My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02016
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:33:57 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:49:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8271.300
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - General Information and Publications-Reports
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1981
Author
R Evans W Walker
Title
Optimizing Salinity Control Strategies for the Upper Colorado River Basin -- Part 2 of 2 - Page 187 - end -- Appendices
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.
/
109
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 />o <br />C) <br />to <br />...... <br /> <br />-209- <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 />II <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />the Stage One and on-farm improvements throughout the valley. <br />The SCS is estimating total costs of automated surface irri- <br />gation systems ranging from $30-$50/m for a pipeline-gated <br />pipe system and $30-$40/m for an automated concrete ditch <br />system. The only sprinkler systems which are presently <br />eligible for cost sharing are the very expensive buried <br />sQlid-set systems. <br />At the present time, the Agricultural Conservation and <br />Stabilization Service is cost sharing on a 90-10 percent <br />ratio for automated systems, making even these high costs <br />less than total farmer financing costs for conventional <br />systems. However, if the ASCS reverts back to the more <br />common 75-25 percent cost sharing ratio, the automation <br />program will not be as acceptable because the 25 percent <br />costs are the comparable or greater than the full cost of <br />conventional concrete ditch linings and siphon tube systems <br />which the farmers in that area generally prefer. <br />Skogerboe (1980) indicates that most of the automation <br />installed in the Grand Valley is not being used as automated, <br />but as traditional systems. Thus, the anticipated benefits <br />of increased efficiencies due to automation have not materi- <br />alized. And, until water supplies become limiting in the <br />area, it is doubtful that automation would be generally <br />accepted. This lack of acceptance of automation is also <br />partially due to little technical assistance and follow <br />through by the SCS and other agencies. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.