Irrigation and Water Conservation Practices of Surface-Irrigated Croplands in West and South Regions of the U.S.
Sumon Datta1,*, Saleh Taghvaeian2, Martha Sibley3, Drew M. Gholson4, Matt Yost5, Michael A. Long3, Khaled M. Bali6,7, Daniele Zaccaria8, Stacia L. Davis Conger9, Liesel A. Ritchie10
Published in Journal of the ASABE 68(3): 503-511 (doi: 10.13031/ja.16257). Copyright 2025 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
1 Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA.
2 Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
3 Department of Sociology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA.
4 Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, Mississippi, USA.
5 Department of Plants, Soils, and Climate, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA.
6 Agriculture and National Resources Research and Extension Centers, University of California, Davis, California, USA.
7 School of Agriculture, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
8 Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, California, USA.
9 Red River Research Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Bossier City, Louisiana, USA.
10 Department of Sociology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.
* Correspondence: sumon.datta@okstate.edu
The authors have paid for open access for this article. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License https://creative commons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Submitted for review on 18 November 2024 as manuscript number NRES 16257; approved for publication as a Research Article by Associate Editor Dr. Kelly Thorp and Community Editor Dr. Kati Migliaccio of the Natural Resources & Environmental Systems Community of ASABE on 17 March 2025.
Citation: Datta, S., Taghvaeian, S., Sibley, M., Gholson, D. M., Yost, M., Long, M. A., … Ritchie, L. A. (2025). Irrigation and water conservation practices of surface-irrigated croplands in west and south regions of the U.S. J. ASABE, 68(3), 503-511. https://doi.org/10.13031/ja.16257
Highlights
ABSTRACT. Surface (a.k.a. gravity) irrigated cropland area has been declining in the U.S. over the past three decades. Despite this decline, a considerable area of irrigated cropland will remain under surface irrigation methods in the foreseeable future for different agricultural, geographical, hydrological, and social reasons. Considering this fact and the generally lower application efficiencies of surface irrigation methods, a survey was conducted in two regions of the U.S. to investigate common surface irrigation practices, perceptions and approaches toward water conservation, and modifications to these practices in response to drought. The difference in source of water supply (surface water in the West and groundwater in the South) was associated with differences in water conveyance and on-farm irrigation methods, as well as the type of water conservation practices and technologies implemented. The familiarity of farmers with irrigation scheduling approaches was highly correlated with their uses. Water conservation practices were mostly similar between the two regions. The small differences were due to differences in water supply source and conveyance/distribution systems. When asked about the factors that help or hinder the adoption of water conservation practices and technologies in surface irrigation, farmers in both regions cited lack of financial resources (to pay for implementation or to compensate for potential yield losses) and lack of education and training as the main factors. The findings from this study demonstrated the importance of region-specific coordinated financial and educational programs through enhanced collaboration among state/federal agencies, industries, and land-grant universities providing extension opportunities to help surface irrigators and water managers in the U.S.
Keywords.Barriers to adoption, Drought, Gravity irrigation, Irrigation scheduling.
Successful adoption and practical implementation of water conservation technologies and practices require the design and application of these practices, along with their supporting government policies and programs, to be based on farmers’ priorities and needs (Caswell et al., 2001; Liu et al., 2018). Hence, it is vital to understand the perception of farmers and irrigators towards water conservation in irrigated agriculture. To date, however, only a few studies have investigated farmers’ attitudes and perceptions towards water conservation in irrigated agriculture across the United States (U.S.). In one of the earlier studies, Frasier et al. (1999) reported three major factors that negatively impacted the adoption and diffusion of water conservation technologies among Colorado farmers. Firstly, older irrigation systems (i.e., surface irrigation) received minimal upgrade priority compared to other irrigation systems. Secondly, most farmers perceived the water application efficiency of their irrigation systems to be higher, especially in surface-irrigated fields. They estimated average efficiency to be 72%, while the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District had data reporting the efficiency as less than 50% for this type of system. The lack of field-level measured data on water application rates and amounts combined with the perception of overestimated water application efficiency can likely explain why farmers are not asking for the required investments in water conservation technologies. Finally, the farmers tended to apply more advanced irrigation scheduling methods (mainly those based on evapotranspiration and soil moisture) in sprinkler-irrigated fields and relied on traditional scheduling methods in surface-irrigated fields.
Leib et al. (2002) reported that farmers in the state of Washington were more likely to use different water conservation technologies such as soil moisture sensors and crop evapotranspiration data in sprinkler- and drip-irrigated fields compared to surface-irrigated ones. They also described the advantages of using these water conservation practices as secondary benefits for their farming operation. Demographic factors and farm characteristics can also play roles in the degree of implementation of these practices. A recent survey in Arkansas found that farmers that were older, had smaller farm sizes, and relied more on groundwater were less likely to adopt water conservation practices across their irrigation systems (Nian et al., 2020). Similar findings were reported by Fan and McCann (2020) across the U.S. Another recent survey of farmers in eleven U.S. western states reported that the lack of information on spatiotemporal consistency of future water availability and lack of financial and technical support for farmers were negatively impacting the adoption and diffusion of water conservation practices (Schumacher et al., 2022).
A key limitation of the small number of previous studies reviewed above is that they did not focus on surface irrigation, which still accounts for approximately 36% of the irrigated areas in the U.S. (USDA, 2019). Although it accounts for a significant portion of the irrigated area, surface irrigation typically exhibits low application efficiency, which is defined as the amount of water stored in the crop root zone divided by the total water delivered to the field (Howell, 2001). Surface irrigation has an average application irrigation efficiency of 55% globally (Chávez et al., 2020; Unver et al., 2017), which is lower compared to the efficiency of other major systems such as center-pivot, drip, and subsurface drip irrigation, reaching an average application efficiency of 90% if designed and managed well (Howell, 2001). Therefore, identifying and implementing water conservation practices in surface irrigation is vital to increase the overall irrigation application efficiency and net a larger return on investment relative to other systems. Previous research has shown that water conservation practices such as scheduling irrigations based on evapotranspiration models and soil moisture sensors, computerized hole selection, and surge valves can increase the application efficiency of surface irrigation significantly (Bryant et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2017). However, even with proven research, surface irrigation has not received a similar level of upgrades (Frasier et al., 1999), nor has it had water conservation practices implemented as successfully as other irrigation systems (Leib et al., 2002). Moreover, only a small portion (10%) of congressional funding for irrigation-related best management practices was allocated to surface irrigation between 2009 and 2014 (Stubbs, 2016). As such, it is of utmost importance to assess and investigate the mechanisms behind the transference of water conservation practices in surface irrigation.
The overall goal of this study was to investigate the technical and social factors influencing the attitudes and perceptions of farmers towards water conservation practices that impact their adoption in surface irrigation across two regions in the U.S. with large shares of surface irrigation. The specific objectives were to (1) determine farmers’ perceptions, level of knowledge, and sources of information regarding water conservation practices in surface irrigation; (2) identify potential barriers to adoption and transfer of these practices in practical irrigation management; and (3) improve understanding of the opportunities related to these practices for successful technology transfer. Findings from this study will contribute to identifying barriers to technology transfer of water conservation practices in surface irrigation in the U.S. They will also assist research and extension personnel and policymakers in understanding which conservation practices have greater potential for successful adoption and implementation to help conserve water in surface-irrigated agricultural production.
Materials and Methods
Survey
The survey for this study was developed by a team of agricultural and irrigation engineers, plant and soil scientists, and sociologists using the general format and structure of the Irrigation and Water Management Survey of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), formerly known as the Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey. The survey was designed to evaluate technical and social factors that influence farmers’ approaches to water conservation and how these issues contribute to adoption, or resistance to adoption, of various conservation practices in surface-irrigated fields. The platform, Qualtrics XM (Qualtrics XM, Provo, Utah, USA), hosted the survey and allowed distribution through shared links and QR codes from November 2020 through December 2021. Researchers and extension professionals at several land-grant universities distributed requests to participate through targeted email communications and announcements at meetings with farmers. A total of 277 responses were received from across 14 different states.
The survey contained three sections. Section one had four questions regarding the location, size, and soil type of croplands managed by survey respondents. Section two, consisting of ten questions, collected information regarding irrigation practices such as methods used, time spent, decision-making approaches, barriers to implementing water conservation practices, and the sources of information utilized for obtaining guidance. Examples of questions in this section were “How many acres are irrigated from each of the surface and groundwater sources?” and “How familiar are you with each of the following methods for determining when to irrigate: condition of crop, feel of soil, soil moisture sensors, plant sensors, and commercial irrigation scheduling services.” It should be noted that this survey focused on conservation of applied water, not conservation of consumptive use. Conservation of applied water may not lead to a reduction of water use at the basin scale. Section three, made up of seven questions, collected sociodemographic information and additional feedback.” The full survey questionnaire has been added as “Supplemental Information.”
Analysis
The data obtained from survey respondents were divided into two subsets based on their geographic location: the West and the South. The West dataset consisted of respondents from Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming, while the South dataset included respondents from Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas. This division allowed for a more robust analysis and interpretation of results since water resources, conveyance/distribution methods, and irrigation management practices are significantly different between the western and southern U.S. The West has a cold semi-arid climate (type “BSk”), while the South has a humid subtropical climate (type “Cfa”), according to the Köppen climate classification. Alfalfa, non-alfalfa hay, corn for silage or greenchop, and irrigated pasturelands were dominant in the West, while soybeans, cotton, rice, and corn for grain were the major crops in the South, in terms of irrigated area (USDA, 2019). There were 277 respondents in total, 193 in the West (Arizona: 26, California: 17, Colorado: 17, Idaho: 3, Nevada: 1, Utah: 126, and Wyoming: 3) and 84 (Arkansas: 2, Louisiana: 16, Mississippi: 34, Oklahoma: 23, and Texas: 9) in the South regions. Thus, Utah and Mississippi had the largest number of respondents in the West and the South, respectively. The responses, whenever feasible, were reported in percentages of total irrigated area to allow for a normalized assessment of results.
To compare the findings of this study with the results of regular USDA surveys, a separate dataset was generated using the 2018 Irrigation and Water Management Survey of the USDA (USDA, 2019) that included, whenever available, a similar set of information for the same states. When comparisons were made between data from the current survey and the 2018 USDA, the descriptive statistics between the two surveys were reviewed for similarities and differences. Significance tests between data from the different surveys were not conducted because the survey data in the present study could not be collected based on random sampling; therefore, significance testing was inappropriate.
Limitations
Given the paucity of surface irrigation data that exists at the U.S. farm level, efforts were made to create a valid and reliable survey and to get as much data from farmers in the regions of interest. The survey instrument was modeled after the 2018 USDA Irrigation and Water Management Survey, a widely employed survey focused on irrigation, which supports its validity and reliability. Finding respondents for the survey was more difficult as there is no population list for the targeted group. It was determined that the best method was to distribute the surveys at extension meetings directly to the farmers. Representatives from the research team in each area attended numerous meetings to recruit participants and followed up with electronic and postal reminders. This methodology resulted in the sample of 277 responses, in which farmers from Utah and Mississippi were overrepresented. Based on the data analysis and comparisons with the USDA data, the findings are considered valid. However, to remain cautious, significance tests were not conducted on the survey data, and general conclusions about surface irrigation in the two areas were drawn from descriptive statistics.
Results and Discussion
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
An overwhelming majority of participating farmers in this survey were male (94% and 96% in the West and South, respectively), white (91% and 90%, respectively), and conservative in their political beliefs (75% and 81%, respectively). Their ages were similar between the West (56±15 years: mean±standard deviation) and South (57±11 years). Both groups had extensive farming experience: 28±15 years in the West and 31±13 years in the South. Farmers in the West spent less time (5±4 hours per day) managing irrigation-related operations during the irrigation season than those in the South (7±5 hours per day). Despite their differences, both numbers were relatively large and demonstrated that managing surface irrigation systems takes a considerable amount of time. This is expected, as shortage of labor (which is related to time limitations) is among the main reasons for converting from surface to pressurized irrigation systems. This finding also highlights the importance of developing automation technologies designed for different types of surface irrigation and the impact it could have on enabling farmers to spend more time on other critical operations during the irrigation season.
About 64% of farmers in the West had a gross value of all agricultural products of less than $250,000 sold in 2019, whereas a smaller portion (14%) of farmers in the South reported a similar gross value (fig. 1). On the other end of the spectrum, a larger portion of farmers (51%) in the South reported having a gross value of more than $1,000,000 compared to only 12% of farmers in the West. The results of the 2018 USDA survey, which considered all types of irrigation systems and not just surface irrigation, had similar trends of gross value distribution.
Physical Characteristics of Fields and Systems
The size of surface-irrigated farms in the West was smaller (mean: 257 ha) compared to the South (mean: 1,035 ha). Similar to this study, the 2018 USDA survey reported that the average sizes of irrigated farms in the South were about four times larger than those in the West. The sample size in this survey accounted for a small percentage of the total surface-irrigated area reported by the 2018 USDA survey in the South (2.9%) and West (1.4%), respectively. The small representation of irrigated area is a limitation of this study, like many other survey studies, and should be considered in interpreting the results.
 |
| Figure 1. Gross value of all agricultural products sold in 2019 (including landlord’s share) according to data collected in this study and USDA survey of 2018. Note: The percentages for the West and South in this survey do not add up to 100%, as some farmers ‘preferred not to say’ their gross value. |
In terms of soil textures, the medium textures (loam/silt/sandy loam) were dominant, selected by respondents for 51% and 59% of the irrigated area in the West and South, respectively. The next dominant soil type was heavy-textured (clay loam/silty clay loam), represented by similar amounts of irrigated area in both the West (35%) and the South (33%). These results were expected since surface irrigation is often not well suited to light-textured soils. Surface water was the dominant source of irrigation water in the West (55% of the surface-irrigated area), while groundwater was the primary source in the South (73%). This difference in the primary source of irrigation water was also observed by the USDA survey and is consistent with the authors’ knowledge of irrigation practices in each region. While many farmers in the West rely on surface water reservoirs and canal networks to store, convey, and distribute irrigation water, farmers in the South tap into bedrock and alluvial aquifers for their irrigation needs.
 |
| Figure 2. Methods of water delivery to field and on-farm irrigation application in percentages of the total area under surface irrigation. |
The respondents were also asked about their methods of water delivery to fields and on-farm application of delivered water. The results showed large variability in these methods among the two regions (fig. 2). In the West, the dominant method of water delivery to farms was through lined open ditches (71% of surface-irrigated area), followed by unlined open ditches (19%). This was similar to the findings of the 2018 USDA survey that reported open ditches as the main water delivery method in the West, but different in the proportion of each type of lined and unlined ditches. In the USDA survey, unlined open ditches were used on 46% of surface-irrigated lands, higher than lined open ditches at 21%. The dominance of open ditches in the West is expected, as most irrigators in this region receive surface water delivered through canal networks. In the South, the most common water delivery method was poly-pipe (74% of surface-irrigated area), followed by unlined open ditches (12%). The USDA survey also had poly-pipe as the primary method, but at a smaller portion of 58% of the surface-irrigated area. The popularity of poly-pipe in the South could be because most farmers extract irrigation water from wells that can be connected directly to pipes and poly-pipes, as opposed to water delivery occurring through canal networks in the West. Another potential reason is that farmers in the humid southern states do not irrigate every year, so disposable pipe is thought to be more economical and easier to store (compared to gated pipe).
The most common method of on-farm irrigation application in the West was borders or basins (57% of surface-irrigated area), followed by every furrow (35%). In the South, every furrow was ranked first (46%), followed by alternate furrow (40%). The 2018 USDA survey recorded less detail on the application methods than this study, with only four options of ‘down rows or furrows,’ ‘controlled flooding,’ ‘uncontrolled flooding,’ and ‘other gravity systems.’ Despite this difference, the USDA survey found similar results, with most of the irrigated area (74%) in the South being irrigated with furrows, while controlled flooding between borders and within rows was more common (48% of surface-irrigated area) in the West.
Familiarity With and Use of Irrigation Scheduling
Farmers in both regions were most familiar with traditional irrigation scheduling approaches of condition of crop and feel of soil, representing 93% and 71% of surface-irrigated area in the West, respectively, and 87% and 73% in the South, respectively (fig. 3a). The third most familiar method was different between the two regions. In the West, 68% of the surface-irrigated area was managed by farmers who were very familiar with crop-cutting schedules. This is expected, as hay crops [e.g., alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)] are common in this region, and thus irrigation scheduling must consider scheduled cuts and the time it takes the fields to dry. In the South, soil moisture sensors were the third most familiar method (59%). The two regions were similar in terms of the least familiar scheduling methods reported by farmers. Only 2% and 5% of the surface-irrigated area in the West and South, respectively, was managed by irrigators who said they were ‘very familiar’ with plant sensors. Another method that was low on the familiarity ranking in both regions was computer simulation models. Farmers in the South were also not familiar with schedules determined by water suppliers, with only 9% of the irrigated area reporting this option as ‘very familiar,’ while farmers in the West were more familiar with this method (40%). This is perhaps because of the prevalence of irrigation districts and surface water deliveries by canal companies in the West.
Similar trends were observed for the use of irrigation scheduling methods. The traditional methods of condition of crop and feel of soil were among the top methods used to decide when to irrigate in both regions, reported to be used frequently on 81% and 53% of surface-irrigated area in the West, respectively, and 78% and 58% in the South, respectively (fig. 3b). With respect to other methods, however, the two regions had major differences. For instance, crop-cutting schedules were used frequently at 69% of surface-irrigated areas in the West, compared to only 16% in the South. In addition, stark differences were seen in the use of soil moisture sensors. While only 11% of the surface-irrigated area in the West used soil moisture sensors frequently (46% never used them), 57% in the South reported frequent use of this technology. About 23% of surface-irrigated area in the West was irrigated based on schedules determined by water suppliers, indicating reduced capacity of farmers to control their irrigation schedule. This was not the case in the South (5% of surface-irrigated area). Similar patterns were observed by the 2018 USDA survey, which represents all types of irrigation systems, not just surface irrigation. For example, 32% of the farms in the West had their irrigation schedules determined by water suppliers, while this number was only 2% in the South.
  |
| Figure 3. Familiarity with (a) and frequency of use of (b) irrigation scheduling methods reported in percentage of the surface-irrigated area. The sum of the irrigated area under all methods is more than 100% since respondents could choose more than one method. |
It is important to note the similarity in the patterns of familiarity with different irrigation scheduling methods and their actual use by respondents. To further investigate this relationship, all responses were integrated and converted to a single score representing familiarity and a second score representing frequency of use for each irrigation scheduling method. These scores were created by assigning a numeric value to each answer option: one for “not familiar” and “never use,” two for “somewhat familiar” and “use sometimes,” and three for “very familiar” and “use frequently.” Then, the assigned scores were averaged among the respondents using their reported surface-irrigated area as weights. The estimated familiarity and use scores were plotted against each other for the nine scheduling methods in each region (fig. 4). Strong linear relationships were found with large coefficients of determination (R2) in both regions (0.94 and 0.97 in the West and South, respectively).
 |
| Figure 4. Relationship between familiarity with and use of different irrigation scheduling technologies in each region. The values range from one for “not familiar” and “never use” to three for “very familiar” and “use frequently” and are averaged among respondents based on their reported surface-irrigated area. |
While this study cannot determine which factor influences the other (i.e., a scheduling technology is not being used because farmers are not familiar with it, or farmers are not familiar with the technology because they do not use it), it suggests that the two go together. The negative intercepts of the two linear regression models may suggest that some level of familiarity with technology is needed before it can be used in practice. Previous studies have argued that the transfer of irrigation management technologies and increasing their adoption require extension programs that offer experiential learning as opposed to passive outreach modes of presentations and fact sheets (Rudnick et al., 2020). Innovative and engaging extension activities increase farmers’ familiarity with technologies and raise their confidence in using the technology, compared to just informing them about a particular technology.
Water Conservation
Most Common Practices
Precision land leveling and diking the end of the field to reduce/eliminate runoff were the two most dominant irrigation practices, accounting for 85% and 52% of the irrigated area in the West and 75% and 82% in the South, respectively (fig. 5). The next two dominant methods were limiting irrigation set times and limiting the number of irrigations, with similar prevalence between the two regions. These two methods are different approaches to reducing irrigation application and possibly implementing deficit irrigation. A large difference in the use of surge valves was observed between the regions: 5% of the surface-irrigated area in the West and 75% in the South. This substantial difference is probably because irrigation water is delivered to farms in the West through gravity-fed canal networks, which are less amenable to surge valves. Contrarily, irrigation water in the South is mostly extracted from groundwater wells and delivered through pipelines that can be directly connected to surge valves.
 |
| Figure 5. Different water conservation practices in each region reported in percentages of surface-irrigated lands. The sum of the irrigated area under all methods is more than 100% since respondents could choose more than one method. |
 |
| Figure 6. Potential barriers to implementing water conservation improvements in surface irrigation operations. Agreement was measured on a scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neutral, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, and 7 = strongly agree. |
Barriers to Implementation of Water Conservation Practices
Identifying barriers and drivers to implementing water conservation practices is key to understanding and carrying out necessary infrastructure improvements (Addo et al., 2018). These barriers and drivers can be influenced by many factors such as values, beliefs, income, farming experience, farm size, water costs, use policies, environmental factors, etc. (Corral-Verdugo et al., 2002; Addo et al., 2018). Farmers in the West identified the top five barriers to implementing water conservation technologies in their surface-irrigated fields: (1) risk of reduced crop yield or quality, (2) field or crop limitations, (3) unavailability of skilled labor, (4) inability to cover implementation costs of technologies, and (5) lack of information and training on technologies (fig. 6). A previous survey of 11 western states in the U.S. by Schumacher et al. (2022) found prioritizing improvements as the largest barrier, which was contrary to the results of this study. Four of the above five barriers were also identified by farmers in the South, albeit in a different order: (1) unavailability of skilled labor, (2) risk of reduced crop yield or quality, (3) lack of information and training on technologies, and (4) field or crop limitations. The fifth barrier in the South was “improvements increasing costs,” which is financial in nature and like the fourth barrier in the West (inability to cover costs). According to the USDA survey, farmers in both regions across all irrigation systems stated the inability to cover implementation costs of technologies as the largest barrier (reported by 33% and 53% of irrigated areas in the West and the South, respectively). Future studies directed at providing estimates of return on investment of these technologies are necessary to potentially overcome the financial barriers. The largest difference between regions was observed in the farmers’ uncertainty about future water availability, where farmers in the West thought about this as a larger barrier (29% of irrigated area) compared to farmers in the South (9%).
Drivers for Implementation of Water Conservation Practices
In non-drought years, reducing the costs of water conservation technologies by half was reported to be the primary driver for water conservation for 79% and 53% of surface-irrigated areas in the West and South, respectively (fig. 7). The stronger inclination of farmers in the West to use water conservation technologies in non-drought years may be due to their perceived larger uncertainty of future water availability, motivating them to conserve current water supplies. The second major driver for water conservation in non-drought years was receiving governmental funds and financial incentives to cover the cost of conservation technologies, with a similar trend between the two regions. Reduction in labor requirements was another driver, but mainly in the West (38%) and not the South (6%). Doubling the cost of water was a driver for 38% and 23% of surface-irrigated areas in the West and South, respectively. The 2018 USDA survey did not collect information on drivers for irrigation water conservation during years with and without droughts.
 |
| Figure 7. Perceived drivers of water conservation in non-drought years. The sum of the irrigated area under all methods is more than 100% since respondents could choose more than one method. |
 |
| Figure 8. Modification of irrigation practices during drought years. The sum of the irrigated area under all methods is more than 100% since respondents could choose more than one method. |
Response to Drought
During drought years, farmers in the West modify their irrigation practices more compared to those in the South (fig. 8). Farmers managing about half of the surveyed surface-irrigated area in the West indicated that they would reduce the irrigated area during a drought year, while this number was only 3% in the South. The reduction in irrigated area in the western U.S. in response to drought has been reported before. Smith and Edwards (2021) found a reduction in irrigated areas in this region when insufficient water storage occurred during droughts. Farmers in about one-third (30%) of the surface-irrigated area in the South mentioned that they would not modify their irrigation practices at all. They mentioned that they would pump groundwater for irrigation as needed, more so during drought years compared to a year with normal precipitation. Other survey respondents indicated that their water sources had not run dry, or else they would use alternate sources, and that they have an unlimited water supply. For more than one-third (35%) of the surface-irrigated area in the West, it was indicated that farmers would apply smaller amounts of water during each irrigation, whereas for the South, the reduction of water applications was indicated only for 16% of the irrigated croplands. Farmers in the West also mentioned that they would change crops to reduce water demand. However, they think the groundwater has not been affected much by drought, perhaps because most of their irrigation water comes from surface supply. In addition, farmers in the West indicated that they would skip irrigations more often (17% of the area) during drought compared to farmers in the South (9%).
 |
| Figure 9. Sources of information that farmers relied on to reduce irrigation costs or conserve water. The sum of the irrigated area under all methods is more than 100% since respondents could choose more than one method. |
Information Sources
University extension was the most utilized source of information to reduce irrigation costs or conserve water in the West (70% of surface-irrigated area) and the South (72%) (fig. 9). This finding aligns with the results of the 2018 USDA survey (2019), which showed universities to be the primary source of information for 44% and 54% of irrigated areas (all irrigation systems) in the West and South, respectively. It also suggests that surface irrigators may rely more heavily on university extension than sprinkler and drip irrigators, if the sampling is similarly representative between the two surveys. Private consultants, neighboring farmers, and government specialists were the next sources for water and irrigation information, with similar levels of importance to farmers in both regions. The only source of information that was relied on differently between the two regions was online/press media, being reported for 38% of surface-irrigated area in the West and 10% in the South.
Conclusions
A survey of surface irrigators in the West and South regions of the U.S. revealed interesting insights, patterns, and perceptions toward water conservation. The sources of water supply were different for the two regions, with farmers in the West relying mostly on surface water supply, whereas most farmers in the South relied on groundwater extraction for irrigation. This difference in water supply sources is a major reason behind differences in conveyance and delivery methods, with lined and unlined open ditches being commonly used in the West, and poly-pipes being mainly used in the South. On-farm irrigation systems were different among the regions too. Farms in the West had a much larger share of borders and basins, while 86% of farms in the South used every furrow or alternate furrow irrigation. Analyzing the correlation between the level of familiarity with advanced irrigation scheduling methods and the level of adoption of these methods revealed that some level of familiarity must exist before scientific scheduling methods are implemented, highlighting the importance of designing and delivering innovative and engaging extension and outreach programs on these subjects.
When asked about the barriers to implementing water conservation technologies and practices, farmers in both regions mentioned financial reasons (in the form of reduced income or increased costs) as top barriers, followed by lack of specific information and training. These findings document the importance of providing financial assistance programs along with corresponding educational efforts to promote the adoption of water conservation practices, a goal that can be accomplished through close collaboration and coordination of state/federal agencies, land-grant universities, and other institutions and industries. Compared to the South, a larger portion of farmers in the West (by share of surface-irrigated area) mentioned that they would modify their irrigation practices during drought years. This difference could be explained based on the type of irrigation water resources in the two regions and their susceptibility to drought.
The findings of this study demonstrate the impact of the source of irrigation water supply (surface water or groundwater) not only on the type of conveyance and on-farm irrigation systems but also on the response of farmers to drought. The findings also highlight the importance of providing region-specific, coordinated financial and educational programs to increase the adoption of water conservation practices in surface-irrigated agricultural production areas. This can be achieved through enhanced collaboration of state/federal agencies that offer financial assistance programs and land-grant universities that provide extension opportunities. Recent initiatives, such as the Master Irrigator program (offered in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado) and Ag-DRIP (Ag Water Demonstration, Research, and Implementation Program, offered in Utah), that combine participation in training events and peer-to-peer learning with state funding for irrigation technologies and higher ranking for government cost-share programs are great examples of such coordinated efforts. The type and priority of irrigation technologies and practices that are covered in these programs should vary based on the unique characteristics of each region and can be decided based on the outcomes of surveys like the one conducted for the present study.
Supplemental Material
The supplemental materials mentioned in this article, including the survey questionnaire (PDF format), are available for download from the ASABE Figshare repository at: https://doi.org/10.13031/28352747
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Conservation Innovation Grants program (award number: NR203A750008G007) at USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. This research was also supported by the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University, and approved as journal paper number #9879.
References
Addo, I. B., Thoms, M. C., & Parsons, M. (2018). Barriers and drivers of household water-conservation behavior: A profiling approach. Water, 10(12), 1794. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10121794
Bryant, C. J., Locke, M. A., Krutz, L. J., Reynolds, D. B., Golden, B. R., Irby, T.,... Spencer, G. D. (2021). Furrow-irrigation application efficiency in mid-southern U.S. conservation tillage systems. Agron. J., 113(1), 397-406. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20468
Caswell, M., Fuglie, K. O., Ingram, C., Jans, S., & Kascak, C. (2001). Adoption of agricultural production practices: Lessons learned from the US Department of Agriculture Area Studies Project. ID No. 1473-2016-120785. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.33985
Chávez, C., Limón-Jiménez, I., Espinoza-Alcántara, B., López-Hernández, J. A., Bárcenas-Ferruzca, E., & Trejo-Alonso, J. (2020). Water-use efficiency and productivity improvements in surface irrigation systems. Agronomy, 10(11), 1759. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111759
Corral-Verdugo, V., Frías-Armenta, M., Pérez-Urias, F., Orduña-Cabrera, V., & Espinoza-Gallego, N. (2002). Residential water consumption, motivation for conserving water and the continuing tragedy of the commons. Environ. Manag., 30(4), 527-535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2599-5
Fan, Y., & McCann, L. (2020). Adoption of pressure irrigation systems and scientific irrigation scheduling practices by US farmers: An application of multilevel models. J. Agric. Resour. Econ., 45(2), 352-375. http://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.302459
Frasier, W. M., Waskom, R. M., Hoag, D. L., & Bauder, T. A. (1999). Irrigation management in Colorado: Survey data and findings. Fort Collins, CO: Water Center at Colorado State University. Retrieved from https://www.wyoextension.org/werawater/region8/PDFs/irrigation/irrigation_mngmt_colorado.pdf
Howell, T. A. (2001). Enhancing water use efficiency in irrigated agriculture. Agron. J., 93(2), 281-289. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2001.932281x
Leib, B. G., Hattendorf, M., Elliott, T., & Matthews, G. (2002). Adoption and adaptation of scientific irrigation scheduling: Trends from Washington, USA as of 1998. Agric. Water Manag., 55(2), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(01)00191-3
Liu, T., Bruins, R. J., & Heberling, M. T. (2018). Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of best management practices: A review and synthesis. Sustainability, 10(2), 432. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020432
Nian, Y., Huang, Q., Kovacs, K. F., Henry, C., & Krutz, J. (2020). Water management practices: Use patterns, related factors, and correlations with irrigated acres. Water Resour. Res., 56(3). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025360
Rudnick, D. R., Stockton, M., Taghvaeian, S., Warren, J., Dukes, M. D., Kremen, A.,... Amosson, S. H. (2020). Innovative extension methods in the U.S. to promote irrigation water management. Trans. ASABE, 63(5), 1549-1558. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.13929
Schumacher, B. L., Yost, M. A., Burchfield, E. K., & Allen, N. (2022). Water in the West: Trends, production efficiency, and a call for open data. J. Environ. Manag., 306, 114330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114330
Smith, S. M., & Edwards, E. C. (2021). Water storage and agricultural resilience to drought: Historical evidence of the capacity and institutional limits in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett., 16(12), 124020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac358a
Stubbs, M. (2016). Irrigation in U.S. Agriculture: On-farm technologies and best management practices. Congr. Res. Serv. Rep. R44158. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44158.pdf
Unver, O., Bhaduri, A., & Hoogeveen, J. (2017). Water-use efficiency and productivity improvements towards a sustainable pathway for meeting future water demand. Water Secur., 1, 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2017.05.001
USDA. (2019). 2018 Irrigation and water management survey. Washington, D.C.: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation/index.php
Wood, C. W., Krutz, L. J., Falconer, L., Pringle III, H. C., Henry, B., Irby, T.,... Pickelmann, D. M. (2017). Surge irrigation reduces irrigation requirements for soybean on smectitic clay-textured soils. Crop Forage Turfgrass Manag., 3(1). https://doi.org/10.2134/cftm2017.04.0026