WSP00088 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"f~ i\'~''1l '<.-.l' .- tl:) 0')' ~ ;~:~~) "/L~v~~ C;-.-a- "~c _ . AnJi"Economic Evaluation of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program I Richard L. Gardner and Robert A. Young Dissolved salts _(salinitY) adversely ~ffeGt numexous urban and a~culatural users of Colorado. . R,iver water in California and Ariz/?na. -Congress.in 1974 authorized a major salinity confrot' program. Studies of general.ecoDpmic. benefits froin salinity abat~ri1ent and the- ~f _per unit of salinity reduction expected from specific ptopo~ projeCts have beeo'deyeloped by -the responSible federal age:ilpies. but no. project-by-project eyaluation has been published. We find a -co_oceptual b~is - for a .substaIltial downward - revision of prospective - economic benefits of salinity abatement. .Revised benefits are _compared with estimated costs, and orily for. five' of the nineteen projeCts do. eConom1c, benefits appear" to. exceed. costs. . Salinity (di~~olved~olids) in the Colo- rado River adversely affect~ over .12 mil- lion people and one million iiTigated acr~. Large quantitie~ of d~olved ~alt~ enter the river from natural ~ourc~, including ~alt ~pring~, and from the ~urface runoff. from the sedimentary geologic formation~ common throughout theb~in. Man'~ac- tivitie~. particularly crop irrigation caus- ing~aline return flow~, add to the natural salt load. Water use and evaporation from ~torage r~ervoir~. concentrate~ existing ~alt~ into a ~maller volume of water. The U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency (1911) attribut~ 37 percent of the total ~alt load todiffu~e irrigation return flow~, Richard L. GlU"dner, _ fOnrterly at cOlorado St~te tJni~ vetsity, is an economist with the executive" office of the Gov~rhor. -State o'{ Id.aho, Boise. RQbert A. Y oi.mg is a Professor of Agricultural and NatQral Resource Economics, Colorado Stat~ Univei':;ity, Fort Collins. This article derives front Richard-L. C_ardoer's doc- toral dissertation, whiGh was supported by a _gra.ht from Resources for .th~ future. Inc. We wish 'to thank. Frank Robinson (Unjven;it.Y of Californhl) and Keith Mayberry of the ImPerial County'Extension staff for ~istance with -the J\grlcwtutal Model, and Roger. Mann, William M~lrtin. Thomas Miller and two anonylxlolis i'e_viewers for their _stiggestionS on earli~r drafts. The authOI$ are._ resPonsible "for the policy conclusions and any remaining errors, . Western JOfJmal of Agricultural Econ.orrifc8, 10(1): 1-12 o 1985 by th.e We$tem ~gricultural Economics AssocIatio~ primarily from Upper B~in oourceS, while 55 percent is assigned to natural ~urface runoff .and groundwater flows. Most of the . balarice aris~ from r~ervoir<evaporation, ~ industrial and municipal contribution~ are negligible. .. The Colorado River B~in Salinity Con- trol Act of 1974 authorized con~truction of works, mo~tly to be in the Upper B~in, to control the ~alinity of waters delivered to user~ in the United States and Mexico. Thi~ act W~ in re~pon~e to rising concern~ in Mexico and In the Lower B~in ~tate~ of California, Arizona and Nevada. How- . ever, in th~ intervening decade, expected incre~e~ in ~alinity have failed tomateri- alize, and forec~ts of future salinity level~ have repeatedly been lowered. Th~e re" vi~ion~preceded or. were independent of the large drop~ in db~erved ~alinity leveb which followed the extremely high river flows in 1983 and 1984. . The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) 'wa~ given the lead role in implementing the Colorado- River Water Quality Im~ provement Program in Title II of the bill. Four unit~ were authorized forcon~truc- tion and twelve for inv~tigation. The Im~ proveme!lt Pri>gram employ~ anumberof technologie~ -to reduce ~alt pickup from . <~i!f;i<"d:;Jj<';f:;~ .... .' :::>, :'~f;?--:-.'::_-;~ -- -~-> ','; - -.'::'.".- ~\ ,.,'--' , .::~ . '-,L-, -::;.;-,.' - -. _~..:~->::~-;:.\.}:.:,r/.~.: :~~:~:;:~i-~~~:Zl~~~~t '~.~,;~;f.~,~~.\\