Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Table 10 <br /> <br />~Z9Z <br /> <br />SOOTIlElt>;j CALIFORNIA ST\:JDY AREA <br /> <br />Crops and area <br /> <br />Acres Percent <br /> <br />Per-acre <br />gross <br />value <br /> <br />Per-acre y <br />net <br />value <br /> <br />Adjustment from 2/ <br />$16/acre effect- <br />Imperial area <br /> <br />Direct per-acre <br />saUni ty effect <br />cost <br /> <br /> Imperial C-ounty <br /> Regional model 469,200 100 $132 $132/132 = 1.0 $lfi <br /> Coachella Valley <br /> Field crops 12,338 23 3/$ 124.52 56 56/132' = 0.42 7 <br /> Vegetab Ie crops 13,629 25 3/ 1 ,tl26. 40 462 462/132 = 3.50 ' 56 <br /> Fruits 28,179 52 3/ 1,514.16 681 681/132 = 5.16: 83 <br /> Total orweigh1:ed 3.67' <br /> average 54,146 100 $1,074.79 $4114 $484/132 = $59 <br />IV <br />'" , 40,800 <br /> Applicable acres = <br /> ~IWD (San Diego) <br /> Vegetables and frui ts 70,900 100 Y$1,200.00 $540 $540/132 = 4.09 65 <br /> Palo Verde <br /> Field crops 103,800 100 5/ $132 $132/132 = 1.0 16 <br /> <br />1/ Net value computed on basis fixed and variable costs of production will approximate; 55 percent of gross <br />value. . <br />2/ Base value $16/acre salinity effect Imperial Valley, Sun, Po-Chuan (1972). "An Economic Analyses of the <br />Effects of Quantity and Quality of Irrigation Water on Agricultural Production in Imperial Valley, California." <br />Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis. <br />3/ Annual review Coachella Valley County Water District - 1971-1972. <br />4/ Gross value was an interpolation from Coachella Valley vegetables and fruits. <br />~ Net per-acre value assumed to be same as Imperial Valley with similar cropping pattern. <br />