WSP09842

• File Number: 8273.600.30
• Description: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control - Federal Agencies - USDA
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 1/1/1991
• Title: The Economics and Management of Water and Drainage in Agriculture
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

l'\J
C:)
o
""-

. (:~.

:'':I':~

108

APPROACHES TO DRAINAGE PROilLDIS

Table 5. Assumed crop yields. prices and production costs. I
Non-water
Crop Yield' Crop Harvest variable Fired
price" COSe' costS> costS>
(Tonlae) ($Iron) (Slton) ($Iacre) (Slacrc)
Alfalfa 9.00 84.40 22.80 126.10 152.02
Colton .36 (lint) 1117.40 222.13 282.70 92.10
Wheat 2.70 124.20 20.05 161.00 87.85
Beans 8.80 450.00 252.90 427.70 149.92
Prices are 1987 constant dollars

'Long-term averages, based on Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner Annual Reports
for Ihe period 1977-1987.
bBased on University oC California Cooperative Extension Cost Budge!.s Cor 1986-1987.

treatment, evapora tion ponds, etc.). Changes in Pj were used to accoun t forthe "
effect of crop profitability on the attractiveness of drainage water reuse. "
Following Dinar, Letey, and Knapp (1989), watercostsofS15, S30, and S50 per
acre-foot and disposal cost of S35 and Sl00 per acre. fOOl of drainage water,
disposed were assumed. A valueofS150 per acre-fool was used, based on Stroh
(1990) and adjusted 10 1987 price level, for drainage treatment COSts in Ihe caSc
of no river disposal (Strategy III). The additional cost associaled with reuse wa,
assumed to be S15 per acre fOol after Knapp, Dinar, and Letey (1986). an~
adjusted for innation since 1987. Where p' was taken to be = 0 for Strategie,
I and II where farmers are not resaicted with Ihe disposal o[lhe drainage water.
Where quality standards are imposed on the drainage disposal to Ihe river, p'
was taken to be >.0 to represent costs of differ en I treatment levels needed tc'
meet these standards. Fot Strategy IU, nonriver disposal costs exist when p'
<!:O. Such costs are associated with the use of evaporation ponds orOlhermean,
of nonriver disposal of drainage water.
To normalize the results,the firs t project was used as a reference. The results
for all other farms are compared 10 it. For Strategy I,the drainage water from
each crop is disposed to the river, therefore, p' was charged to each crop. In
Strategy II, drainage water from beans, alfalfa, and wheat are reused for colton
production. For this case, p' was laken as 0 for these crops but was taken as 2:
o for colton. When p' = 0 [or collon, no cost is associated wilh Ihe disposal of
the drainage. For Strategy IU all secondary drainage is assumed to be treated
and disposed of by some means other than return 10 Ihe river. Therefore, an
analogous procedure was used to assign costs similarto the case ofSttategy II.
except that here p. was taken to be 150 to account forthe additional treatment