Weld County, CO I-25 BoydLake One square mile Slide by Tom Dickinson, IBS and Geography, Source: National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP),USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field Office

19. What is now happening to the farm-dependent RURAL areas where the land is NOT CONVERTED to urban use? Population Growth is NOT evenly distributed

20. 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

21. 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 Guide-lines Committee Report: visit from the official working hard to bring big employers to the Front Range.

22. 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

23. 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%...”

25. 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>

26. Housing Density Change In Colorado 2000 - 2020 Housing Density Change 1960 - 2050 (C.U. Center for American West, Tom Dickinson) 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

27. 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?

28. 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

29. 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?

30. 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)

31. INPUTS TO MAKE UP FOR LOSS OF GOOD LAND AND LOSS OF LAND QUALITY? 12,044 2,738 We’re using an awful lot of this stuff (as water quality people know…)

32. 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

33. Whose urban interests might count? • Urban constituents are ratepayers BUTALSOtax-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…

34. 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

35. 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…)

36. 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?

37. The red fields here are the fallow AND also the not-irrigated in 2003 – that’s a large amount of land!

38. Given a goal… (other materials posted on how to think usefully about defining the goal for a place) • Landowner organization – TDR, cross-easements, 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!

39. 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