Agricultural Economic Water Productivity Differences across Counties in the Colorado River Basin
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Water Productivity
2.2. Updating Economic Water Productivity Estimates
2.3. Factors Contributing to Economic Water Productivity Differences across Counties
2.4. Estimation Strategy
2.5. Productivity Accounting
3. Results
3.1. Distribution of EWP: Implications for Agricultural Water Reallocation
3.2. Regression Variable Selection
3.3. Regression Results
3.4. Productivity Accounting Results
3.5. Warm Winters
3.6. July Relative Humidity
3.7. Low-Population, Remote Counties (RUCC = 7–9)
3.8. Average Irrigated Farm Size
3.9. Border Effects: The Role of Labor Availability
4. Conclusions
4.1. Implications of Climate Change
4.2. Study Limitations and Implications for Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study: Study Report. Available online: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy.html (accessed on 18 August 2024).
- U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Colorado River Compact. 1922. Available online: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/lawofrvr.html (accessed on 18 August 2024).
- Stockton, C.W.; Jacoby, G.C. Long-Term Surface Water Supply and Streamflow Levels in the Upper Colorado River Basin; Lake Powell Research Project, Bulletin No. 18; Inst. of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Woodhouse, C.; Gray, S.; Meko, D. Updated streamflow reconstructions for the Upper Colorado River Basin. Water Resour. Res. 2006, 42, W05415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frisvold, G.B.; Duval, D. Agricultural water footprints and productivity in the Colorado River Basin. Hydrology 2024, 11, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, C.; Sheikh, P.; Hite, K. Management of the Colorado River: Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role. Congressional Research Service Report R45546 Version 40. Updated 4 April 2024. Available online: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45546 (accessed on 18 July 2024).
- Lund, J. Explaining Water Units to Real People (Who Like Basketball). California WaterBlog. Available online: https://californiawaterblog.com/page/8/ (accessed on 18 July 2024).
- Lochhead, C. Water Authority Lays Out Colorado River Plan to Protect Lake Mead, Lake Powell. Las Vegas Review-Journal. 20 December 2022. Available online: https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/water-authority-lays-out-colorado-river-plan-to-protect-lake-mead-lake-powell-2697841/ (accessed on 15 August 2024).
- The Colorado River Basin States Representatives of Arizona, California, and Nevada. Lower Basin Plan Letter to USBR. 22 May 2023. Available online: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/lower-basin-plan-letter-5-22-2023.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2024).
- U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Near-Term Colorado River Operations Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. October 2023. Available online: https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/documents/NearTermColoradoRiverOperations/20231019-Near-termColoradoRiverOperations-RevisedDraftEIS-508.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2024).
- Keppen, D.; Wade, M. Our Food Supply at Risk. White Paper on the Importance of Alfalfa Production in the American West. Family Farm Alliance. 15 November 2022. Available online: https://www.familyfarmalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Alfalfa-Report-FINAL-111522.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2024).
- Faller, M.B. The Future of Water in Arizona. Arizona State University News. 15 November 2022. Available online: https://news.asu.edu/20221115-arizona-impact-future-water-arizona#:~:text=Climate%20change%20has%20produced%20a,one%2Dfifth%20of%20its%20share (accessed on 15 August 2024).
- Keppen, D. The importance of irrigated agriculture in the Colorado River Basin and the Western United States. Water Rep. 2023, 233, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Lustgarten, A. As Colorado River Dries, the U.S. Teeters on the Brink of Larger Water Crisis. Propublica. 25 August 2022. Available online: https://www.propublica.org/article/colorado-river-water-shortage-jay-famiglietti (accessed on 15 August 2024).
- Palmer, J. Agriculture 3.0: Preparing for a Drier Future in the Colorado River Basin. Tucson Sentinel. 12 July 2023. Available online: https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/071223_colorado_river_agriculture/agriculture-30-preparing-drier-future-colorado-river-basin/ (accessed on 15 August 2024).
- Giordano, M.; Scheierling, S.M.; Tréguer, D.O.; Turral, H.; McCornick, P.G. Moving beyond ‘more crop per drop’: In-sights from two decades of research on agricultural water productivity. Int. J. Water Res. Dev. 2021, 37, 137–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheierling, S.; Treguer, D.O.; Booker, J.F. Water productivity in agriculture: Looking for water in the agricultural productivity and efficiency literature. Water Econ. Policy 2016, 2, 1650007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The Dimensions of Water Productivity. Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c813b0e0-1102-40ff-9d29-bd113c9c2846/content (accessed on 18 July 2024).
- U.S. Department of Agriculture. Census of Agriculture. 2012 Census. State and County Data. Available online: https://agcensus.library.cornell.edu/census_year/2012-census/ (accessed on 18 July 2024).
- U.S. Department of Agriculture. Census of Agriculture. 2017 Census Volume 1, Chapter 2: County Level. Available online: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/ (accessed on 18 July 2024).
- U.S. Department of Agriculture. Census of Agriculture. 2022 Census Volume 1, Chapter 2: County Level. Available online: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/ (accessed on 18 July 2024).
- U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2012 Census of Agriculture: Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (2013), Volume 3, Special Studies, Part 1 AC 12-SS-1. Issued 2014. Available online: https://agcensus.library.cornell.edu/census_parts/2012-2013-farm-and-ranch-irrigation-survey/ (accessed on 18 August 2024).
- U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2018 Irrigation and Water Management Survey. Volume 3, Special Studies, Part 1, AC-17-SS-1. Issued 2019. Available online: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/index.php (accessed on 19 July 2024).
- U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Personal Income and Employment by County and Metropolitan Area: CAINC45 Farm Income and Expenses. 2022. Available online: https://apps.bea.gov/itable/?ReqID=70&step=1 (accessed on 18 August 2024).
- Dieter, C.A.; Maupin, M.A.; Caldwell, R.R.; Harris, M.A.; Ivahnenko, T.I.; Lovelace, J.K.; Barber, N.L.; Linsey, K.S. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2015; U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1441; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
- U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Colorado River Accounting and Water Use Report: Arizona, California, and Nevada, Calendar Year 2015. Available online: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/wtracct.html (accessed on 18 August 2024).
- Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). Butler Valley Basin: Supply and Demand 2023. 2024. Available online: https://www.azwater.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/2023_ButlerValleyBasin.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2024).
- Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). McMullen Valley: Supply and Demand 2023. 2024. Available online: https://www.azwater.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/2023_McMullenValleyBasin.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2024).
- Knight, J.E.; Gungle, B.; Kennedy, J.R. Assessing Potential Groundwater-Level Declines from Future Withdrawals in the Hualapai Valley, Northwestern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report. 2021. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2021/5077/sir20215077.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2024). [CrossRef]
- Imperial Irrigation District. About IID Water. Available online: https://www.iid.com/water/about-iid-water (accessed on 19 July 2024).
- Wichelns, D. Enhancing water policy discussions by including analysis of non-water inputs and farm-level constraints. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 62, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Booker, J.F.; Trees, W.S. Implications of water scarcity for water productivity and farm labor. Water 2020, 12, 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozcelik, N.; Rodríguez, M.; Lutter, S.; Sartal, A. Indicating the wrong track? A critical appraisal of water productivity as an indicator to inform water efficiency policies. Resour. Consrvtn. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105452. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Natural Amenity Scales. 2019. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/natural-amenities-scale/ (accessed on 19 July 2024).
- Elias, E.H.; Schrader, T.S.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; Crimmins, M.; Weiss, J.; Rango, A. County-level climate change information to support decision-making on working lands within USDA Climate Hub regions. Clim. Change 2018, 148, 355–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, S.D.; Gramig, B.M. Agro-climatic data by county: A spatially and temporally consistent US dataset for agricultural yields, weather and soils. Data 2019, 4, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helfand, S.M.; Taylor, M.P. The inverse relationship between farm size and productivity: Refocusing the debate. Food Policy 2021, 99, 101977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rada, N.E.; Fuglie, K.O. New perspectives on farm size and productivity. Food Policy 2019, 84, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Key, N. Farm size and productivity growth in the United States Corn Belt. Food Policy 2019, 84, 186–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacDonald, J.M.; Hoppe, R.; Newton, D. Tracking Consolidation in U.S. agriculture. Presented at Conference on Farm Size and Productivity: A Global Look, Washington, DC, USA, 2–3 February 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Knopke, P.; O’Donnell, V.; Shepherd, A. Productivity Growth in the Australian Grains Industry, ABARE Research Report 2000.1; Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics: Canberra, Australia, 2000.
- Sheng, Y.; Zhao, S.; Nossal, K.; Zhang, D. Productivity and farm size in Australian agriculture: Reinvestigating the returns to scale. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2015, 59, 16–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skaggs, R.K.; Samani, Z. Farm size, irrigation practices, and on-farm irrigation efficiency. Irrig. Drain. 2005, 54, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frisvold, G.B.; Deva, S. Farm size, irrigation practices, and conservation program participation in the US Southwest. Irrig. Drain. 2012, 61, 569–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albrecht, D.E.; Ladewig, H. Adoption of irrigation technology: The effects of personal, structural, and environmental variables. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 2019, 3, 6. [Google Scholar]
- Pokhrel, B.K.; Paudel, K.P.; Segarra, E. Factors affecting the choice, intensity, and allocation of irrigation technologies by US cotton farmers. Water 2018, 10, 706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Klein, K.K.; Bjornlund, H.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, W. Adoption of improved irrigation scheduling methods in Alberta: An empirical analysis. Can. Water Res. J. 2015, 40, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, J.K.; Howell, F.M. Metropolitan proximity and US agricultural productivity, 1978–1997. Rural Soc. 2003, 68, 366–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sokolow, A.D.; Hammond, S.V.; Norton, M.; Schmidt, E.E. California communities deal with conflict and adjustment at the urban agricultural edge. Calif. Agric. 2010, 64, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roth, N.E.; Thorne, J.; Johnston, R.A.; Quinn, J.F.; McCoy, M.C. Modeling impacts to agricultural revenue and government service costs from urban growth. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2012, 2, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Auch, R.F.; Laingen, C. Having it both ways? Land use change in a US Midwestern agricultural ecoregion. Prof. Geogr. 2015, 67, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stifel, D.; Minten, B. Isolation and agricultural productivity. Agric. Econ. 2008, 39, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattaneo, A.; Adukia, A.; Brown, D.L.; Christiaensen, L.; Evans, D.K.; Haakenstad, A.; McMenomy, T.; Partridge, M.; Vaz, S.; Weiss, D.J. Economic and social development along the urban–rural continuum: New opportunities to inform policy. World Dev. 2022, 157, 105941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/ (accessed on 19 July 2024).
- Heimlich, R.E. Metropolitan growth and high-value crop production. In Vegetables and Specialties Situation and Outlook Report. TVS-244; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1988; pp. 17–26. [Google Scholar]
- Fuller, K.B.; Janzen, J.P.; Munkhnasan, B. Farmland rental rates: Does organic certification matter? Land Econ. 2021, 97, 80–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostandini, G.; Mykerezi, E.; Tanellari, E. Viability of organic production in rural counties: County and state-level evidence from the United States. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2011, 43, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoolman, E.D. Do direct market farms use fewer agricultural chemicals? Evidence from the US census of agriculture. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2019, 34, 415–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Werner, D. Agricultural conservation practice adoption across Midwest counties: A review and analysis of determinants. Park Place Econ. 2021, 28, 14. [Google Scholar]
- Moomaw, R.L. Spatial productivity variations in manufacturing: A critical survey of cross-sectional analyses. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 1983, 8, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gale, H.F., Jr. Labor productivity and wages in rural and urban manufacturing plants. Rev. Reg. Stud. 1998, 28, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taper, M.L.; Lele, S.R. Evidence, evidence functions, and error probabilities. In Philosophy of Statistics; Bandyopadhyay, P.S., Forster, M.R., Eds.; North-Holland: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 513–532. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, D.R.; Burnham, K.P.; Gould, W.R.; Cherry, S. Concerns about finding effects that are actually spurious. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 2001, 29, 311–316. [Google Scholar]
- Schwarz, G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat. 1978, 6, 461–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarke, B.; Fokoué, E.; Zhang, H.H. Variable selection. In Principles and Theory for Data Mining and Machine Learning; Clarke, B., Fokoué, E., Zhang, H.H., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 569–678. [Google Scholar]
- Chaurasia, A.; Ofer Harel, O. Model selection rates of information based criteria. Electron. J. Statist. 2013, 7, 2762–2793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neath, A.A.; Cavanaugh, J.E. The Bayesian information criterion: Background, derivation, and applications. Wiley Interdisc. Rev. Comput. Stat. 2012, 4, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonoff, J.S. Gaussian-based model building. In Analyzing Categorical Data; Simonoff, J.S., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 29–54. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, D.; Burnham, K. Model Selection and Multi-Model Inference, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- McQuarrie, A.D.R.; Tsai, C.L. Regression and Time Series Model Selection; World Scientific: Hackensack, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Brewer, M.J.; Butler, A.; Cooksley, S.L. The relative performance of AIC, AICC and BIC in the presence of unobserved heterogeneity. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2016, 7, 679–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayami, Y. Sources of agricultural productivity gap among selected countries. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1969, 51, 564–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayami, Y.; Ruttan, V.W. Agricultural productivity differences among countries. Am. Econ. Rev. 1970, 60, 895–911. [Google Scholar]
- Kawagoe, T.; Hayami, Y.; Ruttan, V.W. The intercountry agricultural production function and productivity differences among countries. J. Dev. Econ. 1985, 19, 113–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, L.F.; Ruttan, V.W. Sources of differences in agricultural productivity growth among socialist countries. In Applications of Modern Production Theory: Efficiency and Productivity; Dogramaci, A., Färe, R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1988; pp. 103–130. [Google Scholar]
- Frisvold, G.; Ingram, K. Sources of agricultural productivity growth and stagnation in sub-Saharan Africa. Agric. Econ. 1995, 13, 51–61. [Google Scholar]
- Ribaudo, M.O.; Colacicco, D.; Langner, L.L.; Piper, S.; Schaible, G.D. Natural Resources and Users Benefit from the Conservation Reserve Program; Agricultural Economics Report 627; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1990.
- Plantinga, A.J.; Mauldin, T.; Miller, D.J. An econometric analysis of the costs of sequestering carbon in forests. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1999, 81, 812–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frisvold, G.; Sanchez, C.; Gollehon, N.; Megdal, S.B.; Brown, P. Evaluating gravity-flow irrigation with lessons from Yuma, Arizona, USA. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frisvold, G.B.; Deva, S. Climate and choice of irrigation technology: Implications for climate adaptation. J. Nat. Res. Pol. Res. 2013, 5, 107–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frisvold, G.B.; Bai, T. Irrigation technology choice as adaptation to climate change in the Western United States. J. Contemp. Water Res. Ed. 2016, 158, 62–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pathak, T.B.; Maskey, M.L.; Dahlberg, J.A.; Kearns, F.; Bali, K.M.; Zaccaria, D. Climate change trends and impacts on California agriculture: A detailed review. Agronomy 2018, 8, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Passel, S.; Massetti, E.; Mendelsohn, R.A. Ricardian analysis of the impact of climate change on European agriculture. Environ. Res. Econ. 2016, 67, 725–760. [Google Scholar]
- Qiao, X. Water Use and Climate Effects on Farm Profitability in Colorado River Basin. Master’s Thesis, University of Arizona, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, Tucson, AZ, USA, 24 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Galindo, L.M.; Reyes, O.; Alatorre, J.E.E. Climate change, irrigation and agricultural activities in Mexico: A Ricardian analysis with panel data. J. Dev. Agric. Econ. 2015, 7, 262–273. [Google Scholar]
- Mendelsohn, R.; Arellano-Gonzalez, J.; Christensen, P. A Ricardian analysis of Mexican farms. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2010, 15, 153–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortiz-Bobea, A. The role of nonfarm influences in Ricardian estimates of climate change impacts on US agriculture. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2020, 102, 934–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.; Sumner, D.A. Modeling the effects of local climate change on crop acreage. Calif. Agric. 2016, 70, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geisseler, D.; Horwath, W.R. Alfalfa Production in California. California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2016. Available online: https://apps1.cdfa.ca.gov/FertilizerResearch/docs/Alfalfa_Production_CA.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2024).
- Undersander, D.; Cosgrove, D.; Cullen, E.; Grau, C.; Rice, M.E.; Renz, M.; Sheaffer, C.; Shewmaker, G.; Sulc, M. Alfalfa Management Guide; Crop Science Society of America Soil Science: Madison, WI, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Department of Agriculture. Quick Stats Tool. Available online: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/ (accessed on 19 July 2024).
- Wollaeger, H.; Runkle, E. VPD vs. relative humidity. Michigan State University: Inside Grower. 2015, pp. 28–29. Available online: https://www.canr.msu.edu/uploads/resources/pdfs/vpd-vs-rh.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2024).
- Zwart, S.J.; Bastiaanssen, W.G. Review of measured crop water productivity values for irrigated wheat, rice, cotton and maize. Agric. Water Manag. 2004, 69, 115–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossiord, C.; Buckley, T.N.; Cernusak, L.A.; Novick, K.A.; Poulter, B.; Siegwolf, R.T.; Sperry, J.S.; McDowell, N.G. Plant responses to rising vapor pressure deficit. New Phytol. 2020, 226, 1550–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shibata, T.; Iwao, K.; Takano, T. Effect of vertical air flowing on lettuce growing in a plant factory. Acta Hortic. 1995, 399, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chia, S.Y.; Lim, M.W. A critical review on the influence of humidity for plant growth forecasting. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2022, 1257, 012001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lysenko, E.A.; Kozuleva, M.A.; Klaus, A.A.; Pshybytko, N.L.; Kusnetsov, V.V. Lower air humidity reduced both the plant growth and activities of photosystems I and II under prolonged heat stress. Plant Phys. Biochem. 2023, 194, 246–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dai, A.G. Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, X.; Li, B.-L.; Yan, Z.; Guan, L.; Huang, S.; Li, S.; Qi, Z.; Tang, L.; Tian, H.; Fu, Z.; et al. Impacts of high temperature, relative air humidity, and vapor pressure deficit on seed set of contrasting maize genotypes during flowering. J. Integr. Agric. 2023, in press, journal pre-proof. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ting, M.; Lesk, C.; Liu, C.; Li, C.; Horton, R.M.; Coffel, E.D.; Rogers, C.D.; Singh, D. Contrasting impacts of dry versus humid heat on US corn and soybean yields. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lesk, C.; Anderson, W.; Rigden, A.; Coast, O.; Jägermeyr, J.; McDermid, S.; Davis, K.F.; Konar, M. Compound heat and moisture extreme impacts on global crop yields under climate change. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2022, 3, 872–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.M.; Mendelsohn, R. Climate change to increase crop failure in US. Environ. Res. Lett. 2023, 18, 014014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics Research Service. Specialty Crop Farms Have the Highest Labor Cost as a Portion of Total Cash Expenses. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=104773 (accessed on 20 July 2024).
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics Research Service. Farm Labor. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/ (accessed on 20 July 2024).
- Padilla, Y.; Scott, J.L.; Lopez, O. Economic insecurity and access to the social safety net among Latino farmworker families. Soc. Work. 2014, 59, 160–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hertz, T. Wage, employment and demographic trends for hired farmworkers in the US. In Rural Policies and Employment: Transatlantic Experiences; Davidova, S.M., Thomson, K.J., Mishra, A.K., Eds.; World Scientific Publishing: Hackensack, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 221–236. [Google Scholar]
- Kerna, A.; Duval, D.; Frisvold, G. Arizona Leafy Greens: Economic Contributions of the Industry Cluster 2015 Economic Contribution Analysis; University of Arizona: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Schlenker, W.; Hanemann, W.M.; Fisher, A.C. Will US agriculture really benefit from global warming? Accounting for irrigation in the hedonic approach. Am. Econ. Rev. 2005, 95, 395–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlenker, W.; Hanemann, W.M.; Fisher, A.C. Water availability, degree days, and the potential impact of climate change on irrigated agriculture in California. Clim. Chang. 2007, 81, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrne, M.P.; O’Gorman, P.A. Understanding decreases in land relative humidity with global warming: Conceptual model and GCM simulations. J. Clim. 2016, 29, 9045–9061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coffel, E.D.; Horton, R.M.; De Sherbinin, A. Temperature and humidity based projections of a rapid rise in global heat stress exposure during the 21st century. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 014001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matthews, T. Humid heat and climate change. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2018, 42, 391–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKinnon, K.A.; Poppick, A.; Simpson, I.R. Hot extremes have become drier in the United States Southwest. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2021, 11, 598–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simpson, I.R.; McKinnon, K.A.; Kennedy, D.; Lawrence, D.M.; Lehner, F.; Seager, R. Observed humidity trends in dry regions contradict climate models. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2024, 21, e2302480120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imperial Irrigation District. Quantitative Settlement Agreement: Implementation Report. 2015. Available online: https://www.iid.com/home/showpublisheddocument/14243/636227697716070000 (accessed on 12 August 2024).
- Frisvold, G.B.; Konyar, K. Less water: How will agriculture in southern mountain states adapt? Water Resour. Res. 2012, 48, W05534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crespo, D.; Nemati, M.; Dinar, A.; Frankel, Z.; Halberg, N. Policies to Achieve Sustainability in the Colorado River Basin under Climate Change Conditions and Growing Demand: A Hydro-economic Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2023 Agricultural & Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 23–25 July 2023. [Google Scholar]
Variable | Mean | Median | Standard Deviation | Minimum | Maximum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Economic water productivity | USD 371.06 | USD 176.34 | USD 420.35 | USD 3.47 | USD 1925.46 |
Border county | 0.11 | 0 | 1 | ||
Minimum winter temperature (long-term average, °C) | −6.98 | −8.72 | 6.37 | −16.57 | 6.67 |
July relative humidity (long-term average | 24 | 21 | 8 | 14 | 68 |
Small, rural county (rural–urban continuum code = 7–9) | 0.55 | 0 | 1 | ||
Average irrigated acres per farm | 191.5 | 34.2 | 253.8 | 7.5 | 1307.6 |
Dependent variable: Economic water productivity (county crop cash receipts/unit of water consumed for irrigation) | |||
Adjusted R Square: 0.778 BIC: 54,056 55 observations | |||
Coefficient | Standard Error | p-Value | |
Intercept | 326.26 | 113.41 | 0.0059 |
Border county | 570.47 | 100.97 | 0.0000 |
Minimum temperatures (Dec.–Feb. avg.) | 25.54 | 5.80 | 0.0001 |
July humidity | 13.43 | 3.67 | 0.0006 |
Rural/urban continuum code 7–9 | −188.09 | 62.98 | 0.0044 |
Average irrigated acres per farm | −0.28 | 0.11 | 0.0142 |
Adjusted R Square: 0.777 BIC: 63,544 55 observations | |||
Coefficients | Standard Error | p-Value | |
Intercept | 447.44 | 148.16 | 0.00408 |
Border county | 582.45 | 102.47 | 0.00000 |
Minimum temperatures (Dec.–Feb. avg.) | 24.44 | 6.52 | 0.00049 |
July humidity | 9.16 | 5.55 | 0.10546 |
Rural/urban continuum code 7–9 | −177.81 | 63.72 | 0.00758 |
Average irrigated acres per farm | −0.35 | 0.12 | 0.00684 |
Sprinkler adoption (% of acres) | −112.69 | 101.43 | 0.27221 |
Drip adoption (% of acres) | 649.37 | 873.51 | 0.46093 |
Adjusted R Square: 0.778 BIC: 59,790 55 observations | |||
Coefficients | Standard Error | p-Value | |
Intercept | 291.96 | 119.00 | 0.01784 |
Border County | 569.42 | 101.06 | 0.00000 |
Minimum temperatures (Dec.–Feb. avg.) | 26.72 | 5.94 | 0.00004 |
July humidity | 12.64 | 3.77 | 0.00155 |
Rural/urban continuum code 7–9 | −181.79 | 63.38 | 0.00611 |
Average irrigated acres per farm | −0.31 | 0.12 | 0.00944 |
Flood irrigation adoption (% of acres) | 95.03 | 99.05 | 0.34214 |
Border Counties | Other Lower Basin Counties | Upper Basin Counties | |
---|---|---|---|
Economic Water Productivity | USD 1033 | USD 729 | USD 168 |
Relative contribution of | |||
Intercept | USD 326 | USD 326 | USD 326 |
Border county | USD 570 | USD- | USD- |
Minimum temperatures (Dec.–Feb. avg.) | USD 151 | USD 84 | USD (292) |
July humidity | USD 268 | USD 422 | USD 308 |
Rural/urban continuum code 7–9 | USD (2) | USD (18) | USD (129) |
Average irrigated acres per farm | USD (286) | USD (89) | USD (73) |
Unexplained residual | USD 5 | USD 3 | USD 26 |
Difference between Border and Other Lower Basin Counties | Difference between Border and Upper Basin Counties | Difference between Other Lower Basin and Upper Basin Counties | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | Absolute Difference | Percentage of Difference Explained by: | Absolute Difference | Percentage of Difference Explained by: | Absolute Difference | Percentage of Difference Explained by: |
Economic water productivity (EWP) difference | USD 305 | USD 866 | USD 561 | |||
Border county | USD 570 | 187% | USD 570 | 66% | ||
Minimum temperatures (Dec.–Feb. avg.) | USD 67 | 22% | USD 443 | 51% | USD 376 | 67% |
July humidity | USD (154) | −51% | USD (40) | −5% | USD 114 | 20% |
Rural/urban continuum code 7–9 | USD 16 | 5% | USD 127 | 15% | USD 111 | 20% |
Average irrigated acres per farm | USD (197) | −65% | USD (214) | −25% | USD (17) | −3% |
Unexplained residual | USD 2 | 1% | USD (21) | −2% | USD (23) | −4% |
Irrigated Alfalfa Yields, 2015 (Tons/Acre) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Colorado River Basin Counties | Minimum | Median | Maximum |
Border Counties | 5.7 | 7.7 | 9.0 |
Other Lower Basin Counties | 2.2 | 5.4 | 9.0 |
Upper Basin Counties | 2.2 | 3.5 | 5.2 |
Region | Labor Costs as a Share of Production Expenses | Farms Specializing in Vegetables/Melons, Fruits/Nuts, and Nursery/Greenhouse Production as a Share of All Farms |
---|---|---|
Border Counties | ||
Yuma County | 28% | 51% |
Remaining Border Counties | 21% | 17% |
Other Lower (OL) Basin Counties | ||
Riverside County | 21% | 60% |
Remaining OL Basin Counties | 17% | 14% |
Upper Basin Counties | 15% | 7% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Frisvold, G.B.; Atla, J. Agricultural Economic Water Productivity Differences across Counties in the Colorado River Basin. Hydrology 2024, 11, 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology11080125
Frisvold GB, Atla J. Agricultural Economic Water Productivity Differences across Counties in the Colorado River Basin. Hydrology. 2024; 11(8):125. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology11080125
Chicago/Turabian StyleFrisvold, George B., and Jyothsna Atla. 2024. "Agricultural Economic Water Productivity Differences across Counties in the Colorado River Basin" Hydrology 11, no. 8: 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology11080125