WMOD00132 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I II J I I I I I I I I VII. AN ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE v~ PROGRAM PERFORMED BY THE KANSAS WATER OFFICE In April 1994, the Kansas Water Authority seriously considered supporting the v~ Program and asked the Kansas Water Office to evaluate the Program to determine whether or not any positive results of practical economic significance could be detected. If so, a cost-sharing program would be proposed in which $10,000 per participating county would be made available to the WKWM Program. That evaluation was completed in August; the results found were: (1) Overall crop-hail damage was reduced by 27% in a group of six counties participating continuously in the WKm1 Program from 1979 through 1993, compared to a block of eight Northwest Kansas counties in which no weather modification was performed (Fig. 8). (2) A cost-to-benefit ratio of 1 to 37 was found ($1 paid into the program returned $37 to the economies of the participating counties). For the 15-year period the total return to the six counties was calculated to be nearly $60 million. At the same time, the number of counties participating each season in the Wh"W~1 Program averaged 12.2, not 6, so the expected total value of the crops saved might approach double the $60 million figure. NOTE: Based on the above results by themselves, the Kansas Water Office concluded the program would be worth supporting. (3) There appeared to have been a change in rainfall, albeit a very slight decrease, \'Ihen comparing the "target" group to a "control" group of eight Northwestern Kansas counties plus five in eastern Colorado (Fig. 9). Important in this was that they found the amount of rainfall decrease was not of practical economic sianificance. Before the study began, it was thought that even a very slight increase in average rainfall would warrant supporting the WK\',TM Program. However, upon closer investigation, it was found there are many factors which make rainfall of practical economic significance, among them are rainfall intensity, soil moisture levels and timing of rainfall events. Also, crop moisture needs and temperatures may be much more important factors than simply the average seasonal precipitation. Finding rainfall increases of practical economic significance turned out to be a much more complex question than simply finding whether or not there had been a particular increase or decrease in rainfall. Since the WKWM Program had dual obj ecti ves with a higher priority on hail suppression, we believe that if rain stimulation were the only objective, we would have seen increases similar to those found on other rainfall stimulation programs. Also, there are other factors making this finding less reliable, among them the wide spacing of official rainguages used from which data are obtained. 28