My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04422
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04422
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:55:24 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:19:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8443
Description
Narrows Unit
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
4/5/1976
Author
David L Carlson
Title
Narrows Project Review
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />" <br /> <br />,." ~f.'. I <br />'t " , 'oj <br />.1............ ... <br /> <br />'..f <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />3. ~ Bureau of Reclamation's analysis of indirect and public benefits and <br /> <br />losses is incomplete, and irrigation benefits ~ overstated. <br /> <br />Indirect economic losses resulting from the Narrows project are inaccurately <br /> <br />calculated in the Bureau's 1966 study (reference I), the latest scudy for which <br /> <br />detailed information is available. The Bureau claims adverse effects only for <br /> <br />dryland acreage inside the take area, agruing that indirect economic losses <br /> <br />incurred by removing irrigated acres from production inside the take area will <br /> <br />be matched by indirect economic benefits generated by shifting the water to the <br /> <br />project surface area. This agrument is highly questionable for the following <br /> <br />reasons. <br /> <br />First of all, in its calculation of indirect losses (and benefits). the <br /> <br />Bureau considers only "forward linkages:," ,that is, economic activity generated <br /> <br />by the processing of the additional agricultural products produced from project <br /> <br />water (page 71, reference 1). However, "backward linkages"--economic activity <br /> <br />generated within the economic secto!s supplying tractors) fertilizer, seed, <br /> <br />irrigation pipe and other inputs for production--are not considered, and such <br /> <br />backward linkage losses will likely be greater in the take area than in the <br /> <br />service area. The difference between these backward linkage losses and gains <br /> <br />is a cost of the project and should be deducted from irrigation benefits. <br /> <br />Secondly, the value of dryland production on each irrigated acre inside <br /> <br />the take area destined to be removed from agricultural production needs to be <br /> <br />included as an adverse effect. Picture an acre of ground in the take area, <br /> <br />presently irrigated, destined for removal from production. Then picture an <br /> <br />acre of agricultural land in the project service area to which the water applied <br /> <br />to the first acre will be "moved." Before the project, both acres are in pro- <br /> <br />duction--one irrigated, the other partially irrigated or dry. After the project, <br /> <br />there is only one acre in production--the irrigated acre in the service area. <br /> <br />-6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.