Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />00 <br />'-i <br />~ <br />'-" <br /> <br />sources including State Agriculture Statistics and the USDA Extension Service <br /> <br />have been checked to assure a proper correlation of data. Table 5 presents <br /> <br />the yields used in this study. <br /> <br /> Table 5 <br /> Crop Yields <br /> Projected Yields <br /> Composite <br /> 1st year of land class <br /> Present Estimate repayment 15-20 years <br /> condi- with full Class Class after develop- <br />Item Unit tions water supply 2 3 ment period <br />Alfalfa Ton 3.5 4.2 4.4 4.0 4.8 <br />Barley Bu 75 80 70 95 <br />Wheat <br />irrigated Bu 50 60 65 55 75 <br />Wheat dry Bu 30 36 <br />Rotation <br />pasture AUM 7.0 8.4 8.8 8.0 9.6 <br />Grass seed lb 375 400 350 450 <br />Grass seed <br />Hay Ton 1.5 <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />Farm Budgets <br /> <br />It is customary in Bureau studies to budget both supplemental (presently <br /> <br />irrigated) and full service (new) lands to determine payment capacity and <br /> <br />benefits. In this study because such a small amount of water (6%) is going <br /> <br />to land that is presently irrigated, it was felt appropriate to make the <br /> <br />analysis based on new land. The figures established for full service lands <br /> <br />were then applied to supplemental land on a per acre-foot of water basis. <br /> <br />Budgets were prepared representing future conditions without the project <br /> <br />and future conditions with the project on ne~ land. The difference between <br /> <br />these two sets of budgets is attributable to the project and the basis for <br /> <br />determining payment capacity and benefits. <br />