Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,001[155 <br /> <br />Q: Why the reference to net income of the districts? <br /> <br />A: I am groping for some limitation on the amount of reduction of water applied to the land <br /> <br />in order to distinguish conservation from a simple purchase and dry-up of agricultural land. <br /> <br /> <br />Maybe there's a better way of distinguishing .conservation" from simple purchases or sales <br /> <br />resulting in dry-ups. California law speaks in terms of .surplus. water. <br /> <br />Q: Give some examples of agricultural water conservation. <br /> <br />A: Agricultural water conservation can involve anything from more careful irrigation scheduling, . <br /> <br /> <br />shortening furrow lengths and other more precise methods of matching applied water to soil <br /> <br /> <br />needs, crop changes (from water-intensive to less water-intensive), changing irrigation methods <br /> <br /> <br />(from furrow to sprinkler to drip) and so on. <br /> <br />Q: Do you view water conservation by irrigation districts and their customers as a valid social <br /> <br />policy objective? <br /> <br />A: Yes, but not without qualifications. Conservation, like any other social policy objective, has <br /> <br /> <br />to be tested against the criterion of whether the benefits achieved by the conservation outweigh <br /> <br /> <br />its costs. In some places in the West, conservation by irrigation districts and their customers <br /> <br /> <br />will produce significant net social benefits. For example, conservation by irrigation districts on <br /> <br />the West side of the San Joaquin Valley in California will undoubtetlly produce benefits <br /> <br /> <br />measured in the reduction of agricultural drainage, in reduced threats to wildlife, in potential <br /> <br />20 <br />