Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />0022tfl <br /> <br />Overall, water storage was estimated at 50.5 million acre feet <br />under the nine counties by 1974 and down 11.5 percent to 44.7 mil- <br />lion acre feet by 1980. With these water-table declines, pumping <br />lifts have increased, and the sharp escalation of energy costs in <br />the past five to seven years has caused doubts about the profit- <br />ability of irrigation. To many farmers in early 1981, it was a <br />toss-up whether to cut costs and go with a dry1and cotton or mi10 <br />crop, or to irrigate to improve yields but risk a heavy loss in <br />net returns. <br />Ener9Y cost aside, current rates of crop production in this <br />case-study area could probably be maintained for another 40 years <br />with present rates of groundwater withdrawals, given the present <br />very pronounced emphasis on water conservation. Substantial re- <br />ductions in water applications have been achieved by better water- <br />spreading techniques, better scheduling, and better soil manage- <br />ment practices. However, if energy costs continue to rise, along <br />with rising production costs generally and no improvement in crop <br />prices or yields, the rates of water withdrawal will decline <br />rapidly and a dry1and economy will prevail long before the ground- <br />water plays out. Already, positive net returns to the tenant <br />farmer and to the land-owner are below alternative opportunities <br />for managerial labor and investment capital, and indeed net <br />returns are often negative for almost all irrigated crops except <br />cotton. Cotton is a relatively water-efficient crop and even <br />does well in most soils of the South Plains without irri9ation. <br /> <br />II-3 <br /> <br />Arthur D Little Inc <br />