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 />o <br />lo"" <br />C..H <br /> <br />to preserve salt balance over a longer term. The leaching <br /> <br />fraction is selected on the basis of short-term profit and thus <br /> <br />may underestimate long-term damages. <br /> <br />(2) The diversion requirements are overstated due to an error in <br /> <br />calculation. <br /> <br />(3) The model fails to predict crop acreages (as between crops) in <br /> <br />a reliable way. Heavy water-using crops are minimized. <br /> <br />(4) There is no attempt to work out alternative production and water <br /> <br />management practices such as use of sprinklers, additional drainage, <br /> <br />or soil management methods. <br /> <br />16 . <br />The EPA proJects that the change in quality of water from 1960 to <br /> <br />2010 will amount to an increase from 759 mg. 1 at Imperial Dam to 1223 <br /> <br />mg/l or an increase of 464 mg/l. They estimate for this period that the <br /> <br />increase in agricultural damages will amount to a total of $21,297,900, <br /> <br />or $45,900 per mg/l/ycar. See Table VI-2. <br /> <br />The EPA study is based on accepting loss of income through declines <br /> <br />in crop yields because farmers would not likely take corrective action to <br /> <br />combat rising salinity. They admit that their estimates of penalty costs <br /> <br />or damages may be lower than being experienced at the present time. <br /> <br />By comparison, the USBR-Sun approach gives $108,400 mg/l/year, <br /> <br />or for the same 464 mg/l increment, the loss in income to be expected <br /> <br />would be 464 x 108,400 = $50,297, 600. This difference is so large that <br /> <br />some reasons must be evident. Prices of products are approximately <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br />1.1 <br />