Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The "before-and-after" approach suffered from one of the same <br />deficiencies just noted -- size of area was always too small (i.e., <br />groups of farms or a township here and there) for accurate measure- <br />ment. Second, and again more important, areas of sufficient size <br />for analysis could not be identified where the recent decline in <br />irrigation has been significant relative to current irrigated crop <br />production, or where the rate of decline has been sufficiently <br />rapid, to allow for a worthwhile analysis of transitional problems <br />on the way to a dryland farming condition. <br />The assessment method chosen is a considerable modification <br />but one which has proven superior to the original study design <br />and scope of complete reliance upon secondary data sources. It <br />draws upon intensive field surveys and evaluation at the grass roots, <br />so to speak -- primary information sources -- for actual dryland <br />conditions "before" the advent of irrigation, then conditions <br />before a decline in irrigation, and finally expected conditions <br />after the assumed decline in irrigation in carefully selected <br />case study areas. In some selected areas of South Texas, actual <br />declines in irrigation in recent years have led to conditions of <br />transition which could be observed and documented. <br />The same indicators or measures of activity as originally <br />planned are applied, but no attempt is made to quantify aggregate <br />change within case study areas. Rather, reliance is on the <br />expert and experienced judgment of knowledgable persons within <br />the5e areas, most often iong-time residents who rel'lain today vitaliy <br /> <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 />. <br /> <br />Arthur D Little.lnc <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I II-4 <br />