Running Head: San Luis Valley Sustainability

Ecological and Economic Sustainability of the

San Luis Valley Region in

Colorado:

A Framework for Thought and Action

Elizabeth A. Kemp

Colorado College

EC141 Sustainable Development

April17, 2002

Honor Code Upheld:
What is Sustainable Development?

Although different people and organizations might use various words and emphases when defining sustainable development, all explanations have some basic points in common. First, it is important to understand the concept of sustainability. Webster’s Dictionary (1996, as cited in Environmental Education Exchange, 2000) defines sustainability as: “a noun referring to a state or condition that can be maintained over an indefinite period of time.” When applying the term “sustainability” to a concept such as development, the basic premise is that the practice can be continued over a long period of time.

Many people condemn the concept of sustainable development because they consider the term an oxymoron. If sustainability implies consuming at a limited level, or one that can be sustained, how can we also have development, a word that generally implies an increase in consumption (Environmental Education Exchange, 2000)? In Our Common Future, the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987, as cited in International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2002) created a definition that clears up much of this problem. They wrote:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:

• the concept of “needs”, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and

• the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.

Development that allows future generations to meet their own needs does not exclude an increase in consumption, but requires that today’s civilizations examine their consumption habits and the impacts they are having on the earth’s resources.

An important distinction to make in thinking about sustainable development is the difference between development and growth. Growth requires an increase in the size and dimensions of something, so it inherently implies greater consumption and use of resources. Development involves a structural change or improvement in the composition of something. Therefore development can come from improvements in ideas and understanding, but does not necessarily require resource depletion. This understanding makes the concept of sustainable development much more achievable (Environmental Education Exchange, 2000).

To fully understand sustainable development, it must be placed in the context of economics and more specifically, economic scarcity. If resources were infinitely abundant then they would be able to sustain everyone in the world forever. In the past, people have made the mistake of thinking that this was the case. However, at this point in time we know that we will not have large forests for future generations if we cut them down now. If everybody wants wood, and only a few people have control over it, then the controllers can use the forests to make money. This paradigm is what drives the free-market economy. In such a system, people are free to begin new businesses as they so choose. To do so requires the investment of capital and involves inherent risk, but the possibility of high profits lead many people to take that risk (Case & Fair, 2002).

It is this profit-seeking nature of business that has run us into many problems. All firms seek efficiency. They strive to maximize profit at the least cost to themselves. However, most firms do not incorporate into efficiency the costs to others. Such costs can be incurred in many places. The production of any product requires inputs. For example, on a farm the production of vegetables requires the seed, the land, water, possibly chemical fertilizers, and human work. It also requires tractors and irrigation pipes, gas to run the machines, energy to run the buildings, and money to pay the people. This production process also creates certain outputs. These include the vegetables, but also the noxious emissions given off by the tractors, the release of fertilizers into the air and onto plants in the surrounding area, and the dirt that runs off the land, clogging the local stream. All of these outputs besides the vegetables themselves can be considered externalities. Externalities are consequences of production that affect other parties. The farmers have little to no incentive to consider them (Case & Fair, 2002). If using water for irrigation on her land means that people downstream won’t get any, the farmer is adversely affecting other people, but she has no reason to stop using the water because her business will suffer without it. These externalities are a huge problem in our world today and they are the main impediment to sustainability.

In addressing the problem of sustainability in our world, we need to focus on these externalities. In the past and in many instances today, there is no motivation for firms to do anything about them. In fact, in the free-market economy, their incentives are to create the externalities because they will lower costs of production and lead to higher profits. However, we have learned that such practices are not sustainable in the long run. If the farmer uses all the water for her own irrigation then the downstream farms will go out of business and the animal and plant life downstream will die because they rely on the water for survival. So how do we stop the farmer from using all the water? If the farmer is forced to internalize the costs of the externalities, she will have incentive to stop. For example, if she is forced to pay for the water she uses, she will be constrained by money. She will not be able to afford more than a certain amount of water for irrigation, so some will be left in the stream for people and animals later on. This concept of internalizing the externalities is vital to achieve sustainability (Hecox, 2002).

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (2002) addresses the main tenets of sustainable development by saying: “To be sustainable, development must improve economic efficiency, protect and restore ecological systems, and enhance the well-being of all peoples.” They make it very clear that there are three things on which to focus when dealing with sustainable development: the environment, the economy, and the people. By internalizing the externalities that effect all three of these factors, we can more successfully address the issues at hand and progress toward sustainability.

Overview of the San Luis Valley

Located in the south-central section of Colorado, the San Luis Valley is an area larger than the state of Massachusetts (see Appendix 1). The valley is bordered on the east side by the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and on the west by the San Juan Mountains. These two ranges converge to form the northernmost point of the valley, and the southern end finishes at the New Mexico border (see Appendix 2). Composed of six different counties, the area is sparsely populated and characterized by a southwest desert type of environment and lifestyle (San Luis Valley Rural Development and Planning Commission, 1992).

The valley houses the oldest town in Colorado, San Luis, founded on April 5, 1851. Almost 90 percent of the approximately 900 people currently living there are descended from the town’s first settlers (DuVal, 2001). With such strong historical and family connections within the town, the residents truly see themselves as a community, where people help each other and pull together to solve problems (Romero & Lucero, 2002). Despite being the poorest area in Colorado (Hecox, 2002), San Luis has made improvements recently with the work of involved citizens and local religious leadership (Romero & Lucero, 2002).

There are a number of other towns in the valley, and that sense of community tends to permeate through the area. While the whole valley is not as interconnected as the small town of San Luis, there are many associations between valley residents based on the large amount of farming and ranching that takes place in the valley on family land that has been passed down through generations. Valley residents generally appreciate the ranching and farming ways of life and many feel that despite being a tough way of life, it is the only way they know.

Change and development have been appearing in the valley in various forms for a number of years. Adams State College, with an enrollment greater than the size of San Luis (approximately 2,500 students), is located in Alamosa and provides a center for educational and cultural activities (San Luis Rural Development and Planning Commission, 1992). The town of Crestone, located in the northeast part of the valley, doesn’t seem to fit in with the rest of the area (Hecox, 2002). In the 1970’s the Crestone area became home to the Baca subdivision, a mostly unsuccessful retirement resort (Rubin, 1989a), and in the 1980’s Hanne and Maurice Strong began encouraging spiritual communities to gather in the area (Rubin, 1989b). The subdivision now houses about 200 people year round, 300 in the summer, and there are at least five different religious and spiritual groups in the area (Rubin, 1989a).

Along with the scattered towns and wide-open lands of the farms and ranches, the valley plays host to a number of important natural resources and other major significant features. The valley most recently came into statewide attention when efforts to extract water from the underground aquifers to be transported to the Front Range were opposed by valley residents. Under the valley floor there are two natural aquifers, an upper, unconfined one, and a lower, deeper, confined aquifer. The water in each aquifer is held in the porous spaces in the earth, and the two are divided by a relatively impermeable clay layer (Poulter, 2002) (see Appendix 3). Previous owners of the Baca Ranch, located in the northeast section of the valley near Crestone, have attempted to drill into the lower, confined aquifer to sell water to the Front Range (Hunter, 2002). Despite claims that such activity could contribute to the local economy (Boyce, 2002), valley residents worry about drying up their cropland and area wetlands (Hunter, 2002). Local residents taxed themselves to fight the extraction efforts and eventually, in November of 2000, the government agreed to buy the land with the help of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the State Land Board. Over the next few years the government expects to fully purchase the ranch and add the land to the Great Sand Dunes National Monument (Cheney, 2002).

The National Monument is located against the Sangre de Cristo Mountains on the east side of the valley. Established on March 17, 1932, the area is protected to preserve the incredible dunes and the surrounding environment (United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service, 1988). Spurred on by residents of the valley who worried that water extraction from the confined aquifer would dry up and adversely effect the dunes, the area has recently been approved as a National Park. When the Baca Ranch is fully purchased by the government, the area will include the National Park, a Great Sand Dunes National Preserve to the northeast, and a Baca National Wildlife Refuge to the northwest (see Appendix 4). To the south of the proposed park is The Nature Conservancy’s Medano-Zapata Ranch. Purchased in 1999, the ranch currently supports a free-range bison herd and a cattle herd, along with grazing for some local ranchers and a 4,000 acre wetland preserve and archeological sites. TNC aims to use the land for conservation and grazing, along with education, and part of the Ranch will be integrated into the new National Park (Van Cant Fort, 2002).

Totaling 1,854,000 acres, the Rio Grande National Forest covers 30.6% of the floor on the western side of the San Luis Valley (San Luis Valley Rural Development and Planning Commission, 1992). The forest managers juggle a number of uses within the forest area. Parts of the forest are designated for logging, firewood collection, mineral extraction, motorized vehicle travel, protection of biological diversity, and designated wilderness (United States Department of Agriculture, 2001). The management of the area must satisfy a number of people and organizations, and often interests are conflicting (Murphy & Gomez, 2002).

Another major feature of the valley is the Closed Basin Project. Because of the never-ending water problems in the San Luis Valley, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation opened this project on the eastern side (see Appendix 5). At this site, the Bureau extracts water from the upper, unconfined aquifer in the valley floor. That water travels through a long series of channels to the Rio Grande River, where it is dumped and sent to New Mexico and other southern areas. The idea behind the extraction is to take water that would supposedly be lost through evapotranspiration in the plants and instead send it to New Mexico. Colorado needs to meet its end of the Rio Grande Compact that requires a certain amount of water to be sent south in the Rio Grande each year. This project allows this compact to be met, while still allowing valley residents to use Rio Grande water (Herrera, 2002). The project has both supporters and opponents within the valley.

There are also a few major ranches within the valley that have received extra attention. The Forbes Trincera Ranch, owned by the Forbes family of Forbes magazine, is a large piece of land in the southeast portion of the San Luis Valley. Although the management still allows some local ranchers to graze their cattle on the land, it is primarily used for what is known as “Ranching for Wildlife.” The first ranch in the state to adopt such a program, the ranch is managed to allow optimal habitat for local wildlife, and caters to upscale hunters. Through a combination of grazing, logging, prescribed burns, and tree thinning, the land is aggressively managed to imitate natural processes of death and regeneration that often don’t happen with today’s successful firefighting methods (Hunter, 2000). The ranch has been so successful in its practices that other land management agencies such as the Rio Grande National Forest have looked to them for help (Ryland, 2002).

The Taylor Ranch has also had very recent attention based on the Enron news. Owned by former Enron executive Lou Pai, the ranch may soon be available for purchase if it is decided that Pai acquired it with money from insider trading (Frazier, 2002a). To locals who have wanted to see this area owned by La Sierra Foundation, a nonprofit group of descendents of Spanish and Indian settlers, the news is good (Frazier, 2002b).

Obviously, in an area as large as the San Luis Valley there are a number of other significant natural features and important organizations that I have not even mentioned here. I have tried to give an overview of some of the key areas with the hope that they give a feel for life in the San Luis Valley.

Sustainability in the San Luis Valley

Just as it would be impossible to outline the whole San Luis Valley in anything shorter than a long book, I believe that it would also be impractical to attempt to address every problem in the valley in just a few pages. I plan to take this space to address some of the biggest issues in the valley and propose some solutions that could help the valley move towards a sustainable future. Sustainability has three aspects: environment, economy, and humans. It is crucial to take all three of these elements into account when examining the San Luis Valley or else any plan will not be truly sustainable.

In some ways, valley residents have already realized the need for sustainability in their area and are attempting to convert to some sustainable practices. Cris Canaly (2002) and her co-workers at the Rio Grande Headwaters Land Trust are working with local landowners to create conservation easements that prevent development on privately held land. This allows for wildlife corridors to be established and land to be preserved. It is also beneficial for the landowners who know that they might someday have to sell their ranch but don’t want to see it developed.

Land held by organizations such as The Nature Conservancy is also being preserved for the benefit of wildlife and ecosystems (Van Cant Fort, 2002), and the Conservancy’s outreach organization, the Saguache County Sustainability and Economic Development Organization, spreads the word about the need for environmental protection. Other organizations such as the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, Friends of the Dunes, and the Wetlands Focus Area Committee take on significant projects to protect the valley’s natural resources (Canaly, 2002).

However, despite all these encouraging projects, there are still some major issues in the valley, and I have outlined those that I think are the most important (see Appendix 6). The future feasibility of farming and ranching in the valley is significant on many fronts. These two occupations more or less make up the economy in the area, and therefore have an enormous impact on the people there. It would be possible, and perhaps even sustainable from an environmental and economic standpoint to push out these ways of life in favor of development. However, this solution does not take into account the people whose families have inhabited the valley for hundreds of years. Instead steps should be taken to make ranching and farming more sustainable in the valley. For example, most farmers have changed from traditional practices of flood irrigation to center pivot irrigation. Flood irrigation required flooding a field with excessive amounts of water, and allowing runoff to flow into streams. While this technique did feed water sources, it also allowed pesticides to be flushed into streams, potentially harming fish and wildlife. The center pivot system allows for some excessive evaporation, but generally permits all of a farmer’s water to be used on his crops, and locals consider this system most efficient (Boyce, 2002).

Another practice that could benefit the valley is that of a multi-crop organization. Currently, many ranchers and farmers focus on one crop, such as cows or potatoes. By increasing the variety of things produced on their land, these people could increase efficiency. For example, if a rancher begins to grow potatoes, then he could feed his cows potato skins and crop waste as is done at Threemile Canyon in Oregon. This could possibly lower his feed costs. If it is a bad year for his cattle, he will still have his potato production, and he can internalize his externalities by using the cow wastes for fertilizers on his crops (Carlton, date unknown).

Another more efficient method being used by valley residents is crop and grazing rotations. Crop rotation involves allowing the regeneration of soil nutrients by changing the crops that are planted in a field from one year to the next. Grazing rotation means that cattle are moved between pastures before one area is overgrazed, and some pastureland is rested to allow it to fully re-grow after it has been grazed (Ryland, 2002). Currently, some areas of the valley are available for ranchers to graze on land that is not their own, such as on the Medano-Zapata Ranch, the Rio Grande National Forest, and on the Forbes Trincera Ranch. Expanding this initiative is one way to make ranching more sustainable. If a non-government organization such as The Nature Conservancy were able to hold more land in the valley such as the Taylor Ranch or other struggling ranches, then the environment, the economy and the people would all benefit. These organizations protect the environment while providing access to the public, as is currently done on the Medano-Zapata Ranch, satisfying locals. The ranchers would benefit by being able to conserve their land better and being able to sustain their herd effectively.

Such private ownership could also benefit the land and the people by promoting sustainable land management practices. While many environmentalists might shudder at the idea of grazing on conservation land, TNC has found that it is necessary. Bison, elk, deer and other ungulates grazed the land in the valley long before people got there. To keep the land in a relatively natural state, grazing is needed, and it can benefit the locals (Van Cant Fort, 2002). Grass is a renewable resource, and as Jim Coleman (2002) put it, “If you don’t use it, you lose it”, meaning if it is not grazed, the grass will die, unused. The promotion of prescribed burns and tree mowing is also necessary to allow species variety and to avoid uncontrollable wildfires. While these practices seem to be detrimental to the environment, when done well they actually mimic natural processes. Such an ownership could also promote conservation easements that would provide wildlife corridors while preventing much dreaded development.

Some other, smaller initiatives could also benefit farmers and ranchers. Currently, many of the farms and ranches in the valley are growing their produce in an organic manner, but the high-class market that generally purchases such items is not around, and transportation costs are high. An organic farmers co-op is currently underway with grant money recently allocated, but this will not be enough (Romero & Lucero, 2002). The market for Colorado-grown organic vegetables and beef could be great in Colorado Springs and Denver. With government-subsidized transportation out of the valley for organic farmers and ranchers, the people and the economy could benefit, and locals would be encouraged to switch to organic practices, which is a good choice for the environment.

I believe that a large amount of space in the valley owned by nonprofits could also benefit the rest of the valley residents and the economy sustainably. By allowing a ranching for wildlife program on the property and using local guides, TNC could make money that could be put into land maintenance and local outreach programs. By allowing more hunters in the valley, current oversized elk herds could be better controlled, and it would bring more tourists to the area. Also, if a tax that could go directly to local projects were put on all out-of-state hunters, the people and the environment could benefit along with the economy.

Another idea that could benefit not only farmers and ranchers but also everyone in the valley is the introduction of a large-scale solar energy project. If towns and larger community areas could get collective solar-energy systems that many people could share, it might make solar energy a cost-effective alternative to non-renewable resources. The San Luis Valley receives approximately 300 days of sun each year, making it a perfect area for such a project (Canaly, 2002). It these systems could be bought and set up in bulk, it might also make buying a private system possible for the larger farming and ranching organizations.

Felix Romero (2002) emphasized that a large issue in the valley is that many children that have grown up in the area are leaving, resulting in a loss of tradition and heritage in the area, and causing many farmers and ranchers to have to sell their land instead of being able to pass it down in the family. Many of the farms also get sold because even if they are left to family members, the estate taxes are so high that the land must be sold to pay them off. If estate taxes were eliminated, more land could stay in family lines, keeping farming and ranching going, bringing children back into the valley, and avoiding large developments.

The most important and difficult issue in the San Luis Valley is water. Water in a desert-like place will always be a problem, and it especially affects the farmers and ranchers. It could benefit the valley to eliminate the New Mexico Compact and keep all the water from the upper aquifer in the area. While this might sound like a great solution, it does not allow for sustainability in the states that are dependant upon that water. But is the Closed Basin Project really sustainable? Many people think not. However, no one (myself included) has yet come up with a more feasible solution to keep the contract and allow valley farmers to take water from the Rio Grande and its feeder streams.

It could also be possible to tap the lower, confined aquifer to provide water for valley residents. However, this may not be sustainable either. All of the same concerns exist that were addressed when earlier proposals for extraction were brought up. The possible negative effects on the environment, especially area wetlands and the sand dunes, are huge, making this an unsustainable option. Plus, there is always the worry that if more water were available, farmers and ranchers would expand their operations to require more, and there would never be enough.

Even though I am unable to come up with ideas that would solve all major issues in the valley, I have tried to provide some solutions that could be beneficial to sustainability. The problems that can be seen here have been around for a long time and exist in many other areas outside of the San Luis Valley. Luckily, many steps have already been taken to work towards a sustainable future and many valley residents seem interested in conserving their environment, their heritage, and enhancing their economic future. With dedicated work by the many incredible people there, I believe that the valley can have a bright, sustainable future.

References

Boyce, G., San Luis Valley rancher & president, Stockman’s Water Co. (4/10/2002).

Class Lecture. The Colorado College at Baca: Crestone, Colorado.

Canaly, C., San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council member & Rio Grande Headwaters Land

Trust member. (4/9/2002). Class Lecture. The Colorado College at Baca:

Crestone, Colorado.

Carlton, J. (Date unknown). Pro-environment farm sows seeds of success. The Wall

Street Journal: New York.

Case, K.E. & Fair, R.C. (2002). Principles of Microeconomics. Prentice Hall: New

Jersey.

Cheney, S., Superintendent, Great Sand Dunes National Monument. (4/8/2002). Class

Lecture. Great Sand Dunes National Monument: Colorado.

Coleman, J., owner, Coleman Natural Beef. (4/12/2002). Class Lecture. Coleman

Ranch: Saguache, Colorado.

DuVal, L. (3/25/2001). Title Unknown. The Colorado Springs Gazette: Colorado

Springs, Colorado.

Environmental Education Exchange. (2000). Sustainability: An introduction for

environmental studies students. Columbia University’s Biosphere 2 Center:

Tuscan, Arizona.

Frazier, D. (2/16/2002a). Lasso thrown around Taylor Ranch. Rocky Mountain News:

Denver, Colorado.

Frazier, D. (2/16/2002b). Ranch has no shortage of suitors. Rocky Mountain News:

Denver, Colorado.

Hecox, W., Professor. (3/26-4/12/2002). Class Lectures. The Colorado College:

Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Herrera, E.M., Closed Basin Project. (4/10/2002). Class Lecture. Bureau of

Reclamation Alamosa Field Office: Alamosa, Colorado.

Hunter, M.H. (9/3/2000). Flora brings fauna back to the ranch. The Denver Post:

Denver, Colorado.

Hunter, M.H. (1/25/2002). Yale’s land-sale profits will go to Dunes park. The Denver

Post: Denver, Colorado.

International Institute for Sustainable Development. (2002). www.iisd.org.

Poulter, K., Colorado College student. (4/9/2002). Class Lecture. The Colorado College

at Baca: Crestone, Colorado.

Romero, F. & Lucero, B., involved citizens. (4/10/2002). Class Lecture. San Luis,

Colorado.

Rubin, J. (7/5/1989a). Couple building on spirit of ‘the Baca’. The Colorado Springs

Gazette Telegraph: Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Rubin, J. (7/5/1989b). Village changed by the rich and pious. The Colorado Springs

Gazette Telegraph: Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Ryland, T., Ranch Manager, Forbes Trincera Ranch. (4/11/2002). Class Lecture. Forbes

Trincera Ranch: Colorado.

San Luis Valley Rural Development and Planning Commission. (1992). San Luis Valley

Overall Economic Development Program. www.courts.state.co.us.

United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service. (2001). Summary Draft

Environmental Impact Statement-Rio Grande National Forest. U.S. Government

Printing Office.

United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service. (1988). Great Sand

Dunes National Monument Statement for Management. U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Van Cant Fort, K., Education Outreach Coordinator, Medano-Zapata Ranch. (4/8/2002).

Class Lecture. Medano-Zapata Ranch: Colorado.

Appendix 1

Map of Colorado, San Luis Valley Highlighted

www.dola.state.co.us/oem/cartography/relief.jpg

Appendix 2

Maps of the San Luis Valley

www.coloradodirectory.com/maps/sanluis.html

www.gorp.com/gorp/location/co/co_sc.htm#map

Appendix 3

Natural Aquifer System in the San Luis Valley

(Pouter, 2002)
Appendix 4

Map of Great Sand Dunes National Monument

(Hunter, 2002)

Appendix 5

Map of The Closed Basin Project

(Map courtesy of United States Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Reclamation, Alamosa Field Division)

Appendix 6

Table of Existing Problems and Possible Sustainable Solutions for the

San Luis Valley

Problem	Who it Affects	Description	Possible Solutions
Future feasibility of farming and ranching	Farmers and ranchers within the valley, especially those that have old family land.	With a small market, high transportation costs, and little water, many people go bankrupt.	•solar/wind power •create more local markets •reduce transportation costs •communal/government grazing land
Economy, other than farming and ranching	Non-ranchers or farmers who live in the valley.	Those who own business and have other jobs have a difficult time making money in the poor area.	•increased hunting •promotion of open space •promote history/museums
Children leaving the valley	Families with a long history in the San Luis Valley.	More and more kids don’t find a life that they want in the valley and leave, causing family farms to leave the family.	•improve educational system/wider range of college classes •promote environment for return
Land and wildlife management	Valley residents, public and private lands managers.	Wild areas can no longer be expected to fully manage themselves when we suppress natural processes like fire.	•promote ranching for wildlife •prescribed burns and mowing •grazing •conservation easements for wildlife corridors •compensation for wildlife destruction
Water	Valley residents, especially farmers and ranchers	There is not enough water to go around, in most years farms and ranches suffer, making it more difficult to make a profit.	•elimination of New Mexico Compact •drilling into the lower, confined aquifer to provide water to local ranchers