Gardner and Young
Salinity Control Evaluation
In contrast, the Grand Valley, Lower
Gunnison, Uinta Basin, and McElmo
Creek units are all canal and lateral lining
projects that do not pass the benefit-cost
test. The LaVerkin Springs unit has such
a low return that it is no longer under
official consideration.
In general, the benefit-cost ratios for SCS
on-farm salinity control programs are
higher than the ratios for the more struc-
tural projects. This conclusion is rein-
forced by the fact that SCS project costs
probably are overstated because of the
omission of labor savings benefits.
Conclusion
From an economic efficiency stand-
point, only five of the twenty projects ana-
lyzed above warrant consideration for
construction. Abandoning the remaining
projects would avoid irreversible commit-
ments of funds to nonproductive social in-
vestments at a time when federal budget
deficits are critically high.
The construction of these five units, if
current projections of their effectiveness
are borne out, would eventually lower salt
discharges by about 400 thousand tons per
year. Lower Basin salinity could be ex-
pected to fall by about 40 mg∕liter. This
decrement in salinity will provide a no-
ticeable benefit to downstream users or
could offset the effects of upstream de-
velopment. Given the recently lower sa-
linity levels of 816 mg∕liter in 1981 at
Imperial Dam and 732 mg∕liter in 1983
and the eventual completion of the de-
salting plant, plus this amount of salinity
control, the United States should have no
problem meeting its obligations to Mexico
(based on 879 mg∕liter) in the foreseeable
future.
References
Anderson, J. C. and A. P. Kleinman (eds.). Salinity
Management Options for the Colorado River. Re-
port P078-003, Utah Water Research Laboratories,
Utah State University, Logan, 1978.
Boster, M. A. and W. E. Martin. “Multisource/Mul-
tiquality Agricultural Water Use Decision-Mak-
ing.” Water Resources Bulletin, 15/1(1978): 206-
19.
d’Arge, R. L. and L. Eubanks. “Municipal and In-
dustrial Consequences of Salinity in the Colorado
River Service Area.” In Salinity Management Op-
tions for the Colorado River, J. C. Anderson and
A. P. Kleinman (eds.). Report P-78-003, Utah Water
Research Laboratories, Utah State University, Lo-
gan, 1978.
Gardner, Richard L. “Economics of Cost Sharing of
Salinity Control in the Colorado River Basin.” Un-
published Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado State Uni-
versity, Fort Collins, 1983.
Gardner, Richard L. and Robert A. Young. “The
Effect of Cost Sharing Mechanisms on Efficiency
and Equity: Salinity Control in the Grand Valley,
Colorado. ” American Water Resources Association
Annual Conference, Washington, D.C., August
1984.
Imperial County Cooperative Extension Service,
University of California. Guidelines to Production
Costs and Practices, 1982-83, Imperial County
Crops. Circular 104, El Centro, California, May
1982.
Kleinman, Alan P. and F. Bruce Brown. “Economic
Damages in Agriculture from Salinity in the Low-
er Colorado Basin.” In Salinity Management Op-
tions for the Colorado River, J. C. Anderson and
A. P. Kleinman (eds.), pp. 177-252. Report P-78-
003, Utah Water Research Laboratories, Utah State
University, Logan, 1978.
fames, L. D. and R. R. Lee. Economics of Water
Resource Planning. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971.
McKean, R. N. Efficiency in Government Through
Systems Analysis. John Wiley, New York, 1958.
Moore, C. V., J. H. Snyder, and P. Sun. “Effects of
Colorado River Water Quality and Supply on Ir-
rigated Agriculture.” Water Resources Research,
10/2(1974): 137-44.
Oyarzabal, F. and R. A. Young. “International Ex-
ternal Diseconomies: The Colorado River Salinity
Problem in Mexico.” ISlatural Resources Journal,
18/1(1978): 77-88.
Paulson, L. J. and J. R. Baker. “Effects of Impound-
11