Laserfiche WebLink
<br />',' <br /> <br />..' <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />R, A, Young <br />~larch 23, 1976 <br /> <br />APPENDIX <br /> <br />"i I}. r~ ',j <br />.' ..:.. v PROJECTED SUPPLEME~TAL IRRIGATION WATER BENEFITS IN <br />THE LONER SOlITH PLAITE VALLEY <br /> <br />1. General <br /> <br />The calculations given in Table 1 are designed to be helpful <br /> <br />in computing direct economic benefits under a range of alternative <br /> <br />conditions, This is necessary since the Bureau does not provide <br /> <br />documentation of their water requirements studies, and particularly <br /> <br />do not support their assertion that gramd water is not presently an, <br /> <br />economical source of water supply for the project area. <br /> <br />2. Concepts <br /> <br />The analysis is based upon concepts specified as appropriate <br /> <br />for Federal water planning [1] and in the water planning literature <br /> <br />[2] [3]. <br /> <br />The benefits are assumed to be measured by the "change in net <br /> <br />income" procedure, which determines net water user income with as <br /> <br />compared'to without the project, <br /> <br />Further calculations introduce <br /> <br />ground water as "the most likely alternative" source of water, and <br /> <br />use the cos t of ground \;ater as an upper bound on benefits to the <br /> <br />extent that this is appropriate. <br /> <br />3. Sources of Data <br /> <br />The calculations in Table 1 assume a 300 acre cash crop farm <br /> <br />in the LOI;er South Platte Valley, based on Conklin's 1974 farm man- <br /> <br />agement survey of the area [4] [5]. Using other farm sizes or types <br /> <br />from his study would result in similar or slightly lower estimates <br /> <br />of benefits, due to smaller farms being less efficient and livestock <br /> <br />farms emphasizing' less valuable feed and forage crops. <br />