Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,,' <br /> <br />., <br /> <br />",' <br /> <br />1 .j. Ii C' <br />_'-':"J <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />Data for estimating crop response to a range of available water <br /> <br />was derived from Blank's dissertation [6], which utilized Colorado <br /> <br />State University experimental data (from Fort COllins) supplemented <br /> <br />by references from research performed elsewhere. <br /> <br />4. Procedure <br /> <br />A linear programming model of optimal land and water allocation <br /> <br />was assembled from the Conklin and Blank studies cited above. Two <br /> <br />'different sets of studies were performed. Run Number 1 assumed no <br /> <br />ground water to be available. The model was solved for a range of <br /> <br />surface water supplies ranging from 0.50 acre feet per acre to 2.0 <br /> <br />acre feet per acre. <br /> <br />Other runs repeated the steps of run Number 1 for several sit- <br /> <br />uations assuming ground water to be available in quantities ranging <br /> <br />from 0.50 to 2.25 AF/acre, Water supplies are measured at the farm <br /> <br />headgate or wellhead, assuming 50 percent efficiency. Average growing <br /> <br /> <br />season rainfall is assumed, following Blank's methods. Ground water <br /> <br />is assumed to incur a cost (including both fixed and variable costs) <br /> <br />of 4.50 per acre foot, based on Conklin's report [5]. <br /> <br />Net income represents returns over variable costs, which is re- <br /> <br />turn to land, water, management and risk bearing. <br /> <br />5 . Results <br /> <br />Results are presented in Table 1. It can be seen that water ex- <br /> <br />tremely valuable when it is limited in supply, so that up to 24 inches <br /> <br /> <br />per acre (measured at the headgate, the value is $26.27/AF or greater. <br /> <br />\1hen ground water is available, additional units of surface water be- <br /> <br />come considerably less valuable. For example, the typical situation <br />