Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A special feature of the regional I/O model was its division of outputs <br />by northern (Nebraska, Kansas and Colorado) and southern (Okl ahoma, New <br />Mexico and Texas) subregions so as to highl ight the probable di fference in <br />conditions in the future for these parts of the Study region. Projections of <br />energy production, economic effects and prices were incorporated into the LP <br />and the I/O models. <br /> <br />Projected trends in energy production and availabil ity are important <br />factors in the regional economy. These projections, however, do not indicate <br />significant differences among the effects of the several water management <br />strategies although a major interstate water diversion project under Strategy <br />Five would impose unique energy production and use requirements. Over the <br />Study period to 2020, the decline in crude oil and marketed natural gas pro- <br />duction is projected to continue. By 2020, these production level s are pro- <br />jected to be approximately 1/10 the levels at the beginning of the Study <br />period. Electricity production, however, is projected to increase, both in <br />installed generating capacity and electric energy production, by approxi- <br />mately threefold over the Study period. Some increase is prOjected in water <br />consumption associated with energy production. <br /> <br />Comparison of Economic Indicators Among Strategies <br /> <br />Table 1 shows some key economic indicators of projected strategy <br />effects, by northern and southern subregions and the Region for the Baseline, <br />and Strategies One, Two, and Five. Strategy Three, local water supply <br />augmentation, could not be quantified meaningfully, because data were <br />fragmentary and did not support a finding of significant regional potential. <br />Strategy Four was quantified for Nebraska and Oklahoma, reflecting interest <br />by those states in intra-state imports. Strategy Five was analyzed in two <br />ways: an interstate import constrained to water needed to restore irrigation <br />to acreage reverting to dryland farming by 2020 due to aquifer depletion <br />under projections of Strategy One and under Strategy Two; these analyses are <br />described as Strategies Five-A and Five-B, respectively. <br /> <br />It is important to note that in making its studies of interbasin diver- <br />sion, the Corps of Engineers did not make a determination that there would be <br />surplus water available for such imports from the sources. <br /> <br />14 <br />