Economics of Agricultural Water Conservation: Empirical Analysis and Policy Implications AWRA NM...
-
Upload
giselle-rowland -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
3
Transcript of Economics of Agricultural Water Conservation: Empirical Analysis and Policy Implications AWRA NM...
Economics of Agricultural Water Conservation:
Empirical Analysis and Policy Implications
AWRA NM Section O’Niell’s Pub
4310 Central SE AlbuquerqueFrank A. Ward
NMSU ACESApril 6, 2012
2
• Climate Change: more floods/droughts, greater conflict potential in dry places like NM
• Continued population growth• Growing values of shrinking key ecological assets• Growing values of treated urban water (pop +
econ)• Irrigated ag consumes 85-90% of water in NM• Ongoing search for ways to conserve water
in irrigated agriculture– technology (drip, sprinkler, water saving crops)– policy (subsidies, regulations, pricing,
… )– Projects (infrastructure, leveling, … )
Background
3
Ways to reduce ag water use
• Reduce land in production– Cities buy or rent water or water rights from ag– Farm prices deteriorate
• Alter crop mix, e.g.:– More acres in cotton– Fewer acres in alfalfa, pecan orchards– Develop more drought tolerant crop varieties
• Reduce water application rates (deficit irrigate)• Shift to water conserving irrigation technology
– To sprinklers– To drip irrigation
A ReminderEvaporation v Transpiration
Water Use/AcreWeighted Ave over Crops
4
Technology
Apply ET E? T? Return
Flood 4.63 2.11 0.21 1.90 2.51
Drip 2.48 2.48 0.12 2.36 0.00
Separating E from TZ. Samani, NMSU, March 30, 2012
• No simple empirical methods for separating E and T. His satellite ET map of EBID does not split E-T.
• Theoretical approaches could be used, but they are hard to test.
• For any given crop, drip irrigation typically produces higher yields, so takes more ET than surface irrigation.
• For any given crop, Samani’s satellite ET map should show higher ET for drip than surface irrigated ones.
• But drip acreages in EBID map area are small. He has not yet made that test.
5
6
Rio Grand
e Basin
7
Gaps• Little work in NM (or elsewhere) explaining
what affects irrigation water savings that integrates– Farm economics: profitability– Farm hydrology: water application– Agronomy: yields by crop– Basin hydrology: net water depletions– Basin institutions: protect senior water rights
• Big gap in NM• Big gap in the world’s dry regions
8
Aims• Data: Assemble data on crop water
applications, crop water use, yields, land in production, crop mix, cost, and prices that characterize economics of irrigated ag in NM’s RG Project Area
• Economic analysis: Conduct analysis that explains profitability, production, land and water use in the Project Area.
• Policy Analysis: Forecast land and water use, crop production, farm income, and economic value of water in the Project Area for:– Several (5) drip irrigation subsidies
– Selected (2) water supply scenarios
9
Study Region: Elephant Butte Irrigation District
• http://www.ebid-nm.org/
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
65,000
70,000
75,000
80,000
85,000
90,000
95,000
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Acreage
Not Ordering
Misc
Grain, Hay, Forage
Vegetables
Cotton
Alfalfa
Pecans
EBID recent history (acreage)
Cash Receipts Doña Ana and Sierra Counties
(2005, $million)
County Doña Ana Sierra TotalTotal 167.9 44.9 212.9 Hay 22.0 1.9 23.8 Chile 21.7 22.4 44.1 Onions 32.5 18.4 51.0 Pecans 91.7 2.3 94.0
12
Approach
• Analyze water conservation subsidies that reduces capital cost to convert from surface to drip. – Public policy: Taxpayer $ to reduce the
costs of drip irrigation conversion– Private effect: Makes it cheaper to convert
• Integrates farm economics and basin hydrology
13
Farm Level Economics• NMSU Farm costs and returns
• Published by NM county, year, crop, and irrigation technology
• Web -- http://aces.nmsu.edu/cropcosts/
• Our analysis: Assumes growers maximize income while limited by water allocations, land, and available crop choices
14
Basin Hydrology:Water Rights Administration
• Requires water depletions in the basin to be no larger with water conservation subsidies than without them
• Distinguishes crop water application from water depletion for both surface and drip irrigation
Pecans, drip irrigated
15
Pecans, surface irrigated
16
Pecans: Drip or Surface Irrigated
17
18
Farm Economics• Drip compared to surface irrigation
– Drip: better applies quantity and timing of water that the plant needs for max yields
– Drip: higher yields (higher ET)– Drip: reduces water applied– Drip: conversion costs are high
• Farmers need economic advantage to convert from surface to drip irrigation.– Growers convert not to conserve water, but for
income– At low water prices the economic advantage of
converting typically is weak or negative– Yield gain must be very large
19
Cost of Converting:Surface to Drip Irrigation
• Conversion Capital Costs: – About $1500 / ha for 10 year life– About $150 / ha per year
• Conversion is a major investment, so for the conversion to increase income:– Yield gain must be high – or– $ Value of saved water must be high
20
Basin Hydrology
• NM water administration (NMOSE) is charged to protect existing water rights
• This means
– Applications / acre fall with drip irrigation– Depletions cannot increase– For a given crop, yields are higher under
drip than under surface irrigation – Higher yields consume higher ET
21
• Basin-wide Evapotranspiration mapping
• Demand forecasting, water operations support
• Depletion changes with:– Management options
– Changing crops
– Drought cycles
• Informs sustainable water management
EBID Remote Sensing: NMSU
• Maximize– Objective: Farm Economic Returns
• Subject to – Constraints
•Hydrologic•Agronomic•Institutional
22
Our Empirical Analysis of NM Ag Water Conservation
Policy Assessment Approach
23
Data
Headwater supplies
Law of the River
Crop pricesCrop costsWater priceLand supply
Outcomes
Crop prodn
Crop ET
Crop Mix
Water Use
Water Saved
Farm Income
NPV
Baseline: no new policy
Alternative : Various drip irrigation subsidies
Policy
24
Ag Water Balance
25
Crop Water Data Used, EBID, NM
Crop Tech
A ET Ret
Yield tons/a
cTech
A ET RetYield
tons/acac-ft/ac/yr ac-ft/ac/yr
Alfalfa f 5.0 2.2 2.9 8.0 d 2.7 2.7 0.0 10.0
Cotton f 2.8 1.2 1.6 0.4 d 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.5
Lettuce f 2.5 1.1 1.4 12.5 d 1.4 1.4 0.0 15.6
Onions f 4.0 2.3 1.7 16.9 d 2.9 2.9 0.0 21.1
Sorghum f 2.0 0.9 1.1 2.0 d 1.1 1.1 0.0 2.5
Wheat f 2.5 1.1 1.4 4.6 d 1.4 1.4 0.0 5.8Green Chile f 4.6 2.0 2.6 11.0 d 2.5 2.5 0.0 13.8Red Chile f 5.0 2.2 2.9 1.7 d 2.7 2.7 0.0 2.2Pecans f 6.0 2.6 3.4 0.6 d 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.7
NM Pecans: Water BalanceTotal ET: higher with Drip
26
Drip 6’
2.6’
3.4’
Flood
3.2’ 3.2’
0Return to system Return to system
27
Under the Hood
28
Ag Water Use Objective
[ ]uckt ct uckt uckt ucktNBA P Yield Cost L
(1 )
( . )
ucktt
u c k t u
NBAMax NPV Ag
r
u location
c crop
k irrig tech flood v drip
t year
• Irrigable land, EBID supplies• Hydrologic balance• Institutional
– Endangered Species Act
– Rio Grande Compact (CO-NM; NM-TX)
– US Mexico Treaty of 1906
– Rio Grande Project operation agreement (NM/TX)
– No increase in water depletions: NM OSE
29
Constraints
•Ag Water Use and Water Savings– 0 pct drip conversion subsidy– 25 pct conversion subsidy cost– 50 pct – 75 pct – 100 pct
30
Results
31
Table 3. Price (Scarcity Value) of Water by Water Shortage and Drip Subsidy, Rio Grande Project, USA, 2006, $US/Ac-Ft ET
Water Supply
Scenario
% Capital Subsidy, Drip irrigation
0 25 50 75 100
Normal 0.00 11.58 23.16 34.75 46.33
Dry 69.35 79.00 89.54 101.12 112.70
32
Table 5. Total Water Applied by Technology and Subsidy Rio Grande Basin, NM, USA, 2006, ac-ft / yr
TechWater Supply
% Capital Subsidy, Drip
0 25 50 75 100
Total all Crops
flood normal 251,394 245,003 238,612 232,221 225,830
dry 211,384 205,992 200,026 193,635 187,244
drip normal 12,214 15,169 18,124 21,079 24,034
dry 5,320 7,814 10,572 13,527 16,482
Total Water Applied normal 263,608 260,172 256,736 253,300 249,864
dry 216,705 213,806 210,598 207,162 203,726 Water Conserved
(Reduced Applications ref: no subsidy)
normal 0 3,436 6,872 10,308 13,744
dry 0 2,899 6,107 9,543 12,979
33
Table 6. Total Water Depletion by Irrigation Technology and Drip Irrigation Subsidy Rio Grande Basin, NM, USA, 2006, acre feet/yr
TechnologyWater Supply
% Capital Subsidy, Drip irrigation
0 25 50 75 100
Total all Crops
floodnormal 114,752 111,797 108,842 105,887 102,932
dry 96,253 93,759 91,001 88,046 85,091
dripnormal 12,214 15,169 18,124 21,079 24,034
dry 5,320 7,814 10,572 13,527 16,482
Total Water Depletednormal 126,966 126,966 126,966 126,966 126,966
dry 101,573 101,573 101,573 101,573 101,573
Water Conserved (Reduced Depletions
Ref: No Subsidy)
normal 0 0 0 0 0
dry 0 0 0 0 0
34
Lessons Learned• Irrigators invest more heavily in water-saving technologies when
faced with lower costs for converting from surface to drip.
• Drip irrigation subsidies farm income, crop yields, value of food production, and crop water applied.
• However, by increasing crop yields and raising crop water ET, drip irrigation subsidies put upward pressure on water depletions.
• Where water rights exist, authorities need to guard against depletions with growing subsidies to reduced water applications.
• Where no system of water rights exists, expect increased depletions of the water source to occur with increased drip irrigation subsidies.
• In the RG Project Area, a 100% subsidy of the cost of converting from surface to drip irrigation raises the economic value of water from $36 to $101 per 1000 m3 depleted with 20% supplies.
35
Research Questions• Ag water use and conservation: hard to
define, measure, forecast, evaluate, alter.• Need better measurement of water use by
field, farm, district, basin (accounting)• What policies motivate growers to reduce ag
water depletions? (importance of water rights adjudication)– At any cost
– At minimum taxpayer cost
36
Research Questions
• How will adjudication of Middle Valley’s water rights increase ag water conservation and make more water for urban and environmental uses?
• How will climate change influence the choice of policies to promote ag water conservation?
37
Research Questions: NM Statewide• Level of historical (or current) ag water use,
by: – Crop– Year– River basin (Colorado, RGR, Pecos…)– Location
• How has historical irr water use been affected by supplies available?
• What has climate change done to NM’s headwater supplies?– reduced by 25% in RGB hws since 2000– but is it statistically significant?
38
Research Questions• What policies would protect and sustain NM’s
aquifers affordably?
• What actions would reduce ag water use likely to occur?
– Without climate change
– With climate change that affects:• Yields
• Evaporation
• ET
• Supplies
– With high, medium, low future: • Prices
• Yields
• Costs
Big research/policy question• Cheapest way to reduce ag water
use to supply water for other uses– Urban– Domestic– Key ecological assets– Energy
• In the face of– Recurrent Drought– Climate change
39
Tentative answers• Better water measurement, e.g.
– Gauges– Tracking use by crop (application, ET)
• Better water accounting– Current use patterns– Potential use patterns: future mgmt,
policy
• Adjudications– Who has the senior/junior rights in the
face of future supply variability. Important as drought/climate intensifies. 40
Thank you