Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />