Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Cj <br />-J <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />it is reductions in the size or number of such projects that would be the <br />source of Upper Basin impacts~ <br /> <br />The economic and social impacts on the Upper Basin of reductions in <br />exports are apt to be insignificant. So few people are requited to operate <br />and maintain a transbasin diversion system that the economic and social <br />impacts of reducing the need for such facilities would probably not be <br />noticeable, whether beneficial or adverse. Reductions in the projected <br />exports of water out of the Upper Basin would result in increased stream <br />flows in amounts equal to the reductions. These increases would occur <br />primarily during the spring runoff months since that is the time when <br />projected new transbasin diversions, with their relatively junior water <br />rights, would generally have to divert and/or store water. <br /> <br />Insofar as filisheries and recreational opportunities are concerned, <br />increased stream flows could lead to changes if habitat and recreational <br />conditions relative to what would otherwise be the case. However, since <br />the river most impacted by the postulated levels of EET development, the <br />White River, is not projected to ve a source of future exports, there would <br />be no opportunity to improve fishery conditions or recreational opport- <br />unities relative to what they might otherwise be. <br /> <br />Impacts of Improving the Efficiency of Irrigated Agriculture. A <br />reduction in water diverted for irrigation should result in reduced <br />costs for the irrigator. In most cases, crop production increases <br />should also result from improvements in irrigation water use and manage- <br />ment. Finally, better on-farm management of water would generally result <br />in less soil, fertilizer, and pesticide loss; in increases in the yield <br />and quality of crops; and probably in reductions in labor. Of course, <br />costs would also be incurred in order to implement improvements in effic- <br />iency of use, which costs were mentioned previously. <br /> <br />Another potentially important impact would be reductions in salinity, <br />the economic consequences of which would be realized pr~marily in the <br />Lower Basin. These impacts would take the form of reductions in the costs <br />caused by salinity damage to crop yields, municipal water supply systems, <br />and so on. <br /> <br />Given the relatively small reductions in consumption to which assumed <br />improvements in irrigation practices would lead (120,000 to 140,000 acre- <br />feet per year for the entire Upper Basin), it is anticipated that there <br />would be no significant changes in fishery habitat conditions and recreational <br />opportunities relatiNe to the conditions which would prevail were such <br />improvements not undertaken. This is not to say, however, that there would <br />be no significant environmental impacts. To the contrary, implementation <br />of more efficient irrigation water management methods could significantly <br /> <br />cxxii <br />