**4. Discussion**

Promoting the adoption of water conservation practices in irrigated agriculture has been a principal initiative to slow down the decline of the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer (MRVAA). Ongoing agronomic research from scientists at Mississippi State University's Delta Research and Extension Center (DREC) and the USDA Agricultural Research Service in Stoneville, MS, continue to show the potential for these practices to reduce water use while maintaining farm yield and revenue levels. The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality and the Yazoo Mississippi Delta Joint Water Management District require the use of a minimum number of these practices to issue groundwater well drilling and use permits in the area. Grower associations such as the Delta Farmers Advocating Resource Management (F.A.R.M.) sponsor and promote the use of these practices among their members. Financial and technical assistance from USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is geared towards minimizing farmer risk exposure associated with the implementation of these conservation practices. However, little is known about the farmer factors that drive their decision to adopt any given conservation practice. This article provides insights that help identify and understand the determinants of conservation practice adoption in the Delta region in Mississippi.

The regression analyses indicated that no single factor consistently predicted the adoption of every conservation practice, but many factors influence a farmer's decision to adopt a given practice. The size of the farming operation is an important factor in deciding the adoption of agricultural

practices in general. Indeed, it is the factor with the most statistically significant coefficients (positive) in the regression analyses. From an economic perspective, this may be attributed to the fact that practices that are marginally beneficial on a per hectare basis may not be worth the managerial cost to small operations, but could add-up to significant economies of scale for larger operations in which fixed and overhead costs associated with a practice can be spread over more hectares.

Results from the 2016 Mississippi Irrigation Survey indicated that groundwater is a source for irrigation for almost 93 percent of growers in the sample. Yet, only a third of the growers think there is a groundwater problem at the farm or state level. The analysis presented suggests that this lack of awareness is significantly related to whether the growers observe a change in the depth to water in their wells or not.

Perception of the existence of a GW problem at the farm or state level was the second most important factor identified. This is an encouraging finding because the results show a strong influence of this variable on the probability of the adoption of several adoption practices and because this is, essentially, an awareness issue. Perception of water quantity issues in regions of high rainfall can be difficult to overcome. This suggests that additional incentives are necessary to bring those who do not perceive a problem to the realization that it actually exists.

Increasing producer awareness is a task that fits, for example, the mission of university extension services, which can aid the communications efforts of federal and state research and regulatory entities in that regard. Regulatory agencies and universities can work together to have a consistent message regarding the projection of groundwater in the state and to increase grower awareness of the issue with a focus on county-based expected changes in wells' depth-to-water distances. However, such efforts have been carried out by these organizations, which suggests there is a need for an additional signal to help convince farmers of the seriousness of the situation.

At nearly 70 percent of respondents, this sample far surpasses the national average of 30 percent flow-meter use [31]. However, only 10 to 15 percent of permittees report individual water-use every year. There is promising evidence from areas with mandatory water use reporting that producers become better informed and more concerned with the health of the aquifer.

For example, growers near Sheridan county in Kansas widely supported a self-imposed Local Enhancement Management Area to create a five year allocation of groundwater that resulted in a 26 percent reduction in water use [32]. A similar case where the threat of regulation from the state level induced irrigators to form the Groundwater Subdistrict No. 1 in the San Luis Valley of Colorado and "formulate a homegrown governance response" that reduced water use by 33 percent in the district [33].

The survey results in our study indicated that farmers may require stronger signals that the aquifer problem is real and important. Furthermore, the experience documented in the aforementioned studies suggested that aquifer problem awareness, resulting largely from individual water use monitoring, and the threat of top-down regulation can induce more active farmer participation in water conservation.

Although participation in conservation programs was a statistically significant factor for only one of the practices (SMS), Figure 1 shows how NRCS expenditures [34] and practice adoption in the region track similar time trends. In particular, the rate of adoption of CHS, SMS, and surge starting in 2009 are noteworthy. This suggests there is an effect of NRCS technical and financial assistance in terms of adoption. However, perhaps due to insufficient data, this association cannot be validated empirically in this study.

These results can inform policy makers, regulatory entities, university extension services, and producers about the salient aspects of conservation practice adoption in Mississippi. Conservation agencies can use the insights in this study to better target their incentive programs, for instance focusing on incentivizing relatively young farmers to adopt practices with long-term benefits such as cover crops. Similarly, further research, extension, and incentives are necessary to devise incentives and training

to facilitate practice adoption by smaller farms. Lastly, periodic surveys (2–5 year intervals) may be necessary to track trends and assess the effectiveness of conservation practice adoption programs.

Our results are largely consistent with the most recent literature [4,6,22]; see Table 8 for a comparison. The GAO report in particular describes policy options at the federal level including their benefits and challenges. With respect to irrigation technology, it recommends that policy makers promote: (1) the use of more efficient irrigation technology and practices, in conjunction with appropriate agreements to use the technology and practices to conserve water; and (2) the use of precision agriculture technologies, in conjunction with appropriate agreements to use the precision agriculture technologies to conserve water. These recommendations are consistent with the ongoing efforts mentioned above, and this study lends empirical validity to the recommendations for the case of Mississippi.

Adoption of Conservation Practices in MS

**Figure 1.** Timeline of the adoption of conservation practices and USDA-NRCS EQIP expenditures in the MS Delta area.

**Table 8.** Impact of conservation practice adoption factors compared to existing literature.


Note: Pos denotes a Positive influence of the factor on adoption; Neg denotes a Negative influence of the factor on adoption; Mix denotes Mixed or undetermined influence of the factor on adoption.

The main limitation of this study is the small sample relative to the number of practices and factors being considered. This limitation determined the choice of probit regression models rather than multivariate and sequential modeling. There is evidence that practices, especially add-ons to furrow irrigation, are adopted in bundles. This feature is not incorporated in this study and constitutes a promising avenue for future research.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, N.Q.-A. and D.M.G.; methodology, N.Q.-A.; software, N.Q.-A.; validation, D.M.G. and L.J.K.; formal analysis, N.Q.-A.; investigation, L.J.K. and C.G.H.; resources, L.J.K., C.G.H., and T.C.; data curation, N.Q.-A.; writing, original draft preparation, N.Q.-A.; writing, review and editing, N.Q.-A., D.M.G., and L.J.K.; funding acquisition, L.J.K., C.G.H., and T.C. All authors read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This publication is a contribution of the National Center for Alluvial Aquifer Research and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. This material is based on work that was funded jointly by the Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, under Cooperative Agreement Number 58-6001-7-001. Financial support for the 2016 Mississippi Survey of Irrigators came from the Mississippi Soybean Board, Mid-South Soybean Board, and United Soybean Board.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors acknowledge and thank Paul Rodrigue, USDA-NRCS Supervisory Engineer Area 4, for helpful advice and regional NRCS expenditure data. Additionally, the authors are grateful for financial support for the survey from the Mississippi Soybean Board, Mid-South Soybean Board, and United Soybean Board.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
