WSP08553 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OO'ZiO'3 General Contractor and the researchers of all six states. At these meetings the validity (or plausibility) and implications of the individual projections or assumptions were debated and discussed. If a consensus was reached, the projection or assumption was accepted for use (as is or as a guide for state modifications to reflect local conditions). If no consensus was reached, then a means for finding a more acceptable result was decided upon and responsibility assigned for pursuing the additional analysis. This process was repeated until a consensus was reached by the research group in one of the subsequent meetings. With few exceptions, states were not rigidly bound by the pro- jections, estimations, and assumptions developed in this manner. Rather the information produced provided a benchmark from which states could move to better reflect what might be unique local (i ,e., subregional) situations. However, the benchmark generally insured that all inputs used remained within reasonable parameters. Exceptions to this flexible utilization of the B-2/B-7 work included the NIRAP U.S. crop price projections and the related state price indices, interest rates, and national energy price projections. These projections or estimates were not allowed to vary at the discretion of the individual states. Finally it should be noted that, as appropriate, information developed for use in the LP mode'ls was also used as inruts to the NIRAP model. This included productivity assumptions, acreage available for farming, acres irrigated, crop production, etc. Thus, to the degree possible, NIRAP and the state LP models were run using similar assumptions. 11 Arthur 0 Little.Ioe