Advertisement

Irrigation and Drainage Systems

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 161–177 | Cite as

Economic analysis of integrated on-farm drainage management

  • Dennis Wichelns
Article

Abstract

The goal of integrated on-farm drainage management (IFDM) is to eliminate the discharge of subsurface drainage water from farms into waterways or evaporation ponds. Components of a typical IFDM system include improved irrigation practices, irrigation of salt-tolerant plants with drainage water, and on-farm disposal of drainage water using a solar evaporator. Costs of an IFDM system include initial investments, operation and maintenance, and the opportunity costs of land used for the solar evaporator and for irrigation of nonmarketable, salt-tolerant plants. The farm-level cost of an IFDM system increases with the proportion of farmland used to irrigate salt-tolerant plants. A conceptual framework for evaluating the farm-level costs of IFDM is presented, along with empirical analysis from California’s San Joaquin Valley.

Keywords

drainage water IFDM irrigation San Joaquin Valley solar evaporators 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Campbell-Mathews, M., Vargas, R., Wright, S., Collar, C., Canevari, M., Jackson, L., Marsh, B., Klonsky, K. & Livingston, P. 1999. Sample Costs to Produce Winter Forage, San Joaquin Valley. University of California Cooperative Extension, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
  2. Cervinka, V., Diener, J., Erickson, J., Finch, C., Martin, M., Menezes, F., Peters, D. & Shelton, J. 1999. Integrated system for agricultural drainage management on irrigated farmland. Final Research Report, 4-FG-20–11920, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior. 41 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Hanson, B.R. & Ayars, J.E. 2002. Strategies for reducing subsurface drainage in irrigated agriculture through improved irrigation. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 16: 261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hutmacher, R.B., Vargas, R.N., Wright, S.D., Roberts, B.A., Marsh, B.H., Munk, D.S., Weir, B.L., Klonsky, K.M., & DeMoura, R.L. 2003. Sample Costs to Produce Cotton (acala variety) 40-Inch Row, San Joaquin Valley, University of California Cooperative Extension, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Letey, J. 2000. Soil salinity poses challenges for sustainable agriculture and wildlife. California Agriculture 54(2): 43–48.Google Scholar
  6. Letey, J., Birkle, D.E., Jury, W.A. & Kan, I. 2003. Model describes sustainable long-term recycling of saline agricultural drainage water. California Agriculture 57(1): 24–27.Google Scholar
  7. Letey, J., Williams, C.F. & Alemi, M. 2002. Salinity, drainage and selenium problems in the western San Joaquin Valley of California. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 16: 253–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lin, Z.-Q., Cervinka, V., Pickering, I.J., Zayed, A. & Terry, N. 2002. Managing selenium-contaminated agricultural drainage water by the integrated on-farm drainage management system: Role of selenium volatilization. Water Research 36: 3150–3160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. May, D.M., Weir, B.L., Nunez, J.J., Klonsky, K.M. & DeMoura, R.L. 2001. Sample Costs to Establish and Produce Processing Tomatoes, San Joaquin Valley, Double-Row Seeded. University of California Cooperative Extension, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
  10. Oster, J.D. & Grattan, S.R. 2002. Drainage water reuse. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 16: 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. San Joaquin Valley Drainage Implementation Program (SJVDIP). 1999a. Drainage Reuse Technical Committee Report. Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. 81 pp.Google Scholar
  12. San Joaquin Valley Drainage Implementation Program (SJVDIP). 1999b. Drainage Water Treatment Technical Committee Report. Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. 41 pp.Google Scholar
  13. San Joaquin Valley Drainage Implementation Program (SJVDIP). 1999c. Evaporation Ponds Technical Committee Report. Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. 77 pp.Google Scholar
  14. San Joaquin Valley Drainage Implementation Program (SJVDIP). 1999d. Source Reduction Technical Committee Report. Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. 33 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Tanji, K.K., Davis, D., Hanson, C., Toto, A., Higashi, R. & Amrhein, C. 2002. Evaporation ponds as a drainwater disposal management option. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 16: 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tanji, K.K. & Kielen, N.C. 2002. Agricultural drainage water management in arid and semi-arid areas. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 61. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
  17. Tanji, K.K., Ong, C.G.H., Dahlgren, R.A. & Herbel, M.J. 1992. Salt deposits in evaporation ponds: An environmental hazard? California Agriculture 46: 18–21.Google Scholar
  18. United States Department of Labor. 2003. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Available at http://www.bls.gov, December 15, 2003.
  19. Vargas, R.N., Mueller, S.C., Frate, C.A., Canevari, M., Campbell-Mathews, M., Klonsky, K.M. & DeMoura, R.L. 2003. Sample Costs to Establish and Produce Alfalfa, San Joaquin Valley, 300 Acre Planting. University of California Cooperative Extension, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Wallender, W.W., Rhoades, J., Weinberg, M., Lee S., Uptain, C. & Purkey, D. 2002. Irrigated land retirement. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 16: 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wichelns, D., Houston, L. & Cone, D. 1997. Economic analysis of sprinkler and siphon tube irrigation systems, with implications for public policies. Agricultural Water Management 32: 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wichelns, D., Houston, L., Cone, D., Zhu, Q. & Wilen, J. 1996. Labor costs may offset water savings of sprinkler systems. California Agriculture 50(1): 11–18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California Water Institute and Department of Agricultural EconomicsCalifornia State UniversityFresno

Personalised recommendations