Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~, <br />G <br />co <br />~: <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />The differences among the alternatives as far as non-Indian <br />agriculture is concerned would be differences in the amount of water available <br />for usage, especially during times of water shortages. <br /> <br />Some 230,000 acres of non-Indian land have been removed from <br />production since the early 1950's because of urbanization, increasing <br />production cost, and unavailability of water. It may be that some <br />alternatives will maintain the economic feasibility of farming for longer <br />periods than others due to Project water del iveries being less costly than <br />pumping ground water, or due to locally stabil izing effects on ground water <br />level declines, but such an economic analysis is beyond the scope of this EIS. <br />Projections of ground water level declines under each of the alternatives are <br />given in Appendix F. <br /> <br />< <br /> <br />", <br />,.';;,i <br />).~ <br />.,..... <br />'.5 <br />R <br />~ <br />"'~ <br />,-' <br /> <br />In addition, nine of the irrigation districts identified as <br />current applicants for CAP water are particularly vulnerable to urbanization <br />pressure. It is expected that these districts will continue to transfer <br />agricultural land to urban use. <br /> <br />, <br />~ <br /> <br />'1 <br />::-', <br /> <br />C. <br /> <br />Cumulative Impacts <br /> <br />'" <br />-;:~ <br />/'< <br /> <br />-, <br />" <br /> <br />The cumulative effect of each of the alternatives is essentially the <br />same. Each delivers the available supply of CAP water to essentially the same <br />water users, although the distribution varies. In almost all cases, <br />alternative water supplies are available to make up the shortfall caused by <br />lesser allocations of CAP water, although in some cases, land use changes <br />(retiring farmland) must be effected to allow access to the alternative water <br />supply. Specific differences in environmental effe1.7' resulting from each <br />allocation alternative are summarized in Chapter II.D.- <br /> <br />'-, <br />",j <br /> <br />:) <br />',-, <br />j <br />~i <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />,; <br />, <br /> <br />I; <br /> <br />1) The Proposed Action falls within the range of Alternatives 3 (Andrus) and <br />4 (Andrus Modified for M&I Use) and the resulting environmental impacts. <br />The demographi c and 1 and use changes and ground water 1 eve 1 s result i ng <br />from the proposed allocation of CAP water were not projected, since these <br />impacts are bracketed by Alternatives 3 and 4 and the relative difference <br />in impacts between these two alternative allocations is insignificant. <br /> <br />17 <br />