Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />,...., <br />- <br />c:.;. <br />'--' <br /> <br />coule: os levied partly or wholly upon downst.ream beneficfaries. The 1mplied <br /> <br />distrfbutional impacts could be calculated frem tr.e results 1n taoles 3 and 4). <br /> <br />Add1tional control strategies were 1ntroduced 1n the analysis of <br /> <br />d1strfbutional effects. <br /> <br />Since ear11er stue1es place potential on-farm salt <br /> <br />load reductfons for the Grand Vaney 1n the lCQ,QOO to 150,000 ton range, <br /> <br />strat~1es achfe'l1ng that level of reduc'tfon are emphasized. <br /> <br />Soth tne net <br /> <br />secial cost of salinity control and the distribution of salinity control costs <br /> <br />bet"een farrr.ers and government vary .idely among the options. Effluent and <br /> <br />fnfluent taxes, of course, place the entfre cost boreen on far~ers, whl1e the <br /> <br />government bears all costs .fth subsfdized 1rrfgatfon system imprcver.;ents. <br /> <br />Increasina Sleek Water (Influent) Taxes. This strategy m1tfgates some of <br /> <br />the cost burden in excess of net socfal cest. A"e..ing a certatn amount of <br /> <br />inframarginal water at a low cost. whfle stfll assessing the tax at the margin. <br /> <br />would enable far~~rs to retain much of their producer surplus. For example. at <br /> <br />a water price of Sl5.80 per acre-foot (S4.0a operating cost plus 111.80 tax), <br /> <br />the model produces a salt load reduction of 58.350 tons for 17.15 per ton net <br /> <br />social cost (taoh 4). <br /> <br />Yet. this methoa ..cula cost farmers 144.25 per ton. <br /> <br />S37.09 of which ~ould go to the go....ernment. At this tax rate, net farm inceme <br /> <br />would become negative. 8y allowing three acre-feet per acre of water fer 14.00 <br /> <br />an acre-fOOt., the sa~e reduction 1n salt discharges could be ac"ie....ed at a <br /> <br />farmer cost of 113.92 per ton, wft" net SOCial cost remaining at 1;.15. <br /> <br />Comb in 1ng cost-sharing mechanisms into a "carrot and stick" approach <br /> <br />pro....ides flexib111ty in cost d1str1bu-::1on. <br /> <br />We tested 1 rr1gat fen system <br /> <br />subs1c1es _it" ~oth salt and .ater taxes. and ..ater conservat1on su~sid1es .f~h <br /> <br />..ater taxes. "'s shown b)' tables 3 and 4, nearly any local cost share can be <br /> <br />achieved b)' varying the level of the "carrot" and/or "stick". For exalT'.p1e. <br /> <br />15 <br />