7020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

With conversion, there are obviously substitution possibilities between crops and between irrigated and dryland production, both of which help to minimize the impacts to regional agriculture despite the loss of 400,000 acre feet. The last item of Table 1, the reduction of agriculturally generated profits, can be subtracted from the total revenues of the water transfer to approximate the producer surplus of the transfer strategy. At 55.05 and 400,000 acre feet, annual revenues would be 52.02 million dollars annually, resulting in an annual producer surplus of 51.4 mil. The modified CRSS model was simulated over the 30 year period 1986 through 2015, incorporating the historical streamflow records of the period 1922 through 1951. The irrigation water delivery schedule resulting from this was used to adjust the surface water constraints in the agricultural models. These PQP models were then solved for each year of the period 1986-2015. The resulting total annual value of irrigation water is given in the second column of Table 2. Some of the near term values of less than 52.02 mil. (55.05 x 400,000 AF) reflect that reservoirs were currently near full capacity in 1986 and the likely continued excess deliveries to the Lower Basin until CAP becomes fully operational. Longer run annual values of the 400,000 AF usually exceed S2.02 mil. because regional shortages, particularly in the Green River sub-basin, are explicitly considered in valuing the water. Accounting for the shortages resulted in a long term average value of 55.53 per acre foot. The net present value of irrigation over the 30 year period is given at the bottom of Table 2, using discount rates of 3 and 6 percent. Of equal interest to policymakers are the transfer's offsite impacts. As seen in the third and fourth columns of Table 2, CRSS estimated long term salinity reductions of about 37 milligrams per liter (mg/1) at Lake Havasu and 43 mg/l at Imperial Dam resulting from the transfer. Using the mid-range of Gardner's estimates of the benefit of salinity reduction to agriculture in the Imperial Valley of S46,000 per milligram per liter yielded the fifth column of Table 2 (13). These benefits are attributable to increased crop yields. It is of interest to note the time lag of 6 to 7 years in realizing the full benefits of salinity reduction. Estimates of the municipal and industrial (M&I) value of reduced river salinity cited in Gardner, with a mid-range of S234,500 per milligram, resulted in the final column. These benefits stem from increased useful life of plumbing fixtures and wastewater facilities. The decreased salinity content of the river results in an economic benefit to Lower Basin water users apparently far in excess of the value of decreased agricultural production in the Upper Basin. The CRSS model indicated an approximate 450 gigawatt hour increase in annual hydroelectric production from increased river flows associated with the transfer. Valuing this at a wholesale rate of S.015 per kilowatt hour yields the third column of Table 3. The value of the increased power production, even when valued at such a conservative rate, dominates the value of both agriculture and salinity changes. The remainder of Table 3 examines the value of increased power production for alternative power rates. It is worth noting that the additional power is "firm' since the CRSS model explicitly considers turbine capacity of the power system. However, it does not consider any additional transmission capabilities that may be needed as a result. CONCLUSIONS This analysis, like many before, illustrates the low marginal value of water in crop irrigation. This is not suggesting, however, the wholesale dismantling of the institutional structure allocating its use. Rather, it suggests that state or Federal