My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01419
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01419
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:30:55 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:23:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.128.J
Description
Silt Project
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
8/1/1961
Title
Report of the Reappraisal of Direct Agricultural Benefits and Project Impacts - Silt Project-Colorado - Part 2 of 2
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /><:J <br />'\1 <br />'l:t' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />These incomes are available as return to the operator and his family for <br />their management and labor, project irrigation water, and for payment of <br />all operation and maintenance costs. Many farms will have larg~r or smaller <br />net incomes than those shown here. The conclusion from this analysis is that <br />the income prospects for these fully developed farms would be adequate to <br />provide a reasonably satisfactory level of living and to permit some <br />payment for costs of irrigation water. <br /> <br />Relationship Between Farm-Income and Crop-production Budgets <br /> <br />Two types of budgets 'Were used in the ,",conomic analyses of this project. <br />Farm-income budgets were used in appraising the prospects for a successful, <br />stable agriculture and also as a basis for the crop-production budgets used <br />in estimating direct agricultural benei~~s. Cropping patterns assumed in <br />the ben~fit analysis are th~ same as thos~ used in the analysis of pros- <br />pective farm incomes; thus they refl~ct the need for hay, pasture, and other <br />feed crops in livestock enterprises. In the benefit analysis it was assumed <br />that forage crops would be purchased by the livestock enterprises. This <br />assumption also governed estimates of forage prices and cropping patterns. <br /> <br />The estimate of direct agricultural benefits was based on crop-production <br />budgets. The results are shown below by evaluation areas together with <br />benefit estimates based on far",-income budgets. eosts per unit of inputs <br />used in production were the same in the farm-income and crop-production <br />budgets. Distribution of farm types by acreage assumed in both analysis <br />are as follows: (1) With the project--range beef, 26 percent; grade A <br />dairy, 12 percent; feeder calves, 28 percent; farm-flock she~, 16 percent; <br />and cash crop, 18 percent; (2) Without the"project--range beef, 35 percent; <br />grade A dairy, 10 percent; feeder calves, 21 percent; farm-flock sheep, <br />14 percent; and cash crop, 20 percent. Estimates of net direct agricultural <br />benefits are $15.85 per acre for the crop-production budgets and $16.61 <br />per acre for the farm-income budgets. <br /> <br /> Crop-production Farm-income <br />Evaluation area budgets budgets <br />A $16.22 $17.17 <br />B 7.83 8.27 <br />C 25.68 28.81 <br />D 14.62 15.08 <br />E 14.64 17.17 <br />F 11.92 13.60 <br />G 27.15 25.39 <br />H 12.45 10.28 <br />Pump area 21.55 21.55 <br />Project 15.85 16.61 <br /> <br />- 45 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.