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 />6.11. <br />6./. <br /> <br />The Great Irrigalhm StlhJh~r Dehme. <br /> <br />Feilerallrrigat;oJl Project Sllhsit~1' Issues. <br /> <br />Till' \\'l'stcrn irrigation subsidy i.SSUl' has principally flll.'USl.'d on till' dc\'('lopmcnt of <br />thl' U.S. Bun-au (If Reclamation (USBR) projects. These irrigarinn projects an' sC~lttLT('d <br />througlwul much of the \\'cst. :lud. as lIoll'l1 pn'\"iollsly. pnJ\idc irrigatioll "all'l" to ahout <br />len million :len's of farm land (ahout thirty pern'nt (If the 'h'st's irrigated acreage). The <br />projl'cls ";try greatly in nalun', "jlh some heing single-purpose projects and others arc <br />part of multipurpose projects that inn,)n' hytlrocll'clric I)()\\cr production. flood control. <br />and r{,l'reation hl'ncfits. <br /> <br />Tht, inigaliol1 suhsilh qUl'.stioll first :tttracled \\ idc'"prcad .lttention from <br />agricultural t'cunomi..ts .BU.] ~O\('rnment resource manag('rs durin~ tll('l:lte 1970s :tntl e:lrly <br />19SI.... Their conn'rns largely dealt with sllci:tl equity issues and thl' nn'd to :llloeate watl'r <br />resources l'fficiently. particul:trly in tlH' ca."e of putential projl'l't expaminns: who would <br />pay lhe cosh (If furthlT den-IoPlllent .tIld would the co.;;ts he equitahly allocated among the <br />federal gonrnllll'tH. stall' gllnrnment. :Hld individual land owners'! In the 1990s, the <br />irrigation suhsidy isSUl' has h('en re\'iewed further, with project npayment l'ontnlets heing <br />considered for H'negotiation (higher rep.lyment lenls to thl' federal treasur:y hy irrigators), <br />and with w:lter re:tllocatiun issul's predominantly taking into account recreation :101I <br />l'n\"ironmental n'sources (fish. wildlife. ele,). <br /> <br />Tahle 5 snmm.lri:l.l's the key irrigation suhsidy issues and responses or counter <br />arguments IIwt have heen asserted hy resource m:magers, irrigators. some academic and <br />resource economists. and other parties, Fl'deral irrigation project detraclors tend to cast <br />the USBR irrigation projects as poorly conceived social policy', an inequit:tble use of federal <br />funds with fen rCCl'iving the hulk of rhe cconomic benefits, and :t hindrance to the <br />reallocation of water reSnurces away from increasingly important recre:ltional and <br />cn\-'ironment:!1 resources. Irrigation project defenders assert that irrigation dnelopment <br />policy was forged in thl' context of the time period and national ohjecrins. it pro\'idcs <br /> <br />Economics Benefit Review/Page-fa <br />