Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Again, the optimisation exercise shows that it is possible to
establish agreements, which will now be of a permanent character, to
improve the situation of both users. However, and by contrast to the earlier
case, we are now not dealing with two different situations, depending on
whether we are referring to a 'normal' or to a dry year. Rather, we are
considering two possible distributions of the resource over time. The
following tables and figures illustrate the three reference scenarios: the
starting point situation and the two possible allocations under new
agricultural requirements, that is to say, the maintenance of current water
rights or reallocation in a optimum solution provided by the maximisation
results.
The exchange will take the form of the hydropower plant of system
1 releasing freely (which, under maximisation, will lead to the releasing of
in the first period and 20 in the second). For its part, the plant in
system 2 will have to renounce of its water rights during the first
period in exchange for practically free releasing in the second.
In this way, agriculture (both in system 1 and 2) will find itself in a
position where practically all the water it requires in the irrigation period
will be available from the water stored in the reservoir during the non-
irrigation period. The of agricultural deficit that remains in the
optimum solution for system 2 is independent of the operational regime. In
fact, there is simply not enough water to cover all requirements. Once
again, the optimum solution shows itself to be superior to that of current
rights, given that both users achieve an increase in their profits. These
profits and the gain between the two options are illustrated in Table 11.4.
In summary, the results show that, in the face of a scarcity of
resources, negotiating on the distribution of the water rights might not only
mitigate the losses resulting from such a scarcity, but could also improve
Search WWH ::
Custom Search