Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />do not represent an opportunity for real savings, rather water <br />conservation measures may simply alter the present hydrologic <br />structure to the detriment of other users (human or wildlife) <br />dependent upon such waters. Therefore, conservation measures <br />which reduce losses to recoverable sources mayor may not be <br />desirable. <br /> <br />The illustration helps identify some of the potential inter- <br />related impacts, benefits and costs of tmplementing different <br />agricultural water conservation measures where losses are <br />recoverable. For example, the off-farm conveyance system would <br />be more efficient if canals and laterals were lined to reduce <br />seepage, and/or if a tailwater recovery system were installed to <br />recirculate return flows. However, seepage recharges the local <br />ground water table, and its elimination may cause water levels <br />contiguous to the delivery system to decline. This may increase <br />the pumping lift or dry up the well, and perhaps also the wetlands. <br /> <br />Increasing the on-farm application efficiency of irrigation <br />systems can reduce water use and related costs due to excessive <br />leeching and runoff of fertilizer and pesticides. This can improve <br />farm profits and alleviate non-point source water pollution problems. <br />Greater efficiency can also reduce farm energy costs, particularly <br />where ground water pumping is the water supply. In addition, <br />reducing deep percolation may maintain land productivity where <br />a perched water table is a problem. However, water in excess of <br />crop usage sometimes needs to be applied to leach soil salts to <br />maintain productivity. <br /> <br />J~ <br />