Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />U.., i' ('! P <br />vv.....J <br /> <br />Economic Analysis. <br /> <br />The ground-water recharge proposal would be a single purpose <br /> <br />irrigation proposal. Some 45,700 acre-feet of water would be made <br /> <br />unavailable to irrigators as a result of the ground-water recharge. <br /> <br />This amount of water would provide an equivalent full water supply to <br /> <br />approximately 22,400 acres of land. A new land equivalent method <br /> <br />of benefit evaluation was used because of the large area which could be <br /> <br />served and the method of service. Wells pumping the ground-water <br /> <br />. could be supplemental to surface supplies or could provide the total <br />supply to a farm thus freeing surface water for use by other irrigators. <br /> <br />This is the same analysis that is utilized on the Narrows Unit with the <br /> <br />exception of on-farm. wells and pump investments. The investment for <br /> <br />wells, pumps, and motors as well as operating costs for them has been <br /> <br />included in the "with" condition farm. budgets. <br /> <br />The benefit analysis is based on projections for 2010, which <br /> <br />indicate that a 2,200-acre farm. will be typical for "without" conditions <br /> <br />and an SSO-acre farm with 301 irrigable acres wi.ll be typical for conditio. <br /> <br />"wi.th" the unit. <br /> <br />Crop Distribution <br /> <br />.., <br />le <br /> <br />Crop distribution is based on county data from the project area. <br /> <br />Major crops were used as representative of .typical farming activities <br /> <br />in the area under "with" project conditions. The following distribution <br /> <br />of irrigated.crops is considered to be representative for the benefit <br />