Laserfiche WebLink
<br />..,". <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />~':f1(:~ ~.'" ~ <br />u ',.) ..:. j ;.1 e~ <br /> <br />alternative management strategies.* The results of the B-3 studies have been <br />used extensively in the state assessments of the Baseline and Management <br />Strategies One and Two (MS-l and MS-2). <br /> <br />In relation to the selection of specific agricultural and water manage- <br />ment and technological practices by the individual states for their assess- <br />ment of alternative management strategies, there is no consistent or uniform <br />set of practices with equal relevance to all states, crops, climatic or <br />cultural conditions. A unique set was selected for each state or sub-state <br />area, by major cropping system or other control factor (soils, topography, <br />water supply, etc). Although the management/technologic practices themselves <br />are highly specific to local controlling factors, the relative effectiveness <br />(impacts) of each practice on such variables as water use rates, costs, crop <br />yields and associated input requirements is reasonably consistent from state <br />to state and was used to provide comparability and regional consistency in <br />state analysis. <br /> <br />In-state sources of informed judgment, knowledgeable about local <br />cropping practices, climatic conditions, soil characteristics and other <br />constraining factors helped make the initial selection of practices or tech- <br />nologies considered most relevant and practical for achieving objective <br />levels of reduced unit water demand and/or conservation, for each state and <br />sub-state area. These selections were made in consultation with the General <br />Contractor, and then quantified to establish consistent values for changes <br />or effects in water use rates and other production requirements, crop yield <br />effects, or other significant variables. Qualified state practitioners and <br />researchers insured that values established for selected practices were con- <br />sistent with their own state's findings and results. Although there were <br />differences in effects or costs of practices from state to state, a reason- <br />able range for such changes was established to provide regional consistency <br />to the ana lys is. <br /> <br />The characteristics and estimated effects of practices, as <br />following sections, were used to promote regional consistency. <br /> <br />outlined in <br />Of necess ity, <br /> <br />* See Appendi x "A". <br /> <br />xxii <br />