Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . . <br />(.:0 <br />In <br />('I'") <br /><;::;. PART 3 <br />:"') <br />,.:::) <br /> ECONOMIC MON nOR I NG AND EVALUAT!ON <br /> <br />OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY <br /> <br />The field portion of the Grand Valley Salinity Project (GVSP) economic <br />monitoring effort was initiated in June of 1985. Development of a <br />worksheet to prov i de cons i stent i nformati on about the pub Ii c and <br />private impacts of the sal inity program began at that time. Publ ic <br />impacts refer to the effects of GVSP on the salt load carried by the <br />Colorado River. Private impacts refer to the net income effect for <br />producers who invest in GV::;;P sa Ii n i ty contro I measures. <br /> <br />The overa II data gather i ng scheme i nvo I ves co II ect i ng base line <br />information on the farmer's total production system in conjunction <br />with the planning process. Comparative data is gathered during <br />follow-up visits that reveal farm operation changes. <br /> <br />To date, 35 sites have been evaluated for before improvement <br />information with 19 follow-up studies completed. Follow up data has <br />been gathered on 6 orchards and 15 field crop sites. The field crop <br />farms range in size from 5.3 to 900 acres and average around 200 <br />acres. The fields being monitored on these farms range from 2.0 to 75 <br />acres with an average size of 25 acres. Orchards range In size from 5 <br />to 19.6 acres with a 10 acre average. Fields are from 2.5 to 7.5 <br />acres, the average being 6.0 acres. <br /> <br />The economic monitoring sites are scattered from the Vinelands in the <br />east to the western end of the Grand Va II ey and I ay on both sides of <br />the river. AI I three major irrigation canals--Orchard Mesa, Grand <br />Valley, and Government Hlghl ine are uti I ized by members of the data <br />set. A variety of crops and production systems typical of the Grand <br />Valley are being sampled. <br /> <br />At this stage, the economic monitoring results are preliminary, the <br />impact trends identified in the first worksheets are still holding. A <br />limited number of follow-up interviews on additional sites and prior <br />interviewed sites were completed in 1989. The range of observed <br />changes and the averages for on-farm benef i ts from app I y i ng sa Ii n i ty <br />practices appear quite reasonable overal I. Findings indicate that on- <br />farm benef i ts are be i ng rea I i zed and that pub Ii c benef i ts are be i ng <br />ach i eved in a cost effect i ve manner. The data more re Ii ab I y <br />demonstrates the direction of change than the magnitude of the change. <br /> <br />32 <br />