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 />efficiency viewpoint. be pursued until the marginal costs of removing a ton of <br /> <br /> <br />salt equal the marginal damages avoided by its removal.S <br /> <br />~ <br />~ <br />N <br />Q <br /> <br />UDstream Water Users' RiQhts - If irrigators continue their traditional <br /> <br /> <br />cropping practices with no 1 iab 11 ity for salt accumul ating in the rfver. then <br /> <br /> <br />potential beneficiaries of salinity control would be required to pay program <br /> <br /> <br />costs. In fact, they would be expected to pay up to the point where marginal <br /> <br /> <br />damages avoided equal marginal costs. <br /> <br />As estimated elsewhere. (Gardner and Young), downstream irrigators suffer <br /> <br />damages amounting to $4 per ton of salt in irrigation water. while municipal <br />interests would be willing to pay as much as $22 per ton. Upper Sasin farmers <br />would only willingly pay for labor savings and productivity increases resulting <br /> <br />from the program. The federal government under this entitlement scenario would <br /> <br />only pay for benefits accruing to the nation asa whole. This might include <br /> <br /> <br />the cost of meeting salinity agreements with Mexico. <br /> <br />A Svnthesis - An intermediate view compromises the conflicting entitlement <br /> <br />pos it ions, contend i ng that there a re good reasons for both upstream and <br /> <br />downstream water users to share the cost of salinity control (see also <br /> <br />Marshall). Downstream users receive the benefits from sal inity control and <br /> <br />also share some responsib11 ity for causation through reservoir evaporation. <br /> <br />The estimated benefits to Lower Sasin interests of each option studied here are <br />shown as negative costs in tables 3 and 4. As remarked above. the federal <br />estimates may overstate municipal damages from salinity, rendering them an <br />upper bound on potential will ingness-to-pay. A substantial Lower Basin <br />contribution toward sal inity control costs would provide evidence that the <br />abatement program is valued by beneficiaries. <br /> <br />19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.