of the respective proportionate number of acres of the different crops in a region (Lacewell et al.
1995). Further, to facilitate estimating a range of potential benefits, two irrigated crop composite
acre budgets are established, one consisting of all irrigated crops, including those with high-
marginal returns such as citrus and vegetables, and another for only irrigated crops with relatively
low-marginal returns, such as cotton, corn, and sorghum.
The difference in net returns between the two scenarios of composite irrigated acres and
the composite dryland acre represents returns to water. Consideration of the amount (i.e., acre-
feet) of water used per respective composite irrigated acre facilitates determining a range of per
unit values of the water.
Composite Acre Development
The most current available data of planted acres from National Agricultural Statistical
Service and Texas AgriLife Extension Service crop enterprise budgets are used to develop a
composite acre for each of the three categories listed above; i.e., dryland, irrigated high-value
crops, and irrigated low-value crops. Data for planted acres are taken from National Agriculture
Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) and averaged for 2000-2007 for each crop. Exceptions occur
for vegetables and citrus, where only the 2002 census data are available, and sugarcane, where
only 2001-2007 harvested acres are available.
When determining the value of the saved water, two sets of crop prices are used:
(a) current expected prices received by farmers, and (b) normalized prices developed to account
for significant price fluctuations in the short term (Roberts 2007), as well as removing the effect
of government farm programs. Market prices are used for estimating direct benefits or impacts to
the region, while normalized prices provide the basis for estimating benefits to society. Impact