|
<br />
<br />C"
<br />("..)
<br />N Table
<br />e')
<br />~ 6.1
<br />00
<br /> 6.2
<br /> 6-3
<br /> 6-4
<br /> 6.5
<br /> 6.6
<br /> 6-7
<br /> 6.8
<br /> 6-9
<br /> 6.10
<br /> 6-11
<br /> 7-1
<br /> 7-2
<br /> 7-3
<br /> 7.3a
<br /> 7-4
<br /> 7-5
<br /> 7.6
<br /> 7-7
<br /> 7.8
<br /> 7-9
<br /> 7-10
<br /> 7-11
<br /> 7-12
<br /> 7-13
<br /> 7-14
<br /> 7-15
<br /> 7-16
<br /> 7-17
<br /> 7-18
<br /> 7-19
<br /> 7-20
<br /> 7-21
<br /> 7-22
<br /> 7-23
<br /> 7.24
<br /> 7-25
<br /> 7-26
<br /> 7-27
<br /> 7-28
<br /> 7-29
<br /> 7.30
<br /> 7-31
<br /> 7.32
<br />
<br />
<br />LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
<br />
<br />Page
<br />
<br />Relative proportion of roots at different depths, increments at maturation assumed
<br />forthecalculations ..........,.,..............,..............,...,....,.."................, .296
<br />Comparison of irrigation water applied and initial salt concentration on relative
<br />transpiration of corn, total water used, drainage, salt flow to the
<br />groundwater, and average final salt concentration. . . . .. . . . , . . . . . . .. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .297
<br />Comparison of irrigation water applied and initial salt concentration of relative
<br />transpiration of alfalfa. T /T ,evapotranspiration, ET, drainage, salt flow to
<br />the groundwater, and averafe final salt coneentration. ......,....................................298
<br />Comparison of irrigation water applied and initial salt concentration on relative
<br />transpiration, for oats, T/Tp' evapotranspiration, ET, drainage, salt flow to
<br />the groundwater, and average final salt concentration. ....,......,............................. ..298
<br />Relative yield of corn, equal to T/Tpot, as influenced by three different values of Cu,
<br />water applied and initial salt concentration ..........,......,.,.........................,...... .301
<br />Relative yield of alfalfa. equal to T /Tpot' as influenced by three different values of Cu,
<br />waterappliedandinitialsaltconeentratlon ..........,.......,.,..................,............ .301
<br />Relative yield of oats, equal to T /T ot, as influenced by three different values of Cu,
<br />waterapplied,andinitialsaltconcenfration.................................................... .302
<br />Relation of time and irrigation rate, for Cu=0.42 (square) to relative transpiration
<br />T /T p' and average salt content Sf at different positions within the uniformity
<br />pattern with beginning soil salinity at 20 meq/1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .302
<br />Predicted yield of crops under sprinkler irrigation by initial salt eontent of soil,
<br />by water application rates .,.,..............,...,....................................,...,.., .303
<br />Predieted yield of erops under flood irrigation by initial content of soil, by water
<br />application rates, .. ,. .. ., .. " .. ., ., .. .. .. ..,.. ,. ,. .. ... ....... .... ,. .... ., .. ........../.... .303
<br />Cost components of crop production by crop and by method of water application, . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . , . . .304
<br />Summary of changes in crop output: California and Arizona, .....................,.,.......".... ,314
<br />Projeeted annual regional ineome losses from an increase in Colorado River salinity. . . . . . .. . . . , . . . . . .314
<br />Regionalincomelosspermg/I ......................,...,............,..........,............ .315
<br />Regionalincomemultipliers ,..,.,.".,.,.,.,.,.,.,'..,.,...........,.'."................... ,315
<br />Summary of upper basin impacts ofagricultural acreage phase-out. . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,315
<br />Sample output of profit maximizing program, Colorado River Indian Reservation,
<br />Case 2, alfalfa. , , , , , , . ' , . , , . , , . , . . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . , , , . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . , . , . .318
<br />Sample output of profit maximization program showing increased output at 1000 mg/I
<br />GilalYuma, Case 1, alfalfa..,. ,. ., .,.. .. , . ,. .. '. '., .., ,.... .... . ,... .,., .,........,. ,...... .. .318
<br />Coachella Valley, Case 1. . ,. ,.... .. '. .. ,. , . ,. . .. ,. .. .. .. . ,. ,. ., ,...., ,. ..,.,.... .. ...... .. .. , .318
<br />Gila/Yuma District, Case 1 ,. " ,. ., .. .. ,. ,. .. '. . ,... ., .. .. .... .. ... .,.,.. ,..... '.,. ..,.,.... . .319
<br />Imperial Valley. Case 1 .,...,.,',..,.,.,.,..,...,...,...,..........,.,...,..,............... .319
<br />ColoardoRiver Indian Reservation, Case 1 .,.,..........,...."...,.............,...,.,....... .319
<br />Palo Verde Irrigation District. Case 1 ' . ' . , . , . . . . . , , . . . . . . . , . , . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , . . ' . , . . . . .319
<br />
<br />GilalYumaDistrict, Case 2 .'...........,.......,.,..,.......,......,.,.,...................' .320
<br />Aggregate output by distriet, Case 1. ,.".....,...,.,.,..............",.,..,...'..........,.. .320
<br />Aggregate output by distriet, Case 2. . . , . , . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , , . , . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .320
<br />Illustration of crop losses factored into acreage and yield reductions. . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . .320
<br />Changes in crop output, California, Case 1 , . , . . . . . , . , . , . , . . . , . , , , , , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . .321
<br />Changes in crop output, California, Case 2 . , . . . , . . . . . , . , . , . , . . . , . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321
<br />Changes in crop output, Arizona, Case 1. . , . , . . , . . . . . . . , . , . , . . . , . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .. . . .321
<br />Changes in crop output. Arizona, Case 2. . , . . . . . . . . . , . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321
<br />CoachellaDistriet, Case 2 ...,....,.".,..............,.,.....,....,...,...,................. .322
<br />GilalYumaDistrict, Case 2 '.".,.,."........,.,.,.,.....,.,......,......,.................. .322
<br />Imperial Valley District, Case 2 , . , , . . . , . , . . . . . . , . , . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . .322
<br />Colorado River Indian Reservation District, Case 2 .,.",...,.".........,......,.,.,.,......... .322
<br />Palo Verde District, Case 2 ..."....,..,.,.,........,...........,............................ .323
<br />One-stage forward linkages: California-Arizona. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . .. . . . . , . , . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .327
<br />ChangesinTGO, California, Case 1, no forward linkages ....................,................... .328
<br />Changes in TGO, Arizona, Case 1, no forward linkages .......,...........,....,................. .328
<br />Changes in TGO, California, Case 2. no forward linkages ......"..."..............,............ .329
<br />ChangesinTGO, Arizona, Case2,noforwardlinkages,............,............................ .329
<br />Changes in TGO, California, Case 1, 1 stage forward linkages ....,...........................,... .330
<br />Changes in TGO, Arizona, Case 1, 1 stage forward linkages. . . . . . . , , , . .. . . . . . , , , , , . . . . . . . , . , , , , , . .330
<br />Changes in TGO, California, Case2.1stageforwardlinkages .................................... .331
<br />
<br />xix
<br />
|