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 />from Table 4, a marginal water charge of $28 per acre foot combfned with a <br />system construction subsidy of 40~ yields a reduction of over 138,000 tons of <br />~ salt at a net social cost of $9.68 per ton. The farmer shares $4.80 (about <br />~ <br />~ half) of the social cost. The farmer's share could be further lowered to 40% <br />-.J <br />if the subsidy were raised to 47~, while the model solution remains unchanged. <br />Alternatively, the farmer's cost share could be increased .to 60~ by raising the <br />lnframarglnal water price from $4.00 to $4.93 per acre foot. Pragmatlcally, <br />thls flexlbllity ln cost distributlon may be worth some efflciency loss and <br />addltlonal admlnlstrative expense. Greater reductlons ln salt dlscharges than <br />for taxes alone are also possible wfthout substantfal dlsruptions of <br />agrlculture. The Grand Valley could lower its salt load by over 60% wfth a <br />number of tax/subsidy comblnations llsted in tables 3 and 4. <br /> <br />Water Rental. A water conservation subsidy can, fn theory, yield the same <br /> <br />pollution reductlon as a tax on effluent. Applylng thls idea to inputs, a <br /> <br /> <br />subsldy pald to reduce irrigation water appllcation rates would likely <br /> <br /> <br />encourage reduced salt discharges (table 4). This conservation subsfdy is <br /> <br />analogous to a water rental market; it confronts the user with an opportunfty <br />cost for water use at the margln. However, the water would be left ln the <br />stream, ellmlnating salt pickup and water dfstributlon costs. This approach is <br />very slmilar to the water bank, or water rights purchase program, proposed by <br />Howe and Orr as a sallnity control pollcy. <br />As expected, both the predicted farmer response and the net social costs <br />of sallnlty control are the same as those predicted through irrlgation water <br />taxes. Note ln Table 4 that an fncreasing block water tax of $4.00 and $27.75 <br />produces the same 93,970 salt reduction at a $9.17 net social cost per ton as a <br />$4.00 and .$14.00 water tax combined with a $13.75 per acre foot water <br /> <br />16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.