The Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of the Grant Policy for under Pressure Irrigation Systems in Conservation of Groundwater Resources

اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی

Article 7, Volume 33, Issue 2 - Serial Number 44, June 2019, Pages 205-220   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jead2.v0i0.80152

Authors

M.A. Roshanfar¹; H. Amirnejad^{* 1}; H. Najafi Alamdarlo²; B. Nazari³

¹Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University

²Tarbiat Modares University

³Imam Khomeini International University

Abstract

Introduction: Today, governments have to adopt different policies to offset water scarcity and balance groundwater resources. Among the policies that have been emphasized in this regard, are subsidies and incentive payments to use modern irrigation technology. In Iran, the policy of grants for under pressure irrigation systems is mentioned in the budget law of the country. It is generally believed that the implementation of this policy can save water and would lead to the conservation of groundwater resources. But, in practice this issue has not yet been proven. It is generally believed that the implementation of this policy can save water and lead to the conservation of groundwater resources. But, in practice this issue has not yet been proven. So, the Qazvin plain as one of the biggest and the depleting aquifers in Iran is selected as case study.
Materials and Methods: Since, the irrigation water is supplied through the canal in the modern irrigation network area and the agricultural wells in the traditional cultivations, the objective function of the dynamic programming model is considered to maximize the net present value of cultivating in the irrigation network area and the land of Qazvin plain area. The crop yield in the objective function of the model is the functional of the quantity of water available for plant, which is expressed in the quadratic form. The groundwater pumping costs were considered as a function of pump lift. By pumping groundwater, the saturated thickness would decrease in two area. Therefore, the equation of the groundwater balance was formed to allow changes in aquifer stock from one period to another. The components of this equation were considered as the difference in the inflow to the aquifer from the outflow of the aquifer. The maximum groundwater extraction in the model is limited to the natural capacity of pumping from wells and access to the canal water is confined by the long-term average canal water. It is named the first scenario. The upper limit of access to canal water that supplied from combined wells and artificial recharge was simulated according to rainfall variations and then its average long-term value was calculated. For this purpose, the probability of occurrence of dry, normal and wet years was calculated by the standard precipitation index (SPI) using monthly data of 60 years.
Results and Discussion: This paper presents an analytic model of the effectiveness of groundwater conservation policies on irrigated agriculture in Qazvin plain such as grant for under pressure irrigation systems. The results indicated that by increase in the share of grant, the groundwater used per hectare in the modern irrigation system is lower than the flood irrigation system and gradually the modern system is chosen instead of the flood system. With increasing share of grant the yield and net profit will be increased for each crop until the yield reaches saturation. The results showed that in the whole area, by increasing the share of grant, total water consumption and total groundwater are decreasing and so water will be saved. On the other hand, by increasing the share of grant, the deep percolation into the depth decreases. Investigating the groundwater balance showed that in the normal conditions, the increase in the share of grant cause to increase aquifer stock deficit and reduce the groundwater head and saturated thickness. The empirical findings in Qazvin plain showed that the long term average of the aquifer's reservoir volume is decreasing with increasing the share of grants. In the final, the cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) was calculated for total saved water and the aquifer stock to the total amount of government payments.
Conclusion: A review of the effect of grant policy for investing in the modern irrigation systems on the water use was considered efficient on saving water. It means that with increasing the share of grant the overall water saving in the area will increase. But, the implementation of this policy does not conserve groundwater resources. So, for each a million tomans payment, 665 and 598 cubic meters of water are saved, respectively. However, this policy is not effective for the conserve of groundwater resources because in the share of 100% for each a million tomans payment, the aquifer stock is reduced to 2912 cubic meters. As a final remark, it is suggested that grant policy be accompanied by a limitation on groundwater pumping and crop pattern.

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness; Dynamic Programming; Grant policy; Qazvin plain; Under pressure irrigation

References

1- Abbasi F., Sohrab F., and Abbasi N. 2017. Evaluation of irrigation efficiencies in Iran. Irrigation and Drainage Structures Research Engineering 17(67): 113-120. (In Persian with English abstract)

2- Abbasi F., Sohrab F., and Abbasi N. 2018. Water productivity in agriculture; challenges and perspectives. Water and Sustainable Development 5(1): 141-144. (In Persian with English abstract)

3- Bagheri A., Nikouei A.R., Khodadad Kashi F., and Shokat Fadaei M. 2017. Evaluation of water pricing policy on aquifer stability and preservation: Study of Northern Mahyar Plain Aquifer in Zayandeh-Rud Basin. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development 31(2): 105-120. (In Persian)

4- Balali H., Khalilian S., and Ahmadian M. 2010. Analysis of impacts of irrigation water pricing on groundwater balance. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development 24(2): 185-194. (In Persian)

5- Barikani E., Ahmadian M., and Khalilian S. 2011. Optimal sustainable use of groundwater in agricultural sector: Case Study Subsector in Qazvin Basin. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development 25(2): 253-262. (In Persian)

6- Dagnino M., and Ward F.A. 2012. Economics of agricultural water conservation: empirical analysis and policy implications. International Journal of Water Resources Development 28(4): 577-600.

7- Ding Y., and Peterson J.M. 2012. Comparing the cost-effectiveness of water conservation policies in a depleting aquifer: a dynamic analysis of the Kansas High Plains, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association 44(2): 1-12.

8- Farhadi Bansuleh B., and Sharifi M.A. 2008. Barley production function in the Karaj region based on four years of field research. First Conference on Applied Researches on Iranian Water Resources. Kermanshah. (In Persian with English abstract)

9- Foster T., Brozovic N., and Butler A.P. 2015. Analysis of the impacts of well yield and groundwater depth on irrigated agriculture. Journal of Hydrology 523: 86–96.

10- Golkar H.R. 1998. Determining of wheat production function and study of the effect of water stress on yield in Karaj region. Master’s thesis. Department of Irrigation and Reproduction, College of Agriculture, University of Tehran. (In Persian with English abstract)

11- Hosseini S.S., Pakravan M.R., Gilanpour O., and Atghayi M. 2012. Investigating the effects of protection policy on agriculture sector TFP. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development 25(4): 507-516. (In Persian with English abstract)

12- Huffaker R., and Whittlesey N. 2003. A theoretical analysis of economic incentive policies encouraging agricultural water conservation. Water Resources Development 19(1): 37–55.

13- Kahil M.T., Connor J.D., and Albiac J. 2015. Efficient water management policies for irrigation adaptation to climate change. Ecological Economics, 120: 226–233.

14- Johnson, J., Johnson, P.N., Segarra, E. and Willis, D. 2009. Water conservation policy alternatives for the Ogallala aquifer in Texas. Water Policy 11: 537–52.

15- Lecina S., Isidoro D., Playan E., and Aragües R. 2010. Irrigation modernization and water conservation in Spain: The case of Riegos del Alto Aragon. Agricultural Water Management 97(10): 1663-1675.

16- Malek K., Adam J., Stockle C., Brady Michael and Rajagopalan K. 2018. When should irrigators invest in more water‐efficient technologies as an adaptation to climate chang. Water Resources Research 54(11): 8999-9032.

17- Martin D.L., Watts D.G., and Gilley J.R. 1984. Model and Production Function for Irrigation Management. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 110(2): 149–164.

18- Ministry of Agriculture Jihad. Department of soil and water. Group for development of irrigation- drainade systems. Instructions on the payment of facilities (grants) for the implementation of under pressure irrigation systems. (In Persian)

19- Najafi Alamdarlo H., Ahmadian M., and Khalilian S. 2012. Economic Assessment of Groundwater Pricing Policy in Varamin Plain. Journal of Economics and Agricultural Development 5(3): 137-154. (In Persian with English abstract)

20- Naseri N., Abbasi F., and Akbari M. 2017. Estimating agricultural water consumption by analyzing water balance. Irrigation and Drainage Structures Research Engineering 18(68): 17-32. (In Persian with English abstract)

21- Office of Basic Water Resources Studies. Groundwater group products. Iran water resources Management Company. Ministry of energy. Hydrograph representing aquifers in the country. (In Persian)

22- Peterson J.M., and Ding Y. 2005. Economic adjustments to groundwater depletion in the high plains: Do water-saving irrigation systems save water? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(1): 147–159.

23- Pfeiffer, L. and Lin, C.Y.C. 2014. Does efficient irrigation technology lead to reduced groundwater extraction? Empirical evidence. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 67: 189–208.

24- Plan and budget organization. Information base of the sixth development plan. The law of Sixth Five-Year Development Plan of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 2018. (in Persian) https://plan6.mporg.ir

25- Plan and budget organization. Technical and executive system of the country. Issue number 261. Criteria for technical irrigation under pressure (General technical specifications). (In Persian)

26- Quintana-Ashwell N.E. 2013. The impact of irrigation capital subsidies on common-pool groundwater use and depletion: results for Western Kansas.

27- Quintana-Ashwell N.E. and Peterson J.M. 2015. Aquifer depletion in the face of climate change and technical progress. 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California.

28- Quintana-Ashwell N.E., and Peterson J.M. 2016. The impact of irrigation capital subsidies on common-pool groundwater use and depletion: results for Western Kansas, Water Economics and Policy 1(3): 1-22.

29- Scheierling M.S., Young R.A., and Cardon G.E. 2006. Public subsidies for water-conserving irrigation investments: hydrologic, agronomic, and economic assessment. Water Resources Research 42(3): 1-11.

30- Tewari, R. et al., 2014. Multi-year water allocation: an economic approach towards future planning and management of declining groundwater resources in the Texas Panhandle. Texas Water Journal, 5(1):1-11.

31- Vahdat Adab R., and Balali H. 2017. Impacts of irrigation water pricing and government’s financial facility policies on pressurized irrigation technology adoption: Case Study of Hamedan. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development 30(4): 331-344. (In Persian)

32- Ward F.A. 2014. Economic impacts on irrigated agriculture of water conservation programs in drought. Journal of Hydrology 508: 114-127.

33- Ward F.A. and Pulido-Velazquez, M. 2008. Water conservation in irrigation can increase water use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(47): 18215–18220.

34- Wheeler, Segarra E., Johnson P.N., and Willis D. 2006. Economic and Hydrologic Implications of Selected Water Policy Alternatives for the Southern Ogallala Aquifer., 19 July 2006, 21 of the UCOWR Conference.

35- Wheeler E., Golden B.B., Johnson J., and Peterson J. 2008. Economic Efficiency of Short-Term Versus Long-Term Water Rights Buyouts. Journal of Agricultural & Applied Economics 40(2):

36- Yekom Consulting Engineers. 2001. Studies of updating the comprehensive water plan of the country in the salt lake basin. Tehran. (In Persian)

37- Zare Sh., Mohammadi H., and Sabouhi M. 2017. Simulation of developing modern irrigation systems on groundwater resources balance of Khorasan Razavi. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development 31(2): 179-195. (In Persian)

38- Zare S., Mohammadi H., Sabouhi M., Ahmadpour Borazjani M. and Mohaddes Hoseini S.A. 2018. Investigating the impact of price policy and investment in water saving technologies, on the deficits of groundwater reserves and social costs in Khorasan Razavi Province. Journal of Agricultural Economics 12(3): 97-133. (In Persian with English abstract)

39- Zou X., Li Y., Cremades R., Gao Q., Wan Y., and Qin X. 2013. Cost-effectiveness analysis of water-saving irrigation technologies based on climate change response: A case study of China. Agricultural Water Management 129: 9–20.