Orestimba Creek Feasibility Study - Stanislaus County

Economics Appendix – Draft Report - Orestimba Creek Feasibility Study, Stanislaus County, California – September 2012
* Used to reflect a mix of new and used equipment
Farm machinery prices for the equipment is adjusted based on the year the budget was reported
by UC Davis, California. Table 8 provides the indices used to update the cost of equipment to
current dollars. In the case of tomatoes, the most applicable budget was provided in October
2007 dollars. This cost ($886,995) is updated by multiplying the cost by the appropriate factor
of 1.15 (189/165). The resultant, $1,020,044 is then divided by 1,200 acres to yield an
equipment value of $850 per acre. This number ($850) is then multiplied by the total number of
truck crop acres that are flooded in the study area for each flood event to estimate the value of
the equipment within the flood plain for each annual chance flood event.
Table 8. Index of Prices Paid- Machinery
1990-92 = 100
Year Index
2005 152
2006 158
2007 165
2008 175
2009 184
2010 189
2011 194
Flood Notification Time Adjustment
It is recognized that, given adequate warning time, a certain amount of farm motorized vehicles
may be driven to higher ground thereby reducing the chances of flood damage. It is assumed
that 30 percent of the motorized vehicles, including tractors, ATV’s, and trucks could be moved
which would decrease the expected losses accordingly. Based on this assumption the value of
equipment subjected to flood is reduced from $595 for each acre of tomatoes flooded.
Using the above methodology, equipment values per acre are computed for each agricultural
class. The values computed are: Orchard Land, $759; Field and Truck Crops, $595; Vine
Grapes, $593; and Alfalfa, $129. The equipment value per acre for each agricultural class is
multiplied by the number of acres in Table 3 above to arrive at the total value of equipment
inundated per event. Due to the depth of flooding, it is assumed that a flood event would cause a
ten percent loss in the equipment valuation.
65