|
<br />C)
<br />C,)
<br />~
<br />0'>:
<br />~
<br />e
<br />
<br />LIST OF TABLES
<br />
<br />TlIble
<br />
<br />p....
<br />
<br />1
<br />2
<br />
<br />Summary of yield losses in the Gila and Yuma projects due to inereasing salinity of
<br />irrigation water from the Colorado River .......................,....,............................4
<br />Summary of yield losses on the Colorado Indian Reservation lands due to inereasing
<br />salinityofirrigationwaterfromtheColoradoRiver............,.................................. .5
<br />Summary of yield losses on the Salt River Valley Water Users Association lands due to
<br />increasing salinity of irrigation water from the Central Arizona Projeet. . . . , . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
<br />Summary of yield losses in the SRP supplemental area due to increasing salinity of
<br />irrigation water from the CAP blended into the SRP irrigation system ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .6
<br />Summary of yield losses in the Roosevelt Water Conservation Distriol due to inereasing
<br />salinity of CAP water delivered above Granite Reef Dam and the resulting blend
<br />deliveredtotheRWCD .....,..............,..,................,..................,...,......,.7
<br />Summary of yield losses in the Roosevelt Water Conservation District due to inereasing
<br />salinityofCAPwaterdelivereddirectlyintoRWCDsystem ........,..,..,..................,......7
<br />Summary of yield losses in the Roosevelt Irrigation Distriet due to increasing salinity of
<br />CAP water delivered directly into the RID system. ..........,................................,....8
<br />Summary of yield losses on the distriol part of the San Carlos irrigation project due to
<br />increasing salinity of CAP water delivered directly into the San Carlos irrigation system ...............8
<br />Summary of yield loses on the Indian part of the San Carlos irrigation project due to
<br />increasing salinity of CAP water delivered directly into the San Carlos irrigation
<br />system.....,.............................,..................."..,..,."..,.,............... .9
<br />Summary of yield losses in the Imperial Valley due to increasing salinity of irrigation
<br />water from the Colorado River , ................................,.....,.",.,.................. .10
<br />Summary of yield losses in the Coachella Valley due to increasing salinity of irrigation
<br />waterfrom the Colorado River . .,....,...... ., ...., ..... .. . .' '.,.... .. .. . .. '. .. ....,..... ......11
<br />Summary of yield losses in the Palo Verde Irrigation Distriol due to inereasing salinity
<br />of irrigation water from the Colorado River. . . , , . , . . . . . . . , . . . . , , . . . , . . , . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . .. . . . . . . . .12
<br />Summary of yield losses in the Paeific Coast area due to increasing salinity of irrigation
<br />waterfromtheColoradoRiver...........,..,....,..,....,.,.............".............,...., .18
<br />SeleetedfactorcomparisonhistoricandLPModel900mg/I..,.......,............,..,........... ..14
<br />Comparison of aolual conditions for Imperial Valley in 1974 with LP model solution at 900 mg/I ....... .14
<br />Agricultural damage function estimates, Imperial Valley ...........,..,..,....',................. ,15
<br />Agrieulturaldamages by irrigated area ......,...........,.,....,.....,....,...............,... .16
<br />Totalagrieulturaldamages,.,......,....,....,.,................,.....,..........,........... .16
<br />Applieation ofagricultural damage estimates to project evaluation, . , . . , . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .16
<br />Test for signifieantly diHerentsample means. ..............,....,...........'"...........,..... .21
<br />Regression estimates for length ofaverage lifetime and salinity ...........,....,..,..,.,..,........22
<br />Tabulated responses. .........".........................,....,.,....,...,...,................22
<br />Test for signifieantly different sample means. .........,......,..,.,.,......................,.... ,28
<br />Present value of replacing significant household items over 50-year life . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .28
<br />Typical household unit for selected items: CAP and lower mainstem . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . .24
<br />Annual eost per household per mg/I TDS and total cost per mg/l TDS-Central Arizona
<br />Projeetserviceareaandlowermainstem................,.........,.....,."................... .24
<br />Consequences ofimplementingon-farm nonstruolural salinity controls in the Grand Valley. . . . . . . . . . . . .26
<br />Comparison of T /T p and final salt eoncentration for corn, alfalfa, and oats at various levels
<br />of water application and initial salt concentration .,.........,.......,........,....................28
<br />Comparison of drainage and salt outflow to groundwater for eorn, alfalfa, and oats at
<br />various levels of water application and initial salt concentration ,..,.,.........,....................29
<br />Management decision options utilized in the analysis of aalinity outflow. . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
<br />Calculationofnetcostofsalinityreduolionbyaetivity,.......................,................... .84
<br />Annual benefits per ton ofaaltload reductions ....,."..,..............,........,.,..."......., ,85
<br />Total annual salinity reduction benefits by projeols at various unit benefit levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
<br />
<br />4
<br />5
<br />
<br />6
<br />7
<br />8
<br />9
<br />
<br />10
<br />
<br />11
<br />
<br />12
<br />
<br />18
<br />
<br />14
<br />15
<br />16
<br />17
<br />18
<br />19
<br />20
<br />21
<br />22
<br />28
<br />24
<br />25
<br />26
<br />
<br />27
<br />28
<br />29
<br />80
<br />81
<br />82
<br />33
<br />
<br />xl
<br />
|