Economic Rivalry, Irrigation Abstraction, And Partition to Fates

Transcription

1 Economic Rivalry, Irrigation Abstraction, And Partition to Fates 11th Annual Meeting of the International Water Resource Economics Consortium (IWREC) September 2014 B. Contor and Dr. R. G. Taylor

2 hectares Groundwater source Hand lines & wheel lines 70% consumptive-use fraction of field-applied water hectares Groundwater source Mostly pivots Mostly 85% consumptiveuse fraction of field-applied water 2

3 hectares Groundwater source Hand lines & wheel lines 70% consumptive-use fraction of field-applied water hectares Groundwater source Mostly pivots Mostly 85% consumptiveuse fraction of field-applied water 3

4 hectares Groundwater source Hand lines & wheel lines 70% consumptive-use fraction of field-applied water Is this Improvement? hectares Groundwater source Mostly pivots Mostly 85% consumptiveuse fraction of field-applied water 4

5 How do we assess irrigation improvements? Consider Irrigator Response Close the Water Budget Consider Economic Rivalry Do the Numbers 5

6 Consider Irrigator Response 6

7 Supply and Demand S1 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 Consider Irrigator Response Supply and Demand S2 19

20 Consider Irrigator Response Supply and Demand shortage S2 20

21 hectares 47 hectares barley 12 hectares alfalfa hectares all alfalfa 21

22 Close the Water Budget 22

23 Transpiration Evaporation Surface Runoff Percolation Below Root Zone 23

24 Transpiration Evaporation Surface Runoff Percolation Below Root Zone 24

25 Transpiration Evaporation Surface Runoff Percolation To Non-Usable Aquifers (or unused?) 25

26 Transpiration Take Home Messages: It is not complicated Evaporation It MUST be sorted out Surface Runoff Percolation To Non-Usable Aquifers (or unused?) 26

27 Abstraction (i.e. diversion) Decreased after improvement (case specific) Transpiration Increased after improvement (typical) Lost to basin Evaporation Increase or decrease? Lost to basin Runoff Typically would decrease None in this case Percolation Typically would decrease Returns to pumped aquifer 27

28 Consider Rivalry 28

29 29

30 30

31 31

32 32

33 33

34 34

35 35

36 Take Home Messages: It is complicated It can be sorted out It MUST be sorted out 36

37 Rivalry The aquifer is connected to the springs that supply aquaculture Therefore: The increase in net consumptive use is rival to aquaculture 37

38 Do the Numbers 38

39 K m 3 pumping 432 K m 3 consumptive 0.7 tonne/k m 3 pumping (alfalfa) 1.0 tonne/k m 3 consumptive (alfalfa) K m 3 pumping 502 K m 3 consumptive 0.9 tonne/k m 3 pumping 1.2 tonne/ K m 3 consumptive 39

40 K m 3 pumping 432 K m 3 consumptive Is this Improvement? 16% increase in consumptive use Rival to aquaculture % increase in 611 K m 3 pumping crop per drop 502 K m 3 consumptive 40

41 K m 3 pumping 432 K m 3 consumptive Is this Improvement? 16% increase in consumptive use Rival to aquaculture % increase in 611 K m 3 pumping crop per drop 502 K m 3 consumptive NOT related to irrigation improvements 41

42 How to assess irrigation improvements: Consider Irrigator Response Close the Water Budget Consider Economic Rivalry Do the Numbers 42

43 Thank You 43

44 Backup Slides 44

45 45

46 WTP ($/cubic meter) Depth (meters) B = 0.40 B = 0.80

47

48 48

49 Evaporation (mm/day) (graded border) (drip) Days 49

50 Evaporation (mm/day) Days 50

51 Evaporation (mm/day) Days 51

52 Evaporation (mm/day) Days 52

53 53

54 54

55 55

56 56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66