search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
ECONOMY


Survey provides insight into on-farm challenges & decision-making


By George Oamek, PhD A


Colorado’s climate and cropping patterns are not the same as that in other states, so whether Colorado’s farm water use is below, equal or above the national average is meaningless.


recent edition of Fresh Water News, the Colorado Water Education Foundation’s well-regarded periodical about Western water issues, led off


with an article entitled, “Report: Colorado’s farm water use exceeds national average, despite efforts to conserve.” As someone who has been around Colorado irrigation a good deal of my career, I found the title annoyingly provocative and had to immediately read the article.


If that was the intent, it worked to perfection.


The article’s first few paragraphs seemed to cast the industry in a rather bad light, furthering my annoyance. I’ll expand on that because my ersatz agricultural economist union requires it, but to minimize my negativity, it’s worth noting the remainder of the article did a good job of explaining where this assertion came from and included some thoughtful responses by people in the agricultural, irrigation and environmental businesses.


The very title of the article, however, is misleading. Colorado’s climate and cropping patterns are not the same as that in other states, so whether Colorado’s farm water use is below, equal or above the national average is meaningless. Also, it’s difficult to measure the success of water conservation measures in reducing usage in a system that uses a lot of surface water administered under the prior appropriation doctrine. Success under this “use it or lose it” system is best measured at a regional level rather than at the farm and may be demonstrated by increased reliability for junior water right holders and those benefitting from upstream conservation measures.


So, farm-level statistics may be doing a good job of documenting the adoption of labor, energy and water-saving technology, but the benefit from the water portion of this investment is often an indirect measure in Colorado.


6 Irrigation TODAY | Spring 2020


The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service recently released Irrigation and Water Management Survey, updated through 2018, provided the bulk of the data for the Fresh Water News article. A graphic summary of the high-level data is shown on page 36 of this issue. My initial negativity while diving into this data set changed when I unwittingly spent several hours “nerding out” over what it contained.


Although the expected documentation of irrigated acres by region, type of system and water source is there, it also contains valuable information toward the back of the survey addressing factors affecting adoption and use of newer technologies and services. State-level information includes methods used to decide when to irrigate, technical assistance received for irrigation and drainage improvements, barriers to making improvements to reduce energy use or conserve water, and sources of information relied on for reducing costs and conserving water. These latter tables can excite economists because they provide the baseline information used to develop predictive models of irrigation technology adoption and future water use, plus they point to factors that might slow down or accelerate future scenarios, such as the use of financial incentives.


Far from simply academic, these models have high commercial value for both the private sector, such as the irrigation manufacturing and service industries, as well as government planning and resource agencies. At this point, I’m pretty positive about the survey and grateful to the Colorado Water Education Foundation for provoking me into to giving it a serious look.


George Oamek, PhD, is an economist with  Platte River Recovery Implementation Program’s 


irrigationtoday.org


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40