THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF GROUND WATER RECHARGE FOR IRRIGATION USE<sup>1</sup>

Supalla, Raymond J.; Comer, Dorothy A.

doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1982.tb00052.x

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As shown in this equation, an estimate of the benefits from pumping cost savings as a result of ground Valuing Ground Water Saved. Ground water recharge may extend the aquifer life through saving ground water over the planning period (Supalla, (1982). The economic benefits from recharging Central Arizona Project's water within the Central Wellfield area are not only in reducing pumping lift and preventing land subsidence, but also in the volume of ground water saved that results from reducing or reversing ground water pumpage through recharge.…”

Section: Methods For Estimating Recharge Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

AN ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF GROUND WATER RECHARGE IN THE TUCSON BASIN¹

Al-Sabbry¹,

Harris²,

Fox

2002

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bringing water from Colorado River via the Central Arizona Project was perceived as the sole solution for Tucson Basin's water problem. Soon after Central Arizona Project's water arrived in Tucson in 1992, its quality provoked a quarrel over its use for potable purposes. A significant outcome of that quarrel was the enactment of the 1995 Proposition 200. The Proposition 200 precludes the use of Central Arizona Project's water for potable purposes, unless it is treated. Yet, it encourages using it for non‐potable purposes and for replenishing the Tucson aquifer through recharge. This paper examines the economic issues involved in utilizing Central Arizona Project's water for recharge. Four planning scenarios were designed to measure and compare the costs and benefits with and without Central Arizona Project's water recharge. Cost‐benefit analysis was utilized to measure recharge costs and benefits and to derive a rough estimate of cost savings from preventing land subsidence. The results indicate that the institutional requirements can be met with Central Arizona Project's water recharge. The economic benefits from reducing pumping cost and saving groundwater are not economically significant. Yet, when combining the use of Central Arizona Project's water for recharge and non‐potable purposes, it demonstrates positive net economic benefits.

show abstract

Section: Methods For Estimating Recharge Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

AN ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF GROUND WATER RECHARGE IN THE TUCSON BASIN¹

Al-Sabbry¹,

Harris²,

Fox

2002

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The economic value of an MAR system with respect to pumping costs is a function of the change in water level, decrease in energy required to pump the water, and the energy cost. Pumping cost benefits of an MAR project in a given year (C t ) are estimated as [51]:…”

Section: In-situ Values Of Groundwater and Marmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economics of Managed Aquifer Recharge

Maliva

2014

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) technologies can provide a variety of water resources management benefits by increasing the volume of stored water and improving water quality through natural aquifer treatment processes. Implementation of MAR is often hampered by the absence of a clear economic case for the investment to construct and operate the systems. Economic feasibility can be evaluated using cost benefit analysis (CBA), with the challenge of monetizing benefits. The value of water stored or treated by MAR systems can be evaluated by direct and indirect measures of willingness to pay including market price, alternative cost, value marginal product, damage cost avoided, and contingent value methods. CBAs need to incorporate potential risks and uncertainties, such as failure to meet performance objectives. MAR projects involving high value uses, such as potable supply, tend to be economically feasible provided that local hydrogeologic conditions are favorable. They need to have low construction and operational costs for lesser value uses, such as some irrigation. Such systems should therefore be financed by project beneficiaries, but dichotomies may exist between beneficiaries and payers. Hence, MAR projects in developing countries may be economically viable, but external support is often required because of limited local financial resources.

show abstract