Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C) Tables 49 to 60 obtained as in the first 3 parts of this study using <br />;~ tables 46 and 47 and the guidlines for interpretation of quality of water for <br />~ irrigation, Committee of Consultants (1974). <br />OJ The future corase of irrigated agriculture in the San Diego area is some- <br />what clouded. As can be seen in table 61, Montgomery (1974), San Diego CHA <br />is projecting a 58% increase in agricultural demand for water. The Valley <br />Center MHO (1973) projection in table 62 Is equally optimistic. However, this <br />same study shows the total payment capacity per acre foot of water to be <br />$85.39 for avocados and $78.93 for citrus. Two agencies Helix ID and Otay MHD <br />are already charging more than this $95. The projected Increase in charges <br />for 75% blended state water are $15. Another charge of $20/ac ft for filtered <br />water, Montgomery (1974), may be added towards the end of the 1980's. This <br />moves the water price $45/ac ft beyond the vocado growers ability to pay and <br />$52 beyond the citrus grower. <br />As pointed out by John H. Lawton (1974), General Manager of MWD, pumping <br />Colorado River water to the MWD area requires energy equivalent to 3 barrels <br />of poll the state water requires the equivalent of 5 barrels. Desalting <br />Colorado River water requires 10 barrels per acre foot and desalting ocean <br />water 33 barrels. <br />The future cost of obtaining water will reflect the cost of energy. <br />In 1984, for example, on peak pumping of water through the east branch will <br />be $77/acre foot and $45 through the west branch. The average of on and off <br />peak pumping will be $38/acre foot as projected today for the year 2000, <br />Clinton (April 1973). Agriculture's share of this cost may lead to a reduc- <br />tion in farmed acreage and allow farming on only the most productive areas. <br />Since the submission of this report In August, 1974, changes in the <br />planned proportions of pumping state and Colorado River water reflect the <br />cost of power. Approximately 330,000 acre feet of state water are planned <br />as substitute for Colorado River water with a net saving of $10 million in <br />power costs, Lauten (Sept., 1964). <br /> <br />48 <br /> <br />. .J <br />