Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c:> <br />o <br />,.', <br />~J <br /> <br />de res by the assumeC crop f1 ex 1b 111 ty canst rd 1 n'ts. SuCh a ~,uted :"'85 pense 1 s <br /> <br />plausible for two reasons. The very small s1.:e of the averase lane: holC:1ng <br /> <br />OCCurs because many operators are part-t1n:e farmers who are less likely to <br /> <br />favor land retirement due to their nonpecunhry Objectives. <br /> <br />Community <br /> <br />perceptions of the importance of indirect economic impacts of reducec <br /> <br />agricultural output may also create resistance to the land retirement option. <br /> <br /> <br />Se\'eral other constraints en these irrigation options also limited the <br /> <br />model to reasonably realistic solutions. First, a minimum requirement of 5,000 <br /> <br />acres of lined ditch represented the ftelc 1mproverr.ents already in place. <br /> <br />Other constraints reflect potential rates of adoption of ne.. polfc1es anc <br /> <br />pract1ces in the \lalley. No more than 90~ of the remaining 45.000 acres coulCl <br /> <br />receive any type of 1mpro\lement. Some farmers may not wfsh to improve their <br /> <br />systems. and investments on some marginal laMs may not be economfcal. In <br /> <br />add1t1on. at most 3CS <15.000 acres) could be 1rr1gated wfth labor-intens1ve- <br /> <br />management techniques such as manual cutback or shorter sets. <br /> <br />Ffnally. <br /> <br />cablegatfon was constrained to 10.000 acres. <br /> <br />Despfte its significant cost <br /> <br />advantages. cablegation is most economical en fieldS of 30 or more acres. which <br /> <br />are scarce 1n the Grand Valley. In seme cases, corr.bin1ng ffelds ""ould require <br /> <br />laser levelling at additional cost. <br /> <br />Irrigation labor requirements were based on estimates by extension <br /> <br />irrigation spec1alfsts. Projected labor savfngs from automated systems ll':ay be <br /> <br />opt1m1st1c. if operators fal1 to trust the new technolcgy and check ffelds <br /> <br />repeatedly. Wh~re labor was required beyond the average of 5.5 hours per acre, <br /> <br />and overtime wage of S7.50 per hour was assessee. rather than S5.00. This <br /> <br />shadow ...age compensated for the fncon\len fence of mak 1 ng sl'1orter 1 rr1gat 10n <br /> <br />sets. <br /> <br />a <br />