My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02054
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02054
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:34:09 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:53:16 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
6/26/1987
Title
Assessing Strategies for Control of Irrigation-Induced Salinity in the Upper Colorado River Basin
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.
/
33
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 />~ <br />. <br />~ <br />c:.n <br /> <br />The allocative efficiency of control strategies depends on how directly <br />the economic incentive achieves the desired behavior. Thus, an effluent tax on <br /> <br />salt discharges would be the most efficfent polfcy tool fn terms of net social <br />cost, because the tax can only be avoided by lowering salt discharges. <br />Influent taxes on irrigation water are less effective due to the imperfect <br />correlation between water use and salt dfscharge. The lowest-cost method to <br />reduce salt loadfng in the Grand Valley is with improved irrfgatfon practfces <br />applfed to corn ffrst, then barley, dry beans, pasture, and ffnally alfalfa. <br />However, water fs conserved most effectfvely by applyfng frrfgatfon changes <br />ffrst to alfalfa and pasture, then corn, and ffnally barley and dry beans. The <br />dffference reduces the effectfveness of fnfluent taxes as a salfnfty control <br />tool. Water rentals (dfscussed below) would achfeve vfrtually the same results <br /> <br />as water taxes. Subsfd f zfng frrfgatfon system fmprovements fs even less <br /> <br />effectfve, because the prfvate economfc fncentive fs to upgrade frrfgatfon <br />infrastructure to conserve labor as well as water. Thfs adds one more linkage <br /> <br />between the incentfve and lower salt discharges, whfle fafling to encourage <br />labor~fntensfve salinity control. <br /> <br />Dls1:rlbu1:1ve IlIlPac1:s of Aba1:IlIIIllII1: S1:r..t-"'t'les <br />Our dfstrfbutive impact analysis measures the burden of costs imposed on <br />each of the groups involved. Differences in distributional effects (Including <br />bo1:h damage costs and abatement expenditures) for a range of. strategies are <br />analyzed fn tables 3 and 4 for their fmpact on (a) Grand Valley farmers, (b) <br />the federal government (f .e., the taxpayers) and (c) the down-river <br /> <br />beneffciarles.7 <br /> <br />(Of course, the cost share attributed here to the government <br /> <br />14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.