Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-8l2sj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T06:01:11.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Proposed Procedure for Distributing Assessments Among Beneficiaries of Small Watershed Projects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Ronald D. Lacewell  and
Vernon R. Eidman
Ronald D. Lacewell
Affiliation:
Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University
Vernon R. Eidman
Affiliation:
Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Conservancy districts can plan and apply land treatment and structural measures to reduce flooding and associated damages. The Conservancy District Act permits conservancy districts to appraise benefits and levy assessments to pay the cost of installing, operating, and maintaining works of flood protection not included in legislative appropriations. We are concerned with the method whereby these specified costs are distributed among flood plain farmers.

The assessment criterion is: Each beneficiary shall be assessed in relation to the proportion of benefits received. That is, flood plain farmers are to pay the proportion of specified flood protection costs that equal the proportion of total benefits received. The objective of assessing is consistent and equitable, but there is yet to be developed a method for computing assessments which meet this norm or objective.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , December 1970 , pp. 139 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Lacewell, Ronald D., and Eidman, Vernon R., “A Model for Estimating the Incidence of Agricultural Flood Damages,” Contributed Paper presented at 1969 Western Agr. Econ. Assoc. Annual Meeting at Corvalis, Oregon.Google Scholar
2. Lacewell, R. D., and Eidman, Vernon R., Expected Production Requirements, Costs and Returns for Alternative Crop Enterprises; Bottomland Soils of East Central and South Central Oklahoma, Oklahoma Agr. Exp. Sta. Proc. Ser. P-606, April 1969.Google Scholar
3. Lacewell, Ronald D., and Eidman, Vernon R., “Simulating Agricultural Flood Damages with a Point Sample,” A forthcoming Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Proc. Ser.Google Scholar
4. Sloggett, Gordon, and Cook, Neil, Evaluating Flood Prevention in Upstream Watersheds with an Areal Point Sample-Interim Report, Washita River Basin, Oklahoma, USDA, NRED, ERS-353, July 1967.Google Scholar
5. Tomlinson, Jim and Maynard, Cecil D., “Native Pecan Production Costs and Returns,” Oklahoma Agr. Ext. Serv., Stillwater, Oklahoma, Fact Sheet 109, July 1967.Google Scholar
6. U. S. Government, “Interim Price Standards for Planning and Evaluating Water and Land Resources,” Interdepartmental Staff Committee of the Water Resources Council, April 1966.Google Scholar