My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01548
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01548
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:31:35 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:31:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.106
Description
Animas-La Plata
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
7
Date
7/1/1987
Author
EPI
Title
An Analysis of the Animas-La Plata Project - Durango-Colorado - July 1987
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.
/
121
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 />Class 1 Arable Lands are highly suitable for irrigation <br />farming and are capable of producing sustained and <br />relatively high yields of a wide range of climatically <br />adapted crops at reasonable cost. <br /> <br />Class 2 Arable lands are of moderate suitability for <br />irrigation farming, being measurably lower than class 1 in <br />productive capacity, adapted to somewhat narrower range of <br />crops, more expensive to prepare for irrigation, and more <br />costly to farm. <br /> <br />Class 3 Arable Lands are suitable for irrigation development <br />but are approaChing marginality for irrigation and are of <br />restricted suitability because of more limiting deficiencies <br />in the soil, topographic, or drainage characteristics than <br />described for Class 2 lands. <br /> <br />Class 6 lands include those considered permanently <br />non-arable because of their failure to meet the minimum <br />requirements for an arable class. This helps explain the <br />large federal investment per acre. <br /> <br />~~e benefit analvsis that was conducted on the irriaation- <br />__rtion of the ~roiect was based UDon levels of Droduction <br />and manaaement excected 20 vears after water is first <br />delivered (emphasis added). <br /> <br />. It has been assumed in the farm-budget analysis that in <br />order to stay in the business of farming, a farmer would <br />have to utilize the latest methods and technology, nearly <br />optimal amounts of fertilizer and water would have to be <br />applied, and hired labor would be kept at a minimum. <br /> <br />The Bureau indicated that the level of management presently <br />found in the irrigated part .of the project is considered <br />as average or even slightly below when compared to national <br />management levels in agriculture. Nevertheless, the above <br />two assumptions were also included for the two Indian <br />Tribes. <br /> <br />Payment for Irrigation <br /> <br />According to the Project Data Sheets the payment capacity <br />per acre is $41.55: $40.00 for annual operation and <br />maintenance costs and $1.55 for repayment of construction <br />costs. The irrigators will pay an additional $5.45 for <br />water, bringing their total repayment per acre to $47.00. <br /> <br />During the time the Farm Management Survey was conducted <br />on the project (WhiCh provides the background for the <br />irrigation repayment), the farm mortgage and loan situation <br />was very good (late 1970'S). Most of the farmer. in the <br />project area who had demonstrated ~eir managerial ability <br /> <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />,; <br /> <br />~ <br />~ <br />y <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />o <br /> <br />f' <br /> <br />,I <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />, I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.