10

Practitioner’s Perspective

Water Optimization through

Applied Irrigation Research
Matt Yost, Niel Allen, Warren Peterson, and Jody Gale

Irrigation, insurance, and life often do not end up in the same sentence.
Irrigation provides essential insurance, even the lifeblood on irrigated farms.
During the past 75 years, irrigation has brought people and prosperity to
rural areas throughout the world. Given adequate water resources, irrigation
ensures water essential to economic production of high quality food, fuel,
feed, and fiber in needed quantities. Agriculture has become the largest user
of extracted or diverted water on the planet and, consequently, the forefront of
efforts to conserve and optimize water use.
As competition for limited water resources increases across the world, water
scarcity rises as a sustainability concern for irrigated agriculture. Rapid urban
growth, increased food demands, groundwater depletion, soil and water salin-
ity, and water supply shortages drive this competition. Competition will also
increase due to projected climate trends toward less frequent, more variable,
and different types (rainfall versus snow) of precipitation.
To address these water scarcity concerns, policymakers, scientists, en-
gineers, practitioners, educators, farmers, and many others have and are
working to optimize agricultural water use. Numerous technologies, devel-
opments, and policies have brought tremendous advancements in agricultur-
al water optimization. For the sake of brevity, this article highlights only a
few major changes of the last 75 years (figure 1) and a few needed efforts
for the future. This discussion focuses on three central areas impacting water

Matt Yost is an agroclimate extension specialist and Niel Allen is an extension

irrigation specialist, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Warren Peterson (retired)
was land and natural resources vice president, Farmland Reserve, Inc., Salt Lake
City, Utah. Jody Gale is extension associate professor, Utah State Univeristy,
Richfield, Utah.

(c) SWCS. For Individual Use Only

116 Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years

Figure 1

Timeline of some of the major advances in water conservation from 1945

to 2020. Dates for many technologies are when they were first widely
commercially available, unless otherwise noted.

Mobile drip
irrigation
(MDI) for University
Variable-rate pivots Drought- computer
irrigation for 2015 tolerant corn irrigation
pivots scheduling
programs

2005
Remote
Low elevation control of
spray 1995 irrigation
application Low-elevation systems
(LEPA) for precision
pivots application
1985 (LESA) for
pivots Surge
irrigation
Glyphosate
herbicide
1975 Laser land-
leveling

No-till
Surface drip
irrigation 1965
seeding
equipment
patent
PVC pipe
Piping/lining Center pivots 1955 Soil moisture Pressurized
of ditches sensors sprinklers
Aluminum
pipe
1945

optimization—irrigation, crop, and soil management—while acknowledging

that complex interactions of these and other factors influence water optimiza-
tion in agriculture.

Irrigation Management
A comprehensive view of irrigation management begins from the point of
first diversion through delivery to the field, continues to water application,
and evapotranspiration (ET) through the crop, and ends with return flow and

(c) SWCS. For Individual Use Only

Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years 117

soil water storage. Major advancements in the first two areas are described
briefly below.
Diversion and Delivery to the Irrigation System. Artificial irrigation relies
on diversion from surface and groundwater sources. Greater access to and
utilization of groundwater has reduced losses incurred during surface water
delivery. Lining and piping of delivery systems have also been a major water
optimization advancement (Schaible and Aillery 2012). Lined ditches and
piping catalyzed by developments of improved materials (concrete, polyvinyl
chloride [PVC], high-density polyethylene [HDPE], etc.; figure 1) have greatly
reduced water losses during delivery from diversion to the field. Other major
advances in delivery systems include technologies to monitor and remote-
ly control flow through headgates, valves, weirs, and other devices (Stubbs
2016). Planned diversions through water orders from developed irrigation in-
stitutions (Bretsen and Hill 2007) instead of set diversions have also reduced
system losses.
Application to the Crop. Irrigation has three major interacting components:
method, amount, and timing. Surface irrigation systems efficiencies have ben-
efited from advancements in laser-leveling, high-head, level basin irrigation,
surge irrigation, and other related approaches (figure 1). One of the largest
impacts in irrigation methods has been the development and widespread
adoption of pressurized irrigation systems (USDA ERS 2019), namely center
pivots and laterals. Massive transitions from gravity to pressurized irrigation
systems have occurred, and still continue to occur, in the United States (USDA
NASS 2018) and other countries. In many cases, this has enabled greater irri-
gation application uniformity and efficiency, and more precise and real-time
control of irrigation. It has also significantly reduced farm labor requirements.
In some cases, however, sprinkler systems have also increased evaporative
losses, reduced return flows, and disrupted downstream water allocations
(Grafton et al. 2018).
Center pivot technology rapidly advanced during the late 1990s and con-
tinues to date. Center pivots can now be remotely controlled and programmed
to apply precise amounts of water throughout a field, enabling variable-rate
irrigation approaches. To reduce evaporative losses and improve applica-
tion uniformity, sprinkler systems, especially center pivots, have largely
transitioned from sprinklers at high elevations (including on top of pivot) to
mid- (~1.5 m [4.9 ft]) and low-elevation (0.5 m [1.6 ft]) systems. Most center
pivots in the last two decades have utilized some form of mid-elevation spray
application (MESA), but adoption of three more efficient pivot sprinkler
technologies (low-elevation spray application [LESA], low-energy precision
application [LEPA], and precision mobile drip irrigation [PMDI or MDI]

(c) SWCS. For Individual Use Only

118 Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years

Figure 2

Four pivot/linear irrigation packages including mid-elevation spray

application (MESA), low-energy precision application (LEPA), low-
elevation spray application (LESA), and mobile drip irrigation (MDI).

MESA LEPA

LESA MDI

systems; figure 2) is increasing as the industry, irrigators, and scientists have

documented their benefits (Schneider et al. 2000; Peters et al. 2016; Kisekka
et al. 2017). These advanced irrigation systems have been appealing because
they can be installed on existing pivots at much lower investment costs than
subsurface drip irrigation.
Subsurface drip irrigation equipment and techniques have also advanced
greatly in the last 75 years. This irrigation method has among the highest poten-
tial irrigation application efficiency (upwards of 97%) but has been impractical
for many operations due to large capital investments and logistical concerns
(Neibling 1994; Amossen et al. 2011). Subsequently, its growth has been the
greatest in high value crops.
Simple and inexpensive management methods have allowed irrigators
to improve water management, such as modifying irrigation amounts and
timing. Irrigation rates have easily been modified by changing flow rates, irri-
gation set lengths, nozzle size, and other methods. These adjustments match
irrigation rates to soil intake rates, maximum soil water depletion between
irrigations, and ET demand, which in turn reduces or prevents unneces-
sary runoff or other losses (Andales 2014). The approach has been adjusted
to account for inadequate water supplies and has included various forms
of deficit or partial irrigation (Lindenmayer et al. 2011; Putnam et al. 2017).

(c) SWCS. For Individual Use Only

Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years 119

Figure 3

Examples of advanced irrigation scheduling approaches: (a) soil

moisture sensing system with telemetry, (b) weather station data used
to estimate evapotranspiration and create irrigation schedule programs
(e.g., Irrigation Scheduler developed by Washington State University),
and (c) a commercial scheduling product called FieldNet Advisor
developed by the Lindsay Corporation.

(a) (b) (c)

Several methods developed to determine ideal irrigation schedules include

the following:
• Monitoring soil moisture by hand using the “feel” method, or with a
variety of soil moisture sensors (Maughan et al. 2015; figure 3).
• Irrigation scheduler systems that utilize weather data to estimate ET,
calculate water balances, and recommend irrigation rates according to
maximum allowable depletion (Leib et al. 2002).
• Canopy temperature sensors to detect crop water stress (Stockle and
Dugas 1992).
• Commercial programs that utilize crop growth models, soil character-
istics, and ET estimated from satellite or aerial imagery. In some cases,
these programs have the ability to send prescriptions directly to pivot
controls for autonomous irrigation.

Although adoption of advanced irrigation scheduling techniques has been

slow in the United States (USDA NASS 2018), interest from irrigators has grown
each year as more growers realize benefits associated with improved scheduling.

(c) SWCS. For Individual Use Only

120 Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years

Crop Management
Water optimization can be achieved when crops are better able to utilize water.
This has occurred in many ways, but only three will be discussed here:
• Improved weed control has been a major advancement in crop man-
agement that has improved crop water utilization. Weeds often extract
water in greater amounts per unit of dry matter than crops. Modern
herbicides such as glyphosate have greatly reduced water competition
from weeds for a large variety of crops.
• Improved crop varieties and hybrids have been another important ad-
vancement. The yield potential of most crop varieties has dramatically
increased during the last 75 years. In tandem with yield increases, crop
water use efficiencies have also improved. In some crops, advanced
breeding and genetic techniques have led to more drought-tolerant
varieties. Drought-tolerant corn hybrids such as AquaMax developed
by DuPont Pioneer and DroughtGaurd developed by Monsanto are a
couple of examples (McFadden et al. 2019).
• Alternative crops with lower and/or different timing of water require-
ments has been a third common advancement toward better water opti-
mization. Alternative crop lists are lengthy, but some of the major gains
in acreage have occurred with sorghum and related species, pearl millet,
triticale and other various small grains, and some oilseeds like canola
and safflower.

Soil Management
Another approach to water optimization is improving the soil’s ability to
retain water and make it available to plants. While many management prac-
tices influence soil water dynamics, a few have shown promise across wide
geographies. These include proper nutrient management; reduced or elimi-
nated tillage; residue management (up to 25% to 40% improvements in water
productivity [Hatfield et al. 2001]), and soil amendments with high carbon or-
ganic materials such as manure, compost, cover crops, and/or biochar to help
increase soil organic matter and improve water holding capacity (Khaleel et
al. 1981; Ali and Talukder 2008; Karhua et al. 2011; Hunter et al. 2017).

Looking Forward
For the sake of brevity, this chapter has only scratched the surface of water op-
timization efforts during the last 75 years. Technology advancements of water
delivery and application systems, coupled with irrigation, crop, and soil
management have made large strides. Volumes have (Stubbs 2016; Nurzaman

(c) SWCS. For Individual Use Only

Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years 121

2017) and could be written about the numerous policies, technologies, science,
education, and adoption that have positively influenced water optimization.
Some of the major challenges going forward will be to discover, prioritize,
and incentivize long-term economic and environmental ways to best optimize
water use. Because it is impractical and unaffordable for all water-optimizing
practices to be simultaneously implemented, advanced tools will be neces-
sary to help farmers, policymakers, and other stakeholders identify the suites
or combinations that produce the greatest water efficiencies. These tools and
investments should be guided by ongoing and innovative long-term irriga-
tion research, which is currently sparse or nonexistent compared to other
agricultural research.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Monty Teeter, CEO of Dragon-
Line, Inc., and Dan Schueler, sales manager with Senninger Irrigation, for their contri-
butions to this chapter.

References
Ali, M.H., and M.S.U. Talukder. 2008. Increasing water productivity in crop produc-
tion—A synthesis. Agricultural Water Management 95(11):1201–1213.
Amosson, S., L. Almas, J. Girase, N. Kinney, B. Guerrero, K. Vimlesh, and T. Marek. 2011.
Economics of Irrigation Systems. B-6113. College Station, Texas: Texas AgriLife
Extension Service.
Andales, A.A., T.A. Bauder, and N.J. Doesken. 2014. The Colorado Agricultural
Meteorological Network (CoAgMet) and crop ET reports (4):10–12. Denver, CO:
Colorado State University Extension. http://extension.colostate.edu/docs/
pubs/crops/04723.pdf.
Bretsen, S.N., and P.J. Hill. 2007. Irrigation institutions in the American West. UCLA
Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 25:289-331.
Grafton, R.Q., J. Williams, C.J. Perry, F. Molle, C. Ringler, P Steduto, B. Udall, S.A.
Wheeler, Y. Wang, D. Garrick, and R.G. Allen. 2018. The paradox of irrigation
efficiency. Science 361:748-750.
Hatfield, J.L., T.J. Sauer, and J.H. Prueger. 2001. Managing soils to achieve greater water
use efficiency. Agronomy Journal 93(2):271-280.
Hunter, B., G.E. Cardon, S. Olsen, D.G. Alston, and D. McAvoy. 2017. Preliminary
screening of the effect of biochar properties and soil incorporation rate on let-
tuce growth to guide research and educate the public through extension. Journal
of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development 9:1-4.
Karhua, K.T., T. Mattila, I. Bergströma, and K. Reginac. 2011. Biochar addition to ag-
ricultural soil increased CH4 uptake and water holding capacity – Results
from a short-term pilot field study. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
140:309-313.
Khaleel, R., K.R. Reddy, and M.R. Overcash. 1981. Changes in soil physical properties
due to organic waste applications: A review. Journal of Environmental Quality
10(2):133-141.

(c) SWCS. For Individual Use Only

122 Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years

Kisekka, I., T. Oker, G. Nguyen, J. Aguilar, and D. Rogers. 2017. Revisiting precision
mobile drip irrigation under limited water. Irrigation Science 35:483-500.
Leib, B.G., M. Hattendorf, T. Elliott, and G. Matthews. 2002. Adoption and adaptation
of scientific irrigation scheduling: Trends from Washington, USA as of 1998.
Agricultural Water Management 55(2):105–120.
Lindenmayer, B.R., N.C. Hansen, J. Brummer, and J.G. Pritchett. 2011. Deficit irrigation
of alfalfa for water-savings in the great plains and intermountain west: A review
and analysis of the literature. Agronomy Journal 103(1):45–50.
Maughan, T., L.N. Allen, and D. Drost. 2015. Soil moisture measurement and sensors
for irrigation management. AG/Irrigation/2015-01pr. Logan, UT: Utah State
University Extension. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/extension_curall/778/.
McFadden, J., D. Smith, S. Wechsler, and S. Wallander. 2019. Development, adop-
tion, and management of drought-tolerant corn in the United States. EIB-204.
Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Neibling, H. 1994. Irrigations systems for Idaho. CIS 1055. Moscow, ID: University of
Idaho Cooperative Extension Service.
Nurzaman, F.P. 2017. Irrigation management in the western states. Master’s thesis,
University of California, Davis.
Peters, R.T., H. Neibling, and R. Stroh. 2016. Low energy precision application (LEPA)
and low elevation spray application (LESA) trials in the pacific northwest. In
Proceedings of the 2016 California Alfalfa and Forage Symposium, Reno, Nevada,
Nov 29-Dec 1. Davis, CA: University of California Cooperative Extension.
Putnam, D.H., J. Radawich, D. Zaccaria and A. Montazar. 2017. Partial-season alfalfa
irrigation: An effective strategy for a future of variable water supplies. Davis,
CA: University of California Cooperative Extension Service.
Schaible, G., and M. Aillery. 2012. Water conservation in irrigated agriculture: Trends
and challenges in the face of emerging demands. Economic Information Bulletin
No. 99. Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2139/ssrn.2186555.
Schneider, A.D. 2000. Efficiency and uniformity of the LEPA and spray sprinkler meth-
ods: A review. Transactions of ASAE 43:937-944.
Stockle, C., and W. Dugas. 1992. Evaluating canopy temperature-based indices for irri-
gation scheduling. Irrigation Science 13(1):31–37.
Stubbs, M. 2016. Irrigation in U.S. Agriculture: On-farm technologies and best manage-
ment practices. Congressional Research Service. R44158. https://fas.org/sgp/
crs/misc/R44158.pdf.
USDA ERS (Economic Research Service). 2019. Irrigation and Water Use. Washington,
DC: USDA Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/
farm-practices-management/irrigation-water-use/#trends.
USDA NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2018. Irrigation and Water
Management Survey. Washington, DC: USDA National Agriculture Statistic
Service. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_
Resources/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/index.php.

(c) SWCS. For Individual Use Only