Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,\) <br />0') <br />..... <br />,,j::,, <br /> <br />The!regional model encompassed 469,200 acres resulting in $16 <br /> <br /> <br />perl acre reduction in net farm income. This was reduced to mg/l <br /> <br /> <br />per'acre by dividing $16 per acre by 320 mg/l change in salinity <br /> <br /> <br />con~entration. The result is a penalty of $0.05 per mg/l per <br /> <br /> <br />acr. per year. The above values become the basis for computing <br /> <br /> <br />a p~nalty cost for the remaining areas in the Lower Colorado <br /> <br /> <br />Riv~r Basin. <br /> <br />2. 'The Lower Colorado River Basin was divided into three <br /> <br /> <br />stu4y areas by ErA which included Southern California, Lower <br />: <br /> <br />Mairt Stem, and the Gila area. Within these study areas, irri- <br /> <br />gation districts or Bureau of Reclamation projects were identi- <br />fie4 which would be representative and for which information <br /> <br />reg~rding crop value was available. Tahles 1 through 9 give <br />thelcrop production pattern and acreage for each area delineated. <br /> <br />Data for these areas were given as gross crop value. For this <br /> <br />to He comparable to the base area (Imperial Valley),this had <br /> <br />to tie reduced to a net value. Since information to do this was <br /> <br />not 'available, judgment and experience indicated that gross <br /> <br />crop value should be reduced by approximately 55 percent. The <br />, <br /> <br />55 percent would be representative of annual fixed and variable <br />cost of production. <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />~~, ,.l._,;:' _~~ < <br /> <br />'-'f;~". -.i; <br /> <br />