Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.:. <br />~ <br />o <br />to <br /> <br />acres by the assumed crop flexibil ity constraints. Such a muted response is <br />plausible for two reasons. The very small size of the average land holding <br />Occurs because many operators are part-time farmers who are less likel y to <br />favor land retirement due to their nonpecuniary objectives. Community <br />perceptions of the importance of indirect economic impacts of reduced <br /> <br />agricultural output may also create resistance to the land retirement option. <br />Several other constraints on these irrigation options also 1 imited the <br />model to reasonably realistic solutions. First, a minimum requirement of 5,000 <br />acres of 1 ined ditch represented the field improvements already in place. <br />Other constraints reflect potential rates of adoption of new pol iciesand <br />practices in the valley. No more than 90~ of the remaining 45,000 acres could <br /> <br />receive any type of improvement. Some farmers may not wish to improve thei I' <br /> <br />systems, and investments on some marginal lands may not be economical. In <br />addition, at most 30% (15,000 acres) could be irrigated with labor-intensive- <br /> <br />management techniques such as manual cutback or shorter sets. Finally, <br /> <br />cablegation was constrained to 10,000 acres. Despite its significant cost <br />advantages, cablegation is most economical on fields of 30 or more acres, which <br />are scarce in the Grand Valley. In scme cases, combining fields would require <br />laser levelling at additional cost. <br /> <br />Irrigation labor requ i rements were based on estimates by extension <br /> <br />irrigaticn specialists. Projected labor savings from automated systems may be <br />optimistic, if operators fail to trust the new technology and check fields <br />repeatedly. Where labor was required beyond the average cf 5.5 hours per acre, <br /> <br />and overtime wage of $7.50 per hour was assessed, rather than $5.00. This <br /> <br />shadow wage compensated for the inconven ience of mak i ng shorter irrigation <br />sets. <br /> <br />8 <br />