Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Table VI- 2. Annual Penalty Costs for Water Quality Degradation for . <br />Water Used in Agriculture, Lower Colorado Basin, 1960 to 20LO. <br /> <br /> - <br />..t:. Lower <br />0 Agriculture Main Southern Gila <br />I-' Penalty Costs Stem California Area Total <br />en <br /> I $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 <br /> $ 2,423.0 $10,072.1 $ 245.7 $12,740.8 <br /> Difect <br /> Indirect 2,237.2 6,194.5 125.4 8,557.1 <br /> TOTAL $4,660.2 $16,266.6 $ 371.1 $21,297.9 <br /> Source: ' EPA, Appendix B, p. 156. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />17 <br />equal, so that as Young, et al. point out, the major difference must <br />lie in things like a reduced doub1e- cropping acreage and large (perhaps <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />incorrectly excessive) water application on high value crops. <br /> <br />Valentine ] 8 has modified the USBR- Sun estimates to account for <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />recent projections that future water uses in the Upper Colorado River <br /> <br />Basin and the accompanying impacts on the river's salinity will be due <br /> <br />more to energy resource developments than irrigated agriculture. He <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />assumed that there would be no control of salinity other than in those <br /> <br />measures involved in use of the water. See Tables VI-3 and VI-4'. <br /> <br />Note that the agricultural detriments listed in Table VI-3 amount <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />to a total of $117,000 per mg/l/year, which is slightly above the USBR <br /> <br />estimate. Since the agricultural detriments are slightly 1es s than half <br /> <br />the total in Table VI-3, the agricultur,al damages are also a little less <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br />. <br />