Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0, <br />,~O <br />'.\1 <br />....... <br />,'';:) <br />c..) <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />In order to develop a portion of the information needed for the <br /> <br />Colorado Rio Grande Type IV study account displays; the linear pro- <br /> <br />gramming technique was utilized. The study evaluated three different <br /> <br />plans, i.e. National Economic Development (NED), Environmental Quality <br /> <br />(EQ), and an Alternate Plan (ALT). The latter two plans called for a . <br /> <br />unique environmental proposal to transfer the corner areas of center <br /> <br />pivot irrigation systems into wildlife habitat. Such a transfer <br /> <br />results in the loss of crop production in the corners with a resultant <br /> <br />loss of revenue based on 1974 cost and returns and in addition, requires <br /> <br />expense to establish and. maintain the cover. These costs (adverse <br /> <br />effects) were entered in the NED account display for the EQ andALT <br /> <br />plans. <br /> <br />This adverse effect was divided into two parts., First, a given level. <br /> <br />of center pivot irrigation will exist in the future without the adoption <br /> <br />of any of the three plans. The corner losses and costs associated with <br /> <br />this level center pivot irrigation were debited as a line item titled <br /> <br />"output loss due to land conversion." Both the EQ and Alternate Plans <br /> <br />induced other levels .of irrigation which also carried losses and costs. <br /> <br />The discounted and amortized differences between the center pivot losses <br /> <br />and costs from the without plan and the ALT plans were debited against <br /> <br />the irrigation benefit line item in the account. The same procedure was <br /> <br />carried out for the EQ plan. The NED plan did not call for the center <br /> <br />pivot corner conversion, therefore no evaluation was necessary for this <br /> <br />- 1 - <br />