The adoption of improved irrigation technology and management practices—A study of two irrigation districts in Alberta, Canada

agricultural water management 96 (2009) 121–131

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

The adoption of improved irrigation technology and management practices—A study of two irrigation districts in Alberta, Canada Henning Bjornlund a,b,1, Lorraine Nicol c,*, K.K. Klein d,2 a

Department of Economics, Room D484, University Hall, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 3M4 Centre for Regulation and Market Analysis, University of South Australia, Australia c Department of Economics, Room C578, University Hall, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 3M4 d Department of Economics, Room C594, University Hall, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 3M4 b

article info

abstract

Article history:

Irrigation is by far the largest consumer of water in Alberta. The government is therefore

Received 5 December 2007

dependent on this sector to achieve water savings for reallocating water to other sectors.

Accepted 16 July 2008

Hence, a major objective of a recent government strategy is to see an increase in water

Published on line 14 September 2008

efficiency and productivity of 30%. A survey of two irrigation districts was undertaken to determine the measures irrigators have taken and plan to take in the future to improve

Keywords:

irrigation technologies and management practices to enhance water use efficiency and

Water policy

which factors facilitate or impede the adoption of such measures. As anticipated, the

Water efficiency

adoption rate varied between the two districts as a result of differences in production

Water allocation

characteristics. The major drivers of adoption were to ensure security of water supply

Technological diffusion

during drought, to increase quantity and quality of crops, and to save cost, while the major impediments were financial constraints and physical farm conditions. It seems that most feasible technological improvements have been implemented and considerable financial improvements or subsidies will be necessary to encourage a significant increase in adoption. There seems to be considerable scope for improvement through the adoption of better management practices. Considering that farmers in the two irrigation districts also have modest plans to adopt improved management practices, promotion and education campaigns that encourage new practices that involve minimal cash outlays might yield the greatest water savings in the future. # 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

The government of Alberta, one of the three prairie provinces in Canada (Map 1), recognizes that water is a shared

responsibility, endorses management on a watershed scale, and has adopted an integrated water management approach (Ramin, 2004). These principles were upheld when in 2001 the government embarked on a public review process to develop a

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 403 329 2512; fax: +1 403 329 2519. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Bjornlund), [email protected] (L. Nicol), [email protected] (K.K. Klein). 1

Tel.: +1 403 317 2884, Fax: +1 403 329 2519. Tel.: +1 403 329 2438, Fax: +1 403 329 2519. 0378-3774/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2008.07.009 2

122

agricultural water management 96 (2009) 121–131

Plate 1

long-term provincial water management strategy. This review process occurred between November 2001 and June 2002. The result was the Water for Life strategy, released in November 2003 (AENV, 2003), which confirms that water resources in the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB), the basin encompassing the greatest economic and population growth, are fully or over committed. Demand for water is likely to continue increasing due to such growth as well as increased demand from in-stream users. The strategy identifies improved water use efficiency and productivity as the primary methods of satisfying this increased demand. One of the strategy’s main objectives is a 30% increase in efficiency and productivity by 2012 over 2005 levels. The strategy also emphasizes that existing licenses will be respected, and that new demand should be met by voluntary and mutually beneficial arrangements between existing license holders and proponents of new projects that require access to water. The strategy emphasizes that economic instruments may be implemented as necessary to achieve the objectives. Economic instruments have been adopted only tentatively so far, having found their way into water management in Alberta when revisions to the Water Act in 1999 and to the Irrigation Districts Act in 2000 provided for the introduction of trading in water rights and allocations. During the drought of 2001 the ability to trade in water allocations assisted irrigators in the St. Mary River Irrigation District to deal with severe drought conditions (Nicol and Klein, 2006). On the other hand the market for water rights has not yet been widely adopted (Nicol et al., in press). The largest consumers of fresh water in Alberta are irrigators in southern Alberta. Either individually, or as members of irrigation districts, irrigators control 75% of all allocated water (AENV, 2002). Virtually all irrigation activity in

the province takes place in the SSRB, within two of its major river systems – the Bow and Oldman rivers. Persistent stress on many of the rivers, compounded by a drought in 2001, resulted in a moratorium being placed on additional surface water licenses from the southern tributaries of the Oldman River. In 2005 the Minister of Environment announced that the department will not accept further applications for water licenses in three of the four sub-basins in the SSRB until the Minister has specified how water not currently allocated should be used (AENV, 2005). As a consequence, the extraction of additional water for consumptive use from these rivers has been stopped. Proponents of new enterprises that have no current water licenses must obtain through negotiation a reallocation of water from existing license holders. We investigate the likely adoption of more efficient irrigation technologies and management practices to achieve the 30% improvement anticipated by the Water for Life Strategy. We have interviewed irrigators in two irrigation districts with different production characteristics as identified by Bjornlund et al. (2007). We analyse how the differences in production characteristics influence the level of adoption of more efficient irrigation methods and management practices. We also analyse how adoption has been influenced by personal characteristics of the irrigators and how this conforms to the general adoption theories of agricultural innovations.

2. Conflicts and opportunities in Alberta’s irrigation districts Because of the significant amount of water licensed to the 13 irrigation districts, the seniority of those rights, and the high

agricultural water management 96 (2009) 121–131

level of discretion and power that the districts’ boards of directors have over how the water is used3, the districts are ‘‘dominant economic and political players within the provincial water rights regime’’ (Bankes and Kwasniak, 2005, p. 6). Capping water allocations within the SSRB has created the grounds for conflicts between users, often involving irrigation districts. Despite widespread recognition of the need for mutually beneficial reallocations from irrigation to new users there have been significant disagreements over how best to achieve this. The irrigation sector has engaged in a few transfers to accommodate new developments and enable new agricultural processors to locate in the region. Some irrigation districts also have applied to have their licenses amended to make it easier and more flexible to facilitate the transfer of water from the districts to non-irrigation users. The most recent and highly publicized example arose in 2007 when Alberta Environment approved a controversial agreement between the municipality of Rocky View and the Western Irrigation District (WID) that allowed the permanent trade of 2500 ML of water to allow for the development of a large shopping mall, casino complex and horse race track. The agreement involved the payment of $15 million to the WID to convert a leaky canal into an efficient pipeline, with most of the saved water (captured through reduced runoff and evaporation) allocated to the municipality of Rocky View. With agriculture, urban and environmental interests having a stake in the outcome, the agreement was the most publicized and controversial water rights trade in the province. Opposition was apparent from all sectors including the irrigators in the district that sold the water. One party, an electrical utility, launched a legal challenge that ultimately was rejected. Many irrigators argued at the time that the permanent transfer of the water was too final. Opposition to the permanent reallocation of water was evident also in a survey of the managers and board members of the 13 districts (Bjornlund et al., 2007) where very little support for the concept of reallocating saved water to non-irrigation users was found. Recognizing opposition among irrigators to the permanent sale of water, several districts have applied to have their licenses amended to enable them to supply water to nonirrigation users under a number of arrangements other than the permanent transfer of the water right. In 2003, Alberta Environment approved an application from the St. Mary River Irrigation District (SMRID) to amend one of that District’s licenses that authorized the diversion of 270,000 ML from irrigation to other purposes including municipal, agricultural, commercial, industrial or ecological purposes. This measure has been criticized as undermining the purposes of the provincial Water Act, designed to give a strong public interest in the water resources of the province (Bankes and Kwasniak, 2005). Other irrigation districts have been granted similar amendments to their licenses. In late 2007, the Eastern

3 Under the North-West Irrigation Act, a water license permitted the holder to divert and use the designated amount of water on the land indicated in the license. The Act also established the concept of first in time, first in right, which dictated that in times of shortage those licensees who obtained their licenses first in time were the last to be cut off from the water supply (Block and Forrest, 2005).

123

Irrigation District applied for an amendment to two of its licenses to allow it to provide 940,000 ML for additional purposes, similar to the SMRID amendment. Alberta Environment has stopped processing this application due to public opposition. Some environmental lobby groups argue that these types of amendments allow irrigation districts to operate as water brokers, obtaining authority to provide water to any person for virtually any purpose at whatever price is determined (Christensen and Droitsch, 2008). These groups further allege that this approach is an ‘‘end-run’’ around explicit rules that allow the transfer of water rights, such that a fundamental change to water governance in the province has occurred without public debate (Christensen and Droitsch, 2008, p. 6) In the northern area of the province, where river water is not as highly allocated as in the south, the use of freshwater for enhanced oil recovery, the engine of economic development in the province, has become controversial. The issue has been described as ‘‘politically and emotionally charged’’ (Block and Forrest, 2005, p. 41). There are concerns that conflicts are inevitable and, under the current legislative and administrative framework, there is a lack of certainty regarding how the conflicts will be resolved.

3. Water savings and adoption of efficiency measures—international experience Worldwide, water efficiency in irrigation tends to be low, with national averages in the range of 25–50% (Tiwari and Dinar, 2001). Improved water use efficiency in agriculture is advocated to reduce water use among existing users and to increase the supply available for new users, including instream uses. Measures that reduce evaporation can generate real water savings, especially in areas like California where estimated evaporation losses from sprinkler systems are as high as 9% (Wilkinson, 2000). However, the assumption that all measures that improve water use efficiency lead to reduced water use has been challenged by many researchers (Whittlesey, 2003; English et al., 2002). Often the primary purpose of adopting improved technologies for water application is to increase yields, not to save water. Hence, the use of more efficient technologies often increases, rather than decreases, water consumption (Whittlesey, 2003; English et al., 2002). Many observers suggest that improved efficiency of water use is likely to increase overall consumption of water and thereby reduce return flows. In a basin-wide context, where return flows are significant, this implies less water in the river and ultimately a trade-off between upstream agricultural benefits and downstream users and in-stream purposes. Whittlesey (2003) therefore advised against practices such as subsidizing adoption of irrigation technologies. Huffaker and Whittlesey (2003) warned that most United States legislation focuses on encouraging individual farmers to increase irrigation efficiency, often with the result that total consumptive use increases. This approach fails to address the fact that such increases result in less water available to downstream irrigators. Compared to the adoption of improved technologies, improved management practices can reduce irrigation

124

agricultural water management 96 (2009) 121–131

demand for water and increase the quality of water draining from irrigated regions to sensitive receiving environments (McCrea and Rivers, 2003). Best management practices have been defined as ‘‘practical, affordable approach(es) to conserve a farmer’s soil and water resources without sacrificing productivity’’ (Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 2007, p.1). The primary objective is to ‘‘apply the right amount of water at the right time while maintaining the higher yields attributable to irrigation’’ (Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2000, p.3). Best management practices include, for example, monitoring soil moisture conditions, paying closer attention to the water needs of the crop, and scheduling irrigations at times with minimum evaporation. The rates of adoption of improved technologies and management practices tend to be quite variable. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, where there is a perceived unconstrained water supply, the transition to new technologies has been relatively slow (Schaible et al., 1991). In Colorado, water conservation is not a significant incentive to change irrigation management and irrigators have implemented improved technologies only when they were practical and economical, or when other significant motives existed (Waskom et al., 1999; Bauder and Waskom, 2004). Marques et al. (2005) found that the adoption of irrigation technologies is affected by water supply reliability. This confirms findings in Australia that considerable uncertainty about the level of long-term access to water impedes investments in irrigation (CoAG, 2003). In Western Australia where the cost of water is a small portion of total farm costs, adoption of improved water efficiency practices has not been widespread (McCrea and Rivers, 2003). Additional studies have examined sociological and economic factors that affect the adoption of innovation in the agricultural sector (see, for example, Rogers, 2003; Feder and Umali, 1993; Guerin and Guerin, 1994). The seminal paper by

Ryan and Gross (1943) examined the adoption of hybrid corn seed in the United States and found the rate of adoption followed an S-shaped curve, a pattern whereby innovation goes through a period of slow growth followed by a period of rapid adoption. Five categories of adopters were identified – innovators, early adopters, early majority adopters, late majority adopters and laggards. Theoretical models of adoption also have been established (see, for example, Griliches, 1957; Rogers, 2003; Feder and Slade, 1984; Morrison, 2005). Stephenson’s (2003) research showed that farmers who adopt innovations early tend to be younger, more educated and more cosmopolitan, have higher incomes, larger farm operations and are more reliant on primary sources of information. Smithers and Furman (2003) found that conventional measures of the personal attributes of farmers and of the nature of the farm business, offer relatively little explanatory value of the adoption pattern of agri-environmental programs. Other studies have found that economic and sociological factors differ in importance depending on the type of agricultural innovation. For those innovations that are easy to implement and provide demonstrable benefits, financial factors play a more important role than for innovations that involve considerable new skills where sociological factors have a much greater influence (Morrison, 2005). Ultimately farmers are risk adverse, such that new, affordable ideas that fit with existing knowledge and skills tend to be adopted more quickly than costly, complex innovations.

4.

Study area

Bjornlund et al. (2007) examined the extent to which irrigation leaders in southern Alberta believe that the improved efficiency goals of the Water for Life strategy can be achieved successfully. The authors interviewed 13 irrigation district

Plate 2

125

agricultural water management 96 (2009) 121–131

managers and boards of directors and found that these leaders of the irrigation industry were not very optimistic that irrigation districts could achieve the objective of a 30% improvement in efficiency of water use. The achievements likely would vary across the irrigation districts, reflecting different production conditions with respect to soil quality, heat units, precipitation, water availability and the presence of processing industries. Following results from the Bjornlund et al. (2007) study, it was considered important to determine the extent to which irrigators have made (or plan to make) changes in the way they use water for irrigation that could improve their level of water use efficiency. We chose two irrigation districts with quite distinct soil, cropping and climate characteristics – Raymond and Taber, located south and east, respectively, of the city of Lethbridge in southern Alberta (Map 2). Raymond, the smaller of the two districts, consists of 320 irrigators, while Taber consists of 490. Raymond has a significantly smaller assessment roll area – about 18,700 ha compared to Taber’s approximately 33,400 ha. Raymond has fewer frost-free days and heat units relative to Taber and has soils that are dark brown chernozemics, compared to brown chernozemics in Taber. Raymond, located near the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, also has more undulating land that is not conducive to centre pivot systems and also has a far less certain water supply than does Taber (Raymond Irrigation District has storage capacity of 2454 ML while Taber Irrigation District has storage capacity of 18,750 ML). Located within the Taber district are vegetable processing plants that are not available in the Raymond area (Bjornlund et al., 2007). These factors have led to significantly different production and technology adoption patterns in the two districts. While both irrigation districts produce cereals, a striking difference between the two is the greater proportion of irrigated land devoted to production of forages in Raymond (56%) compared to Taber (33%) and the predominance of specialty crops in Taber (35%) compared to Raymond (1%) (Table 1). In Taber, cereals and forages are used as part of the cropping rotation in specialty crop production while in Raymond forage production often supports cow-calf operations. Reflecting these differences in production and physical conditions, irrigators in the two districts also have adopted different irrigation methods. A much larger proportion of land in Taber is irrigated using the more water efficient and capitalintensive method of centre pivots. This is not surprising given that potato processors located in the Taber district require contracting farmers to use centre pivot irrigation. A much larger proportion of land in Raymond is irrigated using the less

Table 1 – Crops on assessment roll (percent of hectares, 2006) Crops Cereals Forages Oil seeds Specialty crops Other

Taber 25 33 3 35 3

Raymond 36 56 7 1 0

Source: Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (2007).

Table 2 – On-farm irrigation methods (percent of irrigated area, 2006) Method Centre pivot Wheel sprinklers Surface Other

Taber 72 24 4 0

Raymond 39 50 9 2

Source: Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (2007).

water efficient and less costly methods of wheel move sprinklers and surface irrigation (Table 2). Water use efficiency commonly is defined as the amount of irrigation water applied and retained within the active root zone as a percentage of the total volume of water supplied to the on-farm system. Water use efficiency in Alberta has improved over time through the gradual movement away from surface irrigation to wheel move sprinklers and ultimately to the even more efficient low pressure centre pivots. In Alberta, irrigation water use efficiency was estimated in 1999 at 71% across all irrigation districts (AIPA, 2002).

5.

Data and methods

We mailed a survey form to irrigators in the two irrigation districts. The survey instrument was developed and tested in collaboration with officials from Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, and with selected managers and board members from the two irrigation districts. The purposes of the survey were: (1) to determine the recent, current and anticipated behaviours of irrigators relating to the adoption of technologies and management practices designed to increase water use efficiency, and (2) to relate differences in adoption to the unique characteristics of the two districts. The survey asked the respondents: (1) what they have done in the distant past (prior to 2001), more recent past (2001–2006) and what they intend to do in the future (2007–2012) to improve water use efficiency on their farms (Table 3); (2) what they view as drivers and impediments of making such improvements; (3) what has influenced their decisions regarding the adoption of improved technologies and management practices; (4) whether they likely would invest in improved water use efficiency under a number of hypothetical scenarios; and (5) several questions relating to age, education, dependence on off-farm work, family history and expectation of family continuity of the farm. These are factors that the adoption literature has identified as potentially affecting the level of adoption (for example, see Stephenson, 2003). The literature is not unanimous about the influence of such personal characteristics; for example Smithers and Furman (2003) found that personal and farm business characteristics offer little explanatory value in the adoption of environmental farm plans. The district offices provided address labels and an official letter from the district manager that encouraged their members to participate in the survey. A letter from the University of Lethbridge explaining the purpose of the survey and a pre-paid reply envelope also were included in the material sent to irrigators. We asked that participants return

126

agricultural water management 96 (2009) 121–131

Table 3 – Improved irrigation practices Improved technologies

Improved management practices

Convert from surface to wheel move sprinklers Convert from wheel move sprinklers to pivot Convert from surface to pivot Convert from high pressure to low pressure Purchase a computer panel for pivot

Monitor soil moisture using visual crop condition Monitor soil moisture using hand auger and feel method Monitor soil moisture using soil monitoring instruments Start to turn water on and off using computer or phone Start to use computer programs Start to use private consultants

the questionnaires anonymously to the irrigation district offices. The questionnaires were mailed to all 810 irrigators (320 in Raymond and 490 in Taber) on December 14, 2006. A reminder postcard was mailed 10 days later. We received 150 completed questionnaires – 66 from Raymond (21% response rate) and 81 from Taber (17% response rate).

6.

Study results

6.1.

Adoption of more water efficient technologies

Except for converting from surface irrigation to wheel move sprinkler irrigation systems, Taber irrigators in the past have been far more prepared to adopt improved irrigation technologies and modify existing equipment than have Raymond irrigators (Table 4). In particular, prior to 2001 the rates of change from wheel move sprinklers to centre pivots, surface irrigation to centre pivots and from high to low pressure pivots were significantly higher in Taber. Almost 50% of Taber irrigators changed from wheel move sprinklers to centre pivots, while only 14% made that change in Raymond. This shift in Taber would have been prompted in part by the potato processors’ requirement that farmers use centre pivots. In terms of irrigation equipment, these findings explain the data presented in Table 2, which show that 72% of Taber irrigators use centre pivots, compared to 39% in Raymond. From 2001 to 2006, the change to more efficient irrigation technology continued at quite a high level. Transfers from surface irrigation to wheel move sprinklers and from surface irrigation to centre pivots almost ceased, especially in the Taber Irrigation District. This suggests that most of the farmers anticipating conversion out of surface irrigation

had done so prior to 2001. Twenty percent of respondents in both districts changed from wheel move sprinklers. The changes in irrigation systems during 2001–2006 mainly were from high to low pressure centre pivots and the introduction of computer panels to manage pivots more efficiently. Reflecting the fact that these two technologies are among the latest improvements on the market, it was the only adaptation where the rate in Taber was higher during 2001– 2006 than prior to 2001. For Raymond irrigators, fewer changed from surface irrigation to wheel move sprinklers but the same or a greater percentage undertook all remaining four measures, relative to the period prior to 2001. Since most farms in Taber already had made many of the possible changes prior to 2001, generally fewer adopted the more water use efficient technologies during 2001–2006. On the other hand, in Raymond, relatively few irrigators had adopted most measures prior to 2001, so the adoption rate there generally increased during 2001–2006. While the data in Table 4 indicate that the rates of changing from high to low pressure centre pivots and installing computer panels were considerably higher in Taber, the differences were not statistically significant. The expected rate of adoption of new technologies over the next 5 years is generally lower than in previous time periods in both irrigation districts. Only 10% of Taber irrigators plan to invest in more efficient equipment in the future (the first three measures in Table 4). However, many irrigators (about 15%) plan to modify existing equipment by converting from high to low pressure centre pivots and/or purchase a computer panel, the next steps in advancing irrigation technology. In the Raymond district, perhaps because the level of existing irrigation equipment is less advanced than in the Taber district, a higher percentage plan to invest in improved equipment rather than modifying existing equipment – 12%

Table 4 – Adoption of improved irrigation technologies (percent of respondentsa) Neverb

Type Taber Surface to wheel move Wheel move to pivot Surface to pivot High to low pressure Purchase computer panel a b * # y

62 32 82 43 57

Before 2001

Raymond 50 68 91 68 83

Taber 36 49* 15# 22y 11y

Raymond 38 14 5 11 3

2001–2006 Taber 4 20 3 26 20

Raymond 8 20 5 18 11

2007–2012 Taber *

0 9 1 14 15

Irrigators could have implemented these measures over a period of time and hence they are counted in each time period. Have not in the past and do not intend to undertake in the future. Significantly different at the 0.01 level. Significantly different at the 0.05 level. Significantly different at the 0.10 level.

Raymond 8 12 3 9 8

127

agricultural water management 96 (2009) 121–131

Table 5 – Start adoption of improved management practices (percent of respondents) Type

Never

y

2001–2006

2007–2012

Taber

Raymond

Taber

Raymond

Taber

Raymond

Taber

42 30 79 79 79 69

42 61 88 88 94 86

48 53* 4 0 4 14

49 15 3 2 0 6

10 17 6 7 10 12y

6 21 3 5 5 5

0 0 9 14 7 5

Visual monitoring Hand auger and feel method Monitoring instruments Computer/phone Web based programs Private consultants *

Before 2001

Raymond 3 3 6 6 2 3

Significantly different at 0.01. Significantly different at 0.10 level.

plan to convert from wheel move sprinklers to centre pivots, 8% from surface irrigation to wheel move sprinklers and 3% from surface irrigation to centre pivots. A lower percentage, 9%, plan to improve existing equipment by converting from high to low pressure centre pivots and 8% plan to purchase a computer panel. Statistically, the rate of adoption in the future is not significantly different between the districts (except converting from surface irrigation to wheel move sprinklers). Although some irrigators plan to invest in new, or modify existing equipment, it seems the potential for technological improvements within existing financial and physical constraints is largely exhausted.

6.2.

Adoption of improved management practices

A majority of irrigators in both irrigation districts monitor moisture by visual inspection of crop conditions. Almost half of the farmers had implemented this measure before 2001 (Table 5). Monitoring moisture using the hand auger and feel method has been adopted more widely by Taber irrigators, 70% by 2006, while only 36% of irrigators in Raymond had adopted this practice by 2006. All other more advanced measures – monitoring moisture using soil monitoring instruments, using a computer or telephone, using internet sources, or private consultants – were adopted by very few farmers prior to 2001, with continued low recent (2001–2006) and expected (2007–2012) adoption. Generally, the adoption level has been higher in Taber, especially when it comes to web based support and consultants for irrigation scheduling. In the future, few Taber irrigators, and even fewer Raymond irrigators, plan to implement these four measures. Only monitoring instruments and using computer/phone have increased expected adoption rates. The adoption rate of web based or consultant support for irrigation scheduling is declining. These findings indicate considerable room for improvements in the area of irrigation management, which is generally much less expensive than investing in improved technologies. However, changes of farmers’ mindsets might be required.

6.3.

Farm and farmer characteristics

The Taber Irrigation District clearly has experienced a higher rate of adoption of improved technologies and management practices in the past and the observed adoption rate in Taber is consistent with theory, given the characteristics of farmers in

the district. Several factors suggest farmers in the Taber Irrigation District are more productive and economically viable than those in the Raymond District, providing one rationale for Taber’s higher rates of adoption. The Taber Irrigation District is more intensively irrigated than the Raymond Irrigation District (Table 6). Farms in Taber have smaller areas of dry land relative to irrigated land – 70% of farms have fewer than 65 ha of dry land but almost 30% of farms have more than 260 ha of irrigated land. The opposite is true in the Raymond district – 57% of farms have fewer than 65 ha of irrigated land while almost 30% have more than 260 ha of dry land. Although the differences are not statistically significant, these findings support the differences in cropping patterns reported in Table 1, with relatively small parcels of irrigated forage production in Raymond supporting on-farm, cow-calf operations and relatively large irrigated areas devoted to specialty crop production in Taber destined for processing plants in the area. Taber farmers also are less dependent on off-farm work. In Taber, 56% of farmers have some off-farm work compared to 67% for Raymond (Pearson Chi-Square p = 0.195). While the dependence on off-farm work is relatively high in both districts, farmers in Raymond rely on off-farm work for a significantly higher proportion of total household income (Pearson Chi-Square p = 0.058). In Taber, only 26% of households derive more than 75% of their net household income from off-farm work, compared to 54% in Raymond. Reflecting their dependence on farm income, a significantly higher percentage of Taber irrigators participate in government support programs such as crop insurance (Pearson Chi-Square p = 0.006), income stabilization program (Pearson Chi-Square

Table 6 – Dryland and irrigated area by district (percent of respondents) Farm size (ha)

<65 65 and <130 130 and <260 260 or greater #

Dryland area#

Irrigated area*

Taber

Raymond

Taber

68 18 7 7

50 14 9 27

29 22 20 29

Raymond 57 10 16 18

Significantly different at the 0.05 level, but 25% of cells have expected counts of less than 5. * Significantly different at the 0.01 level.

128

agricultural water management 96 (2009) 121–131

Table 7 – Main reasons for implementing change (percent of respondents rating reasons) Reason

Not or little importanta Taber

Improve crop yield or quality Reduce energy costs Reduce water use Reduce labour Reduce fertilizer or pesticide losses Reduce soil erosion Irrigate more land during water restriction

Some importancea

Very importanta

Most importantb

Raymond

Taber

Raymond

Taber

Raymond

Taber

Raymond

6

7

4

0

90

93

57

56

10 7 16 15

16 22 22 27

16 21 15 17

14 22 12 18

75 72 70 68

69 63 67 56

13 10 16 0

12 7 15 2

19 9

38 15

19 20

11 10

63 71

51 76

2 0

2 2

a

Respondents were asked to rate how important each reason was on a 1–5 scale with 1 being not important and 5 very important. In this table a rating of 1 or 2 is no or little importance, 3 is some importance and 4 or 5 are very important. b Respondents were asked which reason was most important.

p = 0.042), environmental farm plan program (Pearson ChiSquare p = 0.170), and energy subsidy (Pearson Chi-Square p = 0.271). Taber farmers have a longer family history in farming. A higher proportion of farmers in Taber (89% vs. 77% in Raymond) have parents who are/were in farming (Pearson Chi-Square p = 0.058). Contrary to expectations, however, we found that the Taber irrigators are older than irrigators in Raymond—47% of farmers are 55 years or older in Taber, compared to 42% in Raymond, which has a larger proportion in the 35–54-year age bracket (53% vs. 47% for Taber). Also, although not statistically significant, Taber farmers are less educated. Fifty-seven percent of Taber farmers have some level of post secondary education, compared to 62% of Raymond irrigators. Finally, Taber farmers have a lower level of expectation of family continuity. A substantially lower proportion of farmers in Taber expect a family member to take over the farm (43% vs. 57% for Raymond) (Pearson Chi-Square p = 0.114). This observation might reflect the fact that Taber has more capital-intensive farm operations that pose a higher risk of financial failure due to fluctuating fortunes of farm enterprises.

6.4.

Reasons for adopting

The questionnaires offered a list of factors that could motivate irrigators to adopt measures that would increase water use efficiency (Table 7). The majority of irrigators in both districts rated all factors as very important, suggesting that irrigators’ decisions are influenced by many factors and that no specific motive is sufficient to justify the investment or change. A larger percentage of Taber irrigators consider most factors very important. This is especially the case when it comes to reducing expenditures for energy and labour, preventing fertilizer and pesticide losses, and reducing water use. This probably reflects the higher involvement in specialty crop production that requires higher levels of farm inputs. Irrigating more land with the same water during water restrictions also was rated as very important by more than 70% of respondents from both districts. This might reflect the irrigators’ experiences during the 2001 drought when water

allocations were reduced to about half the normal allocations. It should be noted that irrigators in Raymond perceive this as more important than do farmers in Taber, reflecting the greater reliability of supply in Taber. In this context, it seems surprising that reducing water use was not rated as important by a higher proportion of farmers in Raymond. When asked to nominate the most important reason for increasing water use efficiency, an almost equal percentage of irrigators in both districts rated the improvement of crop yield or quality as foremost (57% in Taber and 56% in Raymond). This is consistent with the findings in the literature on motives to invest in water efficient technologies. While irrigators in Taber placed higher importance on a number of reasons to adopt, the difference was not statistically significant. This suggests that irrigators in both districts, regardless of their production differences (which have caused them to adopt improved water use efficiency measures at significantly different rates) face the same challenges in maintaining successful farming operations.

6.5.

Reasons for not adopting

When asked to identify the reasons for not implementing changes, respondents were asked to first choose from a list of factors those that had impeded them from adopting new technologies and management practices, and then to indicate which reason was most important. Irrigators in both districts identified many reasons as important. For Taber, the factors identified by most were: already using all water savings practices that are practical (54%), poor commodity prices (41%) and financial constraints (36%). For Raymond, two factors were similarly rated by the highest percentage of irrigators: the use of all water saving practices that are practical (38%) and financial constraints (42%). Use of all water saving practices that are practical was, however, rated important by a significantly lower percentage of Raymond irrigators (Pearson Chi-Square p < 0.05). This indicates that Raymond irrigators accept that there is still scope for substantial improvements if financial conditions are favourable. Given the lower level of supply security in Raymond it was surprising that a significantly higher proportion of Raymond irrigators

129

agricultural water management 96 (2009) 121–131

Table 8 – Ranking of financial aids by type (percent ranking first choice) Tabera

Type Cash subsidy Subsidized borrowing rates Accelerated depreciation

Raymond

71 26 12

72 19 8

a

The percentages add up to more than 100 because one respondent rated all three options as first choice and a small number did not rate every option. Therefore, the percentage reported is the number of respondents who rated the option as first out of the total of those who rated the option.

(35% vs. 20%) reported that they do not invest in new technologies because they have a sufficient water supply (Pearson Chi-Square p < 0.05). This could be expected, given that most Raymond irrigators have less intensive irrigated production in support of their primary production (cow-calf operations). Reflecting the different topography, a higher proportion of Raymond irrigators found physical field conditions an important impediment (39% vs. 27%). When asked to select the most important reason for not implementing changes, the factor identified most often by Taber irrigators was that they already use all the water saving practices that are practical (27%) while for Raymond irrigators it was financial constraints (28%). Only 10% of Taber irrigators chose financial constraints as the most important factor, although 36% ranked financial constraints as very important. About one-fifth (22%) of Raymond irrigators also believed they already use all the water saving practices that are practical. Smaller proportions of farmers in both districts (17% in Taber and 14% in Raymond) identified poor commodity prices as an important factor. Hence, the most important constraints seem to be similar but they differ in degree between the two districts. The constraints include irrigators’ beliefs that they use all the water saving practices that are practical, and the interrelated factors of financial constraints and low commodity prices.

6.6. Measures needed to stimulate investment in improved technologies The findings discussed in the preceding sections support the notion found generally in the literature that the financial situation of irrigators is one of the main reasons for not implementing changes. We therefore asked the irrigators to rank three different types of financial assistance in order of importance that would encourage investments in more efficient irrigation equipment. A cash subsidy was ranked as the first choice by an almost equal percentage of Taber and

Table 10 – Minimum commodity price increase required to improve or replace equipment (percent of respondents) Percent increase

10 20 30 40

Improve equipment

Replace equipment

Taber

Raymond

Taber

8 20 34 38

0 22 29 49

8 8 32 52

Raymond 0 8 32 60

Raymond irrigators, 71% and 72%, respectively. In both irrigation districts, a much smaller percentage of irrigators preferred subsidized borrowing rates or accelerated depreciation (Table 8). Irrigators then were asked at what level of subsidization they would consider (a) improving their existing equipment and (b) investing in a new low pressure pivot system, based on 65 ha (Table 9). Approximately 50% of farmers in the Taber district indicated that a subsidy in the range from $5000 to $10,000 would be needed to improve existing equipment and a similar percentage of respondents indicated that a subsidy in the range of $10,000–$30,000 would be needed to invest in a new low pressure pivot system. Given that the approximate cost of a new low pressure pivot system is $60,000–$65,000 (New Way Irrigation, 2007), it appears that a substantial subsidy could stimulate investments in this improved irrigation technology. Although not statistically significant, the data suggest even greater subsidies would be needed to stimulate investment in the Raymond district, probably reflecting the lower impact irrigation has on farm operations there. Almost 40% of Raymond farmers indicated that the highest level of subsidy would be needed – more than $10,000 to improve existing equipment and more than $30,000 to replace existing equipment. Irrigators were asked what minimum level of commodity price increase, over 2005 reference prices, would be required to convince them to (a) improve, or (b) replace, existing irrigation equipment (Table 10). To undertake either initiative, many irrigators in both districts indicted that they would require major price increases. Although differences between the districts were not statistically significant, the levels of price increase reflected in the data tended to be higher for Raymond irrigators. Almost 50% of Taber irrigators would require commodity price increases of 40% to improve or replace irrigation equipment. For Raymond irrigators, more than half would require commodity price increases of 40% to improve or

Table 9 – Level of subsidization required to improve equipment or invest in low pressure pivot, based on 65 ha (percent of respondents) Improve existing equipment Level Less than $5,000 $5,000–$10,000 More than $10,000

Invest in new low pressure pivot Taber

Raymond

Level

Taber

17 51 32

20 42 38

Less than $10,000 $10,000–$30,000 More than $30,000

24 49 27

Raymond 14 48 38

130

agricultural water management 96 (2009) 121–131

replace irrigation equipment. These results underline findings reported earlier that financial constraints are a significant barrier for many irrigators, perhaps more so for Raymond irrigators.

7.

Conclusions

Farmers in the Taber and Raymond irrigation districts have adopted improved irrigation technologies at different rates. Taber farmers have been more aggressive. However, farmers in both districts have similar expectations with regard to future investments, planning very modest new adoptions. To encourage greater adoption, significant incentives in the form of subsidies or commodity price increases are required. Given that improved technologies may result in more, rather than less, water consumption, limited adoption in the future may support Alberta’s Water for Life water saving goals. Unfortunately, plans for improved management practices, which hold some potential for real water savings, also are modest. Because there is substantial room for improvements, understanding the drivers and impediments of adopting will be critical to the achievement of the Water for Life’s goals. An earlier survey of managers and members of the Boards of Directors (Bjornlund et al., 2007), anticipated that irrigators in the Taber Irrigation District would be more likely to adopt new irrigation technologies and management practices, as farmers in Taber engage in water-intensive specialty crop production and they have a more secure water supply. Our findings confirm that prior to 2001, Taber farmers adopted new technologies and management practices at a significantly faster pace than did farmers in Raymond. Since 2001, the pace of adoption in Taber has declined substantially, but is still higher than in Raymond. Similarly, the anticipated adoption rate over the next 5 years continues to decline in Taber but is still higher than in Raymond, although not significantly higher. The findings suggest that in Taber the adoption of more efficient irrigation technologies is mostly exhausted. This is partly a result of the aggressive adoption rate in the past, resulting in most irrigators believing that they have made all the improvements that are feasible under current economic conditions. However, it also likely is influenced by the finding that 57% of current farm families do not expect family continuity of their farm and therefore might be reluctant to invest further in irrigation technologies. In Raymond, both financial and physical constraints help explain why the majority of irrigators believe they have introduced most of the improvements that are feasible. In addition, farms are larger in Raymond and a much smaller portion of farmland is irrigated. Much of the irrigated land is in fodder production to support cow-calf operations. Because irrigation is a relatively minor part of most farm operations, Raymond farmers might see little added benefit of investing further in irrigation technologies as it would expose them further to financial risk. While the expectation of family continuity is significantly higher in Raymond, 43% of farm families do not expect the farm to continue in the family. Many of our observations are consistent with recent studies of technology adoption in agriculture. Generally,

Taber irrigators are more productive and economically viable, less dependent on off-farm income, and have a longer farming history than are farmers in Raymond. However, contrary to expectations, Taber farmers are older, less educated, and have less expectation of farm continuity than do Raymond farmers. Our findings suggest that the objective of a 30% increase in efficiency of water use anticipated in Alberta’s Water for Life strategy is unlikely to be achieved by on-farm improvements in the short term. However, it seems that more than half the existing land will change hands with the retirement of the current generation of farmers. It is likely that this land will be amalgamated with the most progressive of existing farms and thus, over time, the anticipated improvements might be achieved. To achieve the 30% improvements in the short term, more emphasis is needed on improving system efficiencies and promoting the adoption of more efficient management practices, rather than new technologies. Improving practices is less capital-intensive but holds promise for achieving additional efficiency gains. This will require educational and informational campaigns by extension officers and more research regarding how to promote the adoption of such management practices among the existing group of farmers. Since increased conflicts over water are anticipated, water savings from, and positive collaboration with, the agricultural water users in the province will be imperative.

references

Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development (AAFRD), 2007. Alberta Irrigation Information 2006. Author, Lethbridge, Alberta. Alberta Environment (AENV), 2002. Water for Life – Facts and Information on Water in Alberta, 2002. Publication #I/930. Author, Edmonton, Alberta. Alberta Environment (AENV), 2003. Water for Life – Alberta’s strategy for sustainability. Alberta Environment, Edmonton. Alberta Environment (AENV), 2005. Draft Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin in Alberta. Retrieved September 10, 2005 from http://www3.gov.ab.ca/ env/water/regions/ssrb/pdf/Draft_SSRB_Plan.pdf. Alberta Irrigation Projects Association (AIPA), 2002. Irrigation in the 21st Century, (2002), Volume 1: Summary Report, Author, Lethbridge, Alberta. Bankes, N., Kwasniak, A., 2005. The St. Mary’s Irrigation District license amendment decision: irrigation districts as a law unto themselves. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 16 (1), 1–18. Bauder, T., Waskom, R., 2004. Are we there yet? Voluntary adoption of agricultural best management practices. Colorado State University, Colorado NPS Connection, www.colostate.edu/Depts/AES/Pubs/pdf/tr99-5.pdf. Bjornlund, H., Nicol, L., Klein, K., 2007. Challenges in implementing economic instruments to manage irrigation water on farms in southern Alberta. Agriculture Water Management 92, 131–141. Block, R., Forrest, J., 2005. A gathering storm: water conflict in Alberta. Alberta Law Review 43, 31–50. Christensen, R., Droitsch, D., 2008. Fight to the last drop – a glimpse into Alberta’s water future. Prepared for Ecojustice and Bow Riverkeeper. Council of Australian Governments (CoAG), 2003. Communique 29 August.

agricultural water management 96 (2009) 121–131

English, M., Solomon, K., Hoffman, G., 2002. A paradigm shift in irrigation management. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 267–277. Feder, G., Slade, R., 1984. The acquisition of information and the adoption of new technology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66, 312–320. Feder, G., Umali, D., 1993. The adoption of agricultural innovations: a review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43, 215–239. Griliches, Z., 1957. Hybrid corn: an exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica 25, 501–521. Guerin, L., Guerin, T., 1994. Constraints to the adoption of innovations in agricultural research and environmental management: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 34, 549–571. Huffaker, R., Whittlesey, N., 2003. A theoretical analysis of economic incentive policies encouraging agricultural water conservation. Water Resources Development 19 (1), 37–53. Marques, G.F., Lund, J.R., Howitt, R.E., 2005. Modelling irrigated agricultural production and water use decisions under water supply uncertainty. Water Resources Research 41 (8) WO8423. McCrea, R.F., Rivers, M.R., 2003. Sustainable irrigation – a collective effort for regional development. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development, Fremantle, Western Australia, September. Morrison, M., 2005. Identifying market segments for technology adoption. In: Paper Presented at the 49th Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Coffs Harbour, NSW, 9th–11th February. New Way Irrigation Ltd., Lethbridge, telephone conversation, May 17, 2007. Nicol, L., Klein, K.K., 2006. Water market characteristics: results from a survey of Southern Alberta irrigators. Canadian Water Resources Journal 31 (2), 91–104. Nicol, L., Klein, K.K., Bjornlund, H. Permanent transfer of water rights: a study of the southern Alberta market. Prairie Forum, in press.

131

Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 2007. Best Management Practices Series, Author, Government of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario. Ramin, V., 2004. The status of integrated water resources management in Canada. Canadian Perspectives on Integrated Water Resources Management, 1–32. Canadian Water Resources Association, Cambridge, Ontario. Rogers, V., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, fifth ed. The Free Press, New York. Ryan, B., Gross, N., 1943. The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology 8, 15–24. Schaible, G., Kim, C.S., Whittlesey, N.K., 1991. Water conservation potential from irrigation technology transitions in the Pacific Northwest. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 16 (2), 194–206. Smithers, J., Furman, M., 2003. Environmental farm planning in Ontario: exploring participation and the endurance of change. Land Use Policy 20, 343–356. Stephenson, G., 2003. The somewhat flawed theoretical foundation of the extension service. Journal of Extension 41, 1–10. Tiwari, D., Dinar, A., 2001. Role and use of economic incentives in irrigated agriculture. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/All/ B258214F738E38FB852569FB00596684. Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2000. Best Management Practices for Irrigation. Publication #442–901. Author, Virginia. Waskom, R.M., Frasier, W.M., Bauder, T.A., Hoag, D., 1999. Irrigation management practices: what are Colorado producers doing? Colorado Water 16 (3), 16–19. Whittlesey, N., 2003. Improving irrigation efficiency though technological adoption: when will it conserve water? In: Alsharhan, A.S., Wood, W.W. (Eds.), Water Resources Perspectives: Evaluation, Management and Policy. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 53–62. Wilkinson, R.C., 2000. Urban and Agricultural Water Use Efficiency. California Department of Water Resources (Bulletin 160–2003).