Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />o <br />~ <br />I-" <br /> <br />change and over various irrigators if the taxes are to be efficient. This <br /> <br />w?uld complicate the administration of the taxation program and the benefits <br /> <br />mayor may not be worth this costly complexity. <br /> <br />Finally, there is a long history in this country of public subsidy to <br /> <br />various kinds of on-farm agricultural conservation programs. Projects <br /> <br />to conserve water by preventing waste and reducing consumptive use are <br /> <br />cases in point. Subsidies have been paid to line ditches and canals, and <br /> <br />to install more efficient irrigation technology and equipment. These <br /> <br />practices may reduce salt loading as well as produce beneficial concentrations <br /> <br />effects. <br /> <br />If the investment subsidized is made on-farm, and the irrigator bears <br /> <br />the full costs, the expected result would be a downward and leftward shift <br /> <br />of MNB as well as a downward and rightward shift of MED. If so, the private <br /> <br />optimum will be less than OA', but the social optimum might be more or less <br /> <br />than OA , depending on the relative shifts of MED and MNB. The result <br />e <br />of the investment would probably move the private optimum closer to <br /> <br />the social optimum. But the irrigator would have no incentive to make the <br /> <br />investment to hurt himself in order to aid downstream users. A good <br /> <br />argument thus exists for public subsidy to pay for the social improvement <br /> <br />downstream. As with public investment to improve quality off-farm discussed <br /> <br />earlier, on-farm subsidies should be given to make quality improvements <br /> <br />if social benefits of the improvement exceed the total resource costs. <br /> <br />The distribution of the costs of the improvement should be as equitable <br /> <br />19 <br />