Impacts of San Joaquin Valley Drainage-Related Policies on State and National Agricultural Production

  • Gerald L. Horner
  • Stephen A. Hatchett
  • Robert M. House
  • Richard E. Howitt


The chapter links National and State agricultural policy models with a regional agricultural production and ground-water hydrology model to track the effects of environmental and commodity policies. Results indicate that a policy which would eliminate subsurface drainage disposal would not significantly effect the amount of agricultural production within the 10-year time horizon assumed in the analysis. A 20-percent decrease in the demand for cotton is projected to decrease total irrigated acreage by 20 percent but subsurface drainage water is projected to double. This phenomenon is explained by decreased unconfined ground-water pumping which serves to reduce perched ground-water tables. The two policy scenarios illustrate the importance of unconfined ground-water pumping and the spatial allocation of surface water supplies in reducing the production of subsurface drainage, if disposal is restricted.


Drainage Water Commodity Price Subsurface Drainage Surface Water Supply Perched Water Table 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Belitz, K., 1988. Character and Evolution of the Ground-Water Flow System in the Central Part of the Western San Joaquin Valley. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87–573.Google Scholar
  2. Brooke, A.; Kendrick, D.; and Meeraus, A., 1988. GAMS, A User’s Guide. The Scientific Press, Redwood City, CA.Google Scholar
  3. Hatchett, S. A.; Quinn, N. W. T.; Horner, G. L.; and Howitt, R. E., 1989. Drainage Economics Model to Evaluate Policy Options for Managing Selenium Contaminated Drainage. Presented at the International Committee on Irrigation and Drainage Pan-American Conference, Toxic Substances in Agricultural Water Supply and Drainage-An International Environmental Perspective, Ottawa Quebec Canada.Google Scholar
  4. Horner, G. L. and Dudek, D. J., 1980. An Analytical System for the Evaluation of Land Use and Water Quality Policy Impacts Upon Irrigated Agriculture. In: Yaron, D. and Tapiero, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of Operations Research in Agriculture and Water Resources, International Conference, Jerusalem. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 537–568.Google Scholar
  5. House, R. M., 1987. USMP Regional Agricultural Model. National Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 46 p.Google Scholar
  6. Howitt, R. E., 1989. Water Policy Effects on Crop Production and Vice Versa: An Empirical Approach. Presented at the Commercial Agriculture and Resources Policy Symposium, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  7. Howitt, R. E., 1989. The Economic Assessment of California Field Crop Losses Due to Air Pollution. Final Report prepared for California Air Resources Board, Contract No. A5-105-32, 44 p.Google Scholar
  8. Kasower, S., 1989. A Dynamic Analysis of Public and Private Objectives in the Management of Saline Soils. Prospectus and a Mathematical Presentation of the Dynamic Agro-Economic Soil Salinity (DASS) Model. Preliminary Working Paper, San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program.Google Scholar
  9. Piper, S.; Huang, W. Y.; and Ribaudo, M., 1989. Farm Income and Ground-Water Quality Implications From Reducing Surface Water Sediment Deliveries, Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources Association, 25(6).Google Scholar
  10. San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program, 1987. Developing Options, An Overview of Efforts to Solve Agricultural Drainage and Related Problems in the San Joaquin Valley.Google Scholar
  11. San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program, 1989. Preliminary Planning Alternatives for Solving Agricultural Drainage and Drainage-Related Problems in the San Joaquin Valley.Google Scholar
  12. Stroh, C., 1990. Personal Communication, San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program.Google Scholar
  13. University of California Committee of Consultants on Drainage Water Reduction, 1988. Opportunities for Drainage Water Reduction. No. 1 in a Series on Drainage, Salinity and Toxic Constituents, Sponsored by the UC Salinity/ Drainage Task Force and Water Resources Center.Google Scholar
  14. University of California Cooperative Extension, 1980–89. Sample Costs of Producing Agricultural Crops in California Counties. Department of Agricultural Economics, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
  15. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 1985. Unpublished Commodity Program Participation Data.Google Scholar
  16. U.S. Department of Agriculture, River Basin-Watershed Planning Staff, 1973. The San Joaquin Valley Basin USDA River Basin Study Soil Group Areas, 1972,104 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Williamson, A. K.; Prudic, D.; and Swain, L., 1985. Ground-Water Flow in the Central Valley, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 85–345.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald L. Horner
    • 1
  • Stephen A. Hatchett
    • 2
  • Robert M. House
    • 3
  • Richard E. Howitt
    • 4
  1. 1.Agricultural EconomistDavisUSA
  4. 4.University of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations