Download National Security is Dirt (and water, and climate responsiveness)

National Security is Dirt
(and water, and climate
responsiveness): Rethinking the
Loss of Western Irrigation Water
John Wiener
Research Program on Environment and Society
Institute of Behavioral Science
University of Colorado, Boulder
[email protected]
Relevant materials are posted at:
www.colorado.edu/ibs/eb/wiener/
Citations and notes are in “speaker’s notes”
Presentation to ISAC/ISSS Annual Conference
October 24, 2008, Vail, CO
WGOS for knowing the source! Please NOTE: this presentation will not describe
the range of adverse impacts from transfer of irrigation water from agriculture, nor the
costs involved in alternatives. Please see other posted presentations for that.
I will try to keep you awake, at the end of a long and intense day!
Losses of Capacity
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Loss of topsoil
Loss of fertility of soil
Loss of affordable fertilizers/biocides
Loss of farmland (conversion to other use)
Loss of irrigation water
Loss of local agricultural knowledge
Loss of farming families
Loss of rural economic viability
– THIS IS REALLY THE CONCLUSION!
THESE CHANGES ARE ALL POSITIVE! How can there be a problem?
High growth where agriculture is not overwhelmed by urbanization and rural growth
(Wyoming is badly hit by competition in beef, sheep, and even loss of irrigation)
Again, “inputs” here is a combination of all factors of production –
NOTE FL and GA are among Eastern states with big irrigation increases
and increasing “induced drought” on top of hyhdrological drought
Careful! “Inputs” here is a combination of all factors of production!
How can there be a problem? Looks great!
But wait! There’s more! Seeds up 27% between 2007 to 2008; Fuel and oils
up 62% July 2007-July 2008… diesel up 272% since 2002… Oligopoly in input sales
is as bad for farmers as it is in food processing and grocery retailing for consumers.
Input prices are up 53% since 2002.
US Nitrogen Prices
Index 1982=100
250
200
150
Series1
100
50
0
1960 - 2006
Enough teasing…. Here’s my point!
Note for the posted version: This point is in fact an illustration
to make a point about inputs and vulnerability – the whole
story on nitrogen is quite complex!
Anhydrous Ammonia Farm Price Paid
600. 0
Dollars Per Ton
500. 0
400. 0
300. 0
Ser i es1
200. 0
100. 0
0. 0
1960-2006
This is starting to head up again…
Note: data for 1960-1976 were2 points/year ; 1976-2006, 4 points/year
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…)
Collins, USDA Chief Economist, “Prospects for the Farm Economy”, 01 Mar 07
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!
Today the U.S. imports over half of the
nitrogen and 80 percent of the potash
fertilizer used on its farms.
The U.S. went from being the world’s largest
exporter of nitrogen fertilizer in the 1980s to
becoming the largest importer in the 1990s.
Domestic production of nitrogen fertilizer declined
during the 1990s as the price of domestic natural
gas (the primary source of nitrogen) increased
because of demand for natural gas in the U.S.
expanding faster than production.
USDA 2004
A map created in 2008 shows 415 eutrophic (overly nutrient-rich) and hypoxic coastal systems worldwide—169 documented hypoxic areas (red),
233 areas of concern (yellow), and 13 systems in recovery (green). A new study has found that the tropical ocean's dead zones are growing in size
and intensity as sea temperatures rise, posing risks to many marine organisms and fisheries.
Image courtesy World Resources Institute – Downloaded from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/14793409.html
http://farmweek.ilfb.org/viewdocument.asp?did=11
751&drvid=105&r=4.863918E-03
Note: New National Research Council Report, December 2008 – see speaker’s notes
Pimentel, 2006: Environment, Development and Sustainability 8: 119-137
• “The loss of soil from land surfaces by erosion is
widespread globally and adversely affects the
productivity of all natural ecosystems as well as
agricultural, forest, and rangeland ecosystems…
Concurrent with the escalating human
population, soil erosion, water availability,
energy and loss of biodiversity rank as the prime
environmental problems throughout the world.”
• Cassman 1999: 3 crop species provide about 2/3 of human dietary
energy now.
USDA ARS Program Report 2000:
(Why Study Soil Erosion)
Erosion. Soil erosion is still a major threat
to sustained productivity of agricultural
soils.
About 1.5 to 2.0 billion tons of soil in the
United States are lost annually by soil
erosion.
Soil erosion occurs about 17 times faster
than soil formation, and about
90 percent of all U.S. cropland is losing soil
above the sustainable rate.
Not-fun facts
• 2003 Soil and Water Conservation Society
report on potential erosion effects of increased
intensity of precipitation – warned that we could
undo all the progress since erosion control
began as government policy…[Already seen!]
• Policy impact? Any impact?
• USDA claims: 30.6 Billion tons/year in 1982,
down to 1.75 Billion tons/year in 2003 (Conservation
and Environment 2007 Farm Bill Theme Paper, Jun 2006)
• Not exactly good news… Lose that progress?
Still more 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)
• [little info on long-term herbicide effects on soil]
Last 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)
Plenty of complexity and controversy, but you get the idea….
TABLE 10.7
Energy Inputs in U.S. Corn Production
Quantity/ha kcal/ha
Inputs
Labor
11.4 h
Machinery
55 kg
Diesel
88 L
Gasoline
40 L
Nitrogen
153 kg
Phosphorus
65 kg
Potassium
77 kg
Limestone
1120 kg
Seeds
21 kg
Irrigation
8.1 cm
Insecticides
2.8 kg
Herbicides
6.2 kg
Electricity
13.2 kWh
Transportation
204 kg
Total
Outputs
Corn yield
4,650
1,018,000
1,003,000
405,000
2,448,000
270,000
251,000
315,000
520,000
320,000
280,000
620,000
34,000
169,000
8,115,000
8655 kg
31,158,000
kcal output/kcal input 3.84:1
Source: Pimentel, D. and Patzek, T., Natural Resources Research, 14(1), 65–76, 2005.
TABLE 10.9
Energy Inputs in U.S. Wheat Production in the United States
Quantity/ha kcal/ha
Inputs
Labor
7.8 h
Machinery
50 kg
Diesel
49.5 L
Gasoline
34.8 L
Nitrogen
68.4 kg
Phosphorus
33.7 kg
Potassium
2.1 kg
Seeds
60 kg
Insecticides
0.05 kg
Herbicides
4 kg
Fungicides
0.004 kg
Electricity
14.3 kWh
Transportation
197.9 kg
Total
Outputs
Wheat yield
316,000
800,000
565,000
352,000
1,272,000
140,000
7,000
218,000
5,000
400,000
400
41,000
123,000
4,239,000
2,670 kg
9,035,000
kcal output/kcal input 2.13:1
Source: Pimentel, D., http://www.organiccenter.org/science.pest.php?action=view& report_id=59, August 2006.
Prime Farmland in Colorado
Only 2.5% of Colorado’s land is 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)
2.5% of Colorado’s land has been converted from ag to
other uses over a 10-year period (1.4 million acres)
But, rate of
conversion
is widely
believed
to be much
faster now!
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
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
Colorado Front Range
(Center of the American West, on
the internet with two other cases)
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
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)
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!
Major Predictions – Climate
Change Effects on Western Water
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Temperatures up – winter, nights
Longer between freeze dates
Higher Evapotranspiration
Snow sublimation increases
Timing of snow melt earlier
Volume of available supply changes
Biological and vegetation changes –
– predation, pollination, migration
– succession, competition, invasive species
Climate Change Vs Western Irrigation
• USGCRP Sectoral Assessments (Water, Ag.):
– Small changes with big water consequences? (2000)
– Nationally, moderate effects on ag., no “crisis” (2001)
• 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 – various reports on website
• US Climate Change Science Program, 2008 –Recommended: CCSP
SAP 5.3 on climate information and water management; see list on
<www.climatescience.gov>
Fig. 1-2: The number of farms (left axis) in the Great Plains has been decreasing over the last 70 years, however, the area in farms (right axis) has
remained relatively steady during the same period. (Source: University of Texas Population Research Center 1998)
Important complication: number of “farms” changes with definition of “farm” – see
Annual Report on the Family Farm series from USDA Economic Research Service
What is now
happening to
the farmdependent
areas?
SOME ethanol
relief, but Long-term
questions – feed
prices… messy…
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
Newcomers and Exurban Development
• The “ranchette” phenomenon -- currently 4 times
the area occupied by all the cities and towns in
Colorado -- but forecast to double in 30-40 years
(Theobald et al.) … >35 acres unregulated…
– Not new data…
• Good neighbors? County and school services
cost average of $1.65 for each $1 tax revenue
–
Coupal and Seidl, 2003 – CSU Dept Ag and Res Econ
• Biologically, impacts may be disproportionate to
area occupied -- (no planning allowed!)
– Just hoping for easements to prevent problems?
• THEY ARE NOT FARMING! (except for tax rate)
USDA to the Rescue?
• USDA Agricultural Projections to 2017
– http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Baseline/pre
sent2008.htm
• Projections themselves can be
downloaded as Microsoft Word ™ file from
the briefing room website
• Issued end of February 2008…
USDA Agricultural
Projections to 2017
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Office of the
Chief Economist
World Agricultural
Outlook Board
Long-term
Projections
Report
OCE-2008-1
February 2008
Interagency Agricultural Projections Committee
World Agricultural Outlook Board, Chair
Economic Research Service
Farm Service Agency
Foreign Agricultural Service
Agricultural Marketing Service
Office of the Chief Economist
Office of Budget and Program Analysis
Risk Management Agency
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service
“climate” occurs twice, neither use related to climate change;
“climatic” occurs once, in “agroclimatic”;
“environmental” occurs twice in “environmental concerns”
and twice in “environmental regulations”;
“warming” does not occur.
Other USDA on Climate Change?
• Agricultural Water Security Listening Session, Final Report, 2006
(2004 meeting)
– http://www.csrees.usda.gov/water
• Global Climate Change Briefing Room
– http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/GlobalClimate/
• Schaible, G.D., Ed., 2004, Agricultural Risks in a Water-Short World:
Producer Adaptation and Policy Directions. A Workshop Summary.
USDA ERS, 2004. <www.farmfoundation.org/documents/Z4C1•
WaterWorkshopSummary-Final-V1c_11-8-04.pdf> – Puzzling…
Darwin, R., 2001, Issues in Food Security: Climate Change and Food
Security, USDA ERS Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 765-8
• Schimmelpfennig, D., J. Lewandrowski, J. Reilly, M. Tsigas, and M.
Parry, 1996, Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Issues of
Longrun Sustainability. USDA ERS, AER-740.
• WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? THESE FOLKS ARE
GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO!
• Latest: Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and
Assessment Product 4.3 <www.climatescience.gov>…controversial
Losses of Capacity
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Loss of topsoil
Loss of fertility of soil
Loss of affordable fertilizers/biocides
Loss of farmland (conversion to other use)
Loss of irrigation water
Loss of local agricultural knowledge
Loss of farming families
Loss of rural economic viability
– Does this feel secure?
Versus… the closest we will ever
get to a free lunch
• Good topsoil grows food with a minimum of amendments,
inputs, and manipulation; good seeds in good soil and good
climate, with a self-managing food chain: As good as things
can get
• Topsoil takes a very very long time to form:
– E.g., for really good stuff in a geologically and climatically good
place, very quick development: might be 1 inch per century, usually
rather less
• It can be wasted very very quickly…
– High intensity precipitation and bad management can be amazing;
high-tillage crops like continuous corn can be terrible… but
– damage concealed by substitution of inputs and economic supports
Greenspan Just Upstaged Me!
• He too, apparently, has decided that
maybe, just maybe, the market won’t fix
everything all by itself…
• (I was going to make a brilliant point about
the Nineteenth Century, now apparently
only known concerning the United States
for the Civil War…)
A few points on economics
• Efficiency is definable on a distribution of resources; it is an
adjective, not a noun.
• Econ 101: Edgeworth-Bowley Box…(econ trivia…) “It’s all
relative…”
• Econ 102: Clark, 1973: Economics of Extinction – Perfectly
rational to kill ‘em all, cut ‘em all playing by these rules…
• Econ 201: Positive discount rate: reduce the future from far
ahead to present value: it is trivial;
– Just doesn’t work for century or two out
– Not much good even decades ahead if all else is seriously
uncertain…Energy, Ag inputs, Markets
• Econ 301: Evaluation is definable within a general
equilibrium, but not transferable to a different equilibrium
with reallocated resources and price structures… Norgaard
& Howarth 1992: “BCA is NG for the LT”
We can’t just “do the math”!
What to DO?? Two Constants and the
Quickie Social Welfare Function
• 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 slow at best; climate is faster!
• What Would YOU do if you owned all the pieces? What
could you do to maximize the outcomes?
– Answer tells what you want to maximize (pie flavors)
– Answer tell how much you might get (pie size)
– 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?
Markets in Colorado Are Not Working Well
• Little information who owns what, or prices paid. Compare
houses or cars or almost anything else...
• Lack and/or cost of information probably favors the few
buyers over the many sellers and Asymmetry probably
favors brokers even more!
• Historic limitations on “beneficial” uses of water…
– Biggest change: In-stream Flow Rights – recent
innovation, unfinished project, many quite junior
• Exclusion of those affected by “third party impacts” or
externalities – no standing to object to a sale -- Public
interests not well identified or represented yet
• Un-represented seek “entry” by political or regulatory means
• Limits on kinds of contracts and arrangements –
– short-term moves very limited
– no long-term lease deals yet
– “interruptible supply” very limited in Colorado
Under-Invested Interests - Environmental
• Cumulative Impacts Under-Represented in Water Markets
– Minimum stream flows - Begun… but underfunded? Low reliability
water rights? Missing reaches? Wetlands? Habitat?
– Water Quality - how to integrate?… high stakes in NPDES permits
etc. Threats of TMDLS with unpredictable effects?
– Threatened or Endangered Species. Little foresight or information,
fear/anger at abrupt, uneven inequitable imposition of limits
• Not Represented, not often financially supported
– “Isolated” Wetlands, created wetlands with value to others -- who
might pay to support them
– Ecological sufficiency for resilience to stresses, restoration,
adaptation to change
– The long term and the maintenance of options for the future
• farm productivity, including farmer viability and capacity
• farm land management! These are “hybrid ecologies” -- like
forests now, no “walk away” looks good...
Under-Invested Interests – Recreational Tourism and Travel
• Financially large recreational interests very little involved in securing
needed water conditions
• Access limits on private land – unconsidered resources
– Traditional disinterest in diversification and &$#@! fools…
• Riparian recreation and amenity values underused and undersubscribed – should be worth money!
• Just beginning to consider pay for timing of flows
– Fisheries and fishing
– Rafting, kayaking, canoeing
• Increasing role of recreational economy
– Second residences
– “Agritourism” booming – see Nebraska!
• Conservation easements are not all of the answers
Under-Invested Interests – Local
Communities and Local Governments
• Local amenity and quality of life issues
– What do people want? Look at ads!
• Future amenity and attractiveness -- needed for attraction of
new activity and new economic base
• Rural tax values -- irrigated, dry-farmed, and unfarmed land;
counties, small towns, school districts
• Urban and suburban amenity and tax values from ditches
and reservoirs – In foothills study area, <1% standing water
was natural in origin…
• Land Use Planning for Value and Cost control! Someday,
even in the Wild West?
– Local costs (e.g. to counties) much bigger than local
benefits (E.g, Colorado: $1.65 costs/$1 revenue ave.)
Under-Invested Interests - Agricultural?
• Livestock feed -- crop sales are much smaller than livestock sales;
threats to irrigation affect feedlots, rural economies...
• Agricultural land is being developed in ways that fail to maximize value of
the real estate to the agricultural and rural communities – maybe even
the seller ?!?
– difference between “raw land” versus platted, permitted, or marketed - how much new value should be kept by whom?
• Agricultural water is very likely undervalued -- Information problems from
uniqueness of water rights, expense of valuation in secretive and
competitive market
– Information problems from denial of possible limits on transfer that
might reduce supply
– Problems of cooperation among large number of sellers facing small
number of buyers
• Agricultural capitalization problems, especially small and medium-sized
farms, limits ability to reorganize and adapt...
NEW FORMS OF WATER TRANSFER WANTED
• Short term spot market -- “water bank”
• Long-term “rotating crop management” -- timing
specified intermittent transfer to meet “base load”
demand for municipalities (M&I sector), other
high-value uses
• Long-term interruptible supply arrangement -transfer when condition is met, to meet
foreseeable but timing-unspecified demand
• [Along with temporary “bridge” deals (substitute
water supply) and micro deals]
• AND, ALL INTERESTS CAN PARTICIPATE
Long-Term Rotational Crop Management
• Very long-term is ideal -- stability for all
– Planned locations of fallow/etc
– Farm incomes and financing improved – Oughtta be!
• “Base-load” predictable water supplies
• Only Up-front infrastructural costs (e.g., diversions, conveyance) -financed
• “Pay-as-you-go” acquisition, not bonding, (save 50% at 3.25% interest
for 30 years), better match of costs and benefits and what
constituents/rate-payers want:
– 110 votes for conservation/preservation/open space in Colorado,
$3.8 Billion
– Birding, hunting, fishing, environmental groups -- $$$
– What attracted people? What will in the future?
• ALL terms of deals negotiable - including end of term, indexing, risk
management (Still some limits in new CRS 37-92-103 and 305(4)(a)(IV))
• IT IS BEING PURSUED!! (25 January 2007 announcement) But… lots
and lots of complications…
Long-Term Interruptible Supply
• Also very long-term idea -- stability goals
• NOT available in “3/10” years, 10 year limit deals
in CRS 37-92-309 -- want much longer
• Water moved on call, as specified, e.g. for...
– Dry-year and drought recovery
– Facility management
– Wet-year opportunities (ASR, etc)
• Financing negotiable, “pay-as-you-go”, prices
indexed to opportunity costs, costs of flexibility,
and timing of “call” and situation
• ALL terms should be negotiated!
Conditions for success
• Meet transferor goals, transferee goals
• Develop answers with participants
– Even the legislature can’t innovate without adequate engagement;
expand participation (in all ways - $ too)
• Introduce innovations in the accepted ways
– water providers’ technical evaluation and leading utility
demonstrations
– agricultural innovations work through extension and demonstration
• Get the new ways figured out before all the
water needed is transferred in the old ways!
• Represent the long-term and the public
interest – Literally, someone has to! (Next
project…)
What would be “climate responsive water
management”?
• Has to be within water law
• Has to include climate variation and change as
one of many conditions
• OUGHT to help achieve at least goals in water
management
• OUGHT to help achieve goals affected by water
management
• WON’T succeed without engagement and
acceptance by those involved
• After SWSI, focus on agriculture-urban transfers -“the new last water hole” (apologies to Dr Tyler!)
Institutional Change
• Market Modifications – end barriers to NGO
entry and “water exceptionalism”
• Better information on costs of “doing it
wrong” versus “doing it right”
• LIMITS – thresholds of impact and
cumulative impacts must be avoided
• MONEY for the public welfare – the same
old public goods problems – must be used
• FINANCIAL sanity: the incredible support for
agriculture must be used for far more than
the CRP program.
Thank you!
• Contact me for references, etc if not
available.
• Most listed in “speaker’s notes” on slides
[email protected]
• NOT representing positions of either the
University of Colorado or the National
Center for Atmospheric Research, or the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration