Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />C\/ <br />'..0 <br />i.',J <br />....-j <br />. ::> <br />(.;) <br /> <br />cropped. In addition, twelve early action irrigation and flood <br /> <br />control watershed projects were included for 2000 and 2020 and an ad- <br /> <br />ditional thirty-four long range irrigation projects were included <br /> <br />for 2020. <br /> <br />It was not necessary to make special comparison runs for the <br /> <br />alternate plan because the (NED) runs served this purpose. The 2000 and <br /> <br />2020 (NED) runs carried the same watershed projects as the (ALT) runs, <br /> <br />the only difference being that the NED runs required 1.0 acres of land <br /> <br />per acre of center pivot irrigation. Production in the comer areas <br /> <br />was therefore assUllled and the net return comparison could be made <br /> <br />utilizing these runs. <br /> <br />The assumption was made that the cost and returns in the comer <br /> <br />areas were the same as in thil center circular areas. Also, no costs <br /> <br />were assUllledfor establishing and maintaining the corner, cover. Subsequent <br /> <br />information revealed this noe to be the case. Because the computer <br /> <br />funds on the project were used up and the computer programmer's time <br /> <br />was allocated to other projects; an adjustment scheme to. reflect center <br /> <br />area and comer costs and returns and corner permanent cover costswas <br /> <br />developed. This was considered legitimate since the cropping patterns, <br /> <br />projects and center pivot irrigation were tightly locked into the LP <br /> <br /> <br />solutions. (The projections were primarily made outside the model and <br /> <br />the model was used primarily for accounting purposes.) <br /> <br />The net return difference adjusl:IIIent procedure was as follows: <br /> <br />The net return differences were factored downward using a ratio <br /> <br />- J - <br />