<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 />
|