Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c <br />c <br /> <br />.- <br /> <br />from iatlle 4, a ~argfnal water charge of S28 per acre feot ccr.t:1ned with a <br /> <br />c>, <br /> <br />system cons'tl"'1Jctfon subsidy of 401 yields a redl.lct1on of over 138,QOO tons of <br /> <br />salt at a net social cost of $9.68 per ton. The farmer shares $4.80 (about <br /> <br />half) of the social cost. The farmer's share could be furU:er lC'Ilerec: to 401: <br /> <br />if the subsidy were raised to 471. while the model solution remains unchanged. <br /> <br />Alternatively. the farmer's cost share could be increased to 60~ by raising the <br /> <br />inframarginal water price from $4.00 to $4.93 per acre foot. Pragmatically. <br /> <br /> <br />this flexibl1ity in cost distribution may be worth seme efficiency loss and <br /> <br />additional administrative expense. Greater reduc;tfons 10 salt diSCharges than <br /> <br />for taxes alone are also possible without substantfal disruptions of <br /> <br />agriculture. The Grand Valley could lower its saH load by o\ler 6C~ .I'fth a <br /> <br />number of tax/subsidy combinations listed in tables 3 and 4. <br /> <br />Water Rental. A water conservation subsidy can, in theory, y1elc the same <br /> <br />pollution reduction as a tax on effluent. <br /> <br />Applying this idea to inputs, a <br /> <br />subsidy paid to reduce irrigation water appl1cation rates woulc likely <br /> <br />encourage reduced salt discharges (table 4). <br /> <br />This conservation subsidy is <br /> <br />analogous to a water rental market; it confronts the user with an opportunity <br /> <br />cost for ...ater use at the margin. t"cweverl the water would be left in the <br /> <br />stream, eliminating salt pickup and water distribution costs. Thfs approach is <br /> <br />very similar to the water bank. or water rights purchase program. proposed by <br /> <br />Howe and Orr as a salinity control poliCY. <br /> <br />As expected, both the predicted farmer response and tM net social costs <br /> <br />of salinity control are the same as those predicted through 1rrigatfon water <br /> <br />taxes. Note in Table 4 that an increasing blcck water tax of $4.00 and S27.75 <br /> <br />produces the same 93.970 salt reduction at a $9.17 net social cost per ton as a <br /> <br /> <br />$4.00 and $14.00 water tax combined with a S13.75 per acre feot water <br /> <br />16 <br />