Compare per-acre water savings and incentive costs across seven land-management options for the extended replant period, and model what subbasin-scale outcomes would look like under a hypothetical EOR program. All values come directly from the ERA Economics analysis (April 2026).
Each point shows one practice for one crop. The vertical axis is the water saved on each acre of extended replant (in acre-feet per acre). The horizontal axis is the per-acre incentive payment that ERA Economics estimated would compensate a grower for one year of delayed replanting under that practice. Upper-left is the sweet spot — high water savings at low per-acre cost.
Source: ERA Economics, Vina Subbasin Economic Analysis for Extended Orchard Replacement Program (April 2026), Tables 2, 3, 6, 7. Values shown are for a 1-year delay in replanting. Walnut scenarios assume walnuts are removed and almonds are replanted, reflecting current walnut market conditions.
Up and to the left = better. A point near the top of the chart saves more water per acre. A point on the left side costs less per acre to incentivize.
Winter wheat for grain stands out as low-cost / high-savings — harvest revenue offsets much of the grower's opportunity cost. Processing tomatoes sit at the far left because cash crop revenue substantially reduces the required incentive, but they also save the least water. Cover crops and idle ground cluster in the upper-right: highest savings, highest cost.
The per-acre numbers shown here are the minimum incentive (the grower's willingness-to-accept). A real EOR program would likely need to pay a premium above this floor to drive substantial enrollment.
Apply per-acre figures to a hypothetical EOR program. Set the annual orchard removal acreage, an enrollment rate, and a primary practice. The results show what that year's program would cost and how much groundwater it would save.