Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />, <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />o <br />w::.. <br />Co\) <br />00 <br /> <br />1, <br /> <br />SECTION 2 <br />CONCLUSIONS <br /> <br />2, <br /> <br />The conceptual model, simple nonlinear optimization and <br />the resulting array of cost-effective salinity control <br />strategies for the Upper Basin represent and illustrate <br />the use of an easily used environmental quality planning <br />tool, <br />Cost-effective salinity control strategies to compensate <br />for new resource development or water transfers into or <br />out of the basin which affect salinity can be easily <br />developed and evaluayed, <br />As new data become available or changes in political <br />attitudes or directives may dictate, the optimal salin- <br />ity control strategies can be easily and continually <br />updated and re-evaluated, <br />The methodology and results indicate with a fair degree <br />of certainty the priority and magnitude of control for <br />each alternative, for each area, and for the basin-wide <br />PL 93-320 salinity control program, <br />Some degree of on-farm improvements and lateral linings <br />are cost-effective in every agricultural area examined <br />in the Upper Basin. However, this must be accompanied <br />by greatly increased technical assistance to the growers <br />by the implementing agency and/or extension personnel. <br />These programs are the most cost-effective and better <br /> <br />3, <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />5, <br />