Laserfiche WebLink
<br />/~~ <br />. \\~~] <br /> <br />.July 1985 - <br /> <br />.s(~' <br /> <br />.iU. <br />.(m;~;' . i <br />Imperlal Valley Model: Selected Resource Constraints and Requirements, <br /> <br />.... <br />CD <br />...J <br />..;;:.. <br /> <br />TABLE 1, <br /> <br /> Waier <br /> Proportional Constralntsb Require- <br /> 800 Mgn~er 1,100 Mg/llter menta <br /> (Acre- <br />Acreage Constraints Mlnl- Maxi- Mini- Maxi- Feetl <br />Minimum Maximum mum mum mum mum Acre) <br /> 580,000 <br /> 140,000 <br /> .310,000 <br /> 100,000 <br />30,000 <br /> 2,566,000 <br />150,000 30 40 30 50 6.3 <br /> 60,000 10 10 5.4 <br />22,000 35,000 30 40 30 40 3.2 <br />35,000 50,000 3 10 3 10 7.1 <br />100,000 10 30 10 30 2.7 <br />2,500 4,000 0 0 5.8 <br />1,000 4,000 65 75 65 90 4.7 <br />4,500 7,500 60 80 60 90 4.1 <br />4,500 7,500 60 80 60 90 2.5 <br />6,000 8,000 100 100 5.8 <br />37,000 45,000 . 65 75 65 90 3.8 <br />4,500 7,500 100 100 4.7 <br />1,500. 3.500 85 90 7.4 <br />1,000 5.000 60 80 60 90 3.4 <br /> <br />,~p::.~. <br />e':;:j;?i <br /> <br />Western Journal of Agricultural Economics <br /> <br />Land Constraints <br />Crop~ <br />Well drained land <br />Poorly drained land. <br />Doublecropped, well . <br />drained land' <br />Doublecropped, poorly <br />drained land <br />Water Constraint <br />. (Acre-feet) <br />Crop Constraints <br />Alfalfa' <br />Cotton <br />Sudangrass <br />Sugar Beet~ <br />Wheat <br />Asparagus <br />Broccoli <br />Spring Canteloupe <br />Fall Canteloupe <br />Carrots <br />. Lettuce <br />Onions <br />Tomatoes <br />Watermelon <br /> <br />. Alfalfa establishment requirement-1-acre establishment. for every 3 acres alfalfa. <br />b Percentage of total crop acreage grown on well.drained land. <br />e Acre-:feet per acre of water appll~ "to'. field. ." <br /> <br />were adju~ted to make implied aggregate <br />water u~e match hi~torical deliverie~. <br />Agricultural benefit e~timate~. Benefit~ <br />are defined in term~ of anmlal "damage~. <br />avoided" per mg/liter reduction in ~alt <br />concentration. Damage~ are mea~ured by <br />compari~on of annual net returns to land, <br />water, management and risk at various sa- <br />linity level~. <br />The re~ult~ from the 800 and 1,100 mg/ <br />liter model~ ~how that the increa~e of 300 <br />mg/liter cau~ed return~ to land, managec <br />ment, and ri~k to decline by $113.4 mil- <br />lion, equivalent to an average of $46,300 <br />per mg/liter. By way of compari~on, the <br />Moore et al. damage e~timate~ (converted <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />to 1982 dollar~) amount to $34,380 per <br />mg/liter between 480 and 960 mg/liter . <br />and $52,870 per mg/liter from 960 to. <br />1,280 mg/liter. USBl\ (1980:8)e~timated <br />a verage ~alinity damage in the 800 to <br />1,110 mg/liter .\0 be $15,600 in 1982 dol- <br />lar~. (The large difference here appcar~ to <br />~tem from the use in our model of pro- <br />portional con~traint~ to limit cropping <br />pattern adjustment~ and to the fact that <br />USBR did not extrapolate higher yield~ on <br />the be~t ~oil from the average valley wide <br />yield, which led to ~maller ab~olute yieH <br />decrements.) <br />The $46,300 per mg/liter damage~ in <br />the Imperial Valley can be extended to <br /> <br />?J/rf~~~:?;:?~:!~i~~< ~.f)J;: <br />-::t:-.-(~.~. c-' ?:~.):t':~i>~-(<-~:; <br /> <br />'--:". <br /> <br />"fc.- <br /> <br />.-,". .'. <br />__. ._. .:.._;.~ .. _t~.~. <br />. )". ..' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />~~4f. ~'!l; <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />.- -, .\:.~' :. .. . <br />. ..:~~;:-- .,:;-_..:...~.;:~.:<~-;: <br />. - . ':_.:~," :;.-:. <br />. . > ~+ ' .' .. <br /> <br />