⚙
AI-generated deep summary
by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-05
· read from full text
ⓘ
This preprint examines how U.S. agricultural irrigation patterns changed between 1985 and 2015, comparing irrigation withdrawals, irrigated land area, system types (flood vs sprinkler/microirrigation), and components of the water balance. The authors report that withdrawals fell by 14% while irrigated area increased by 11%, and flood irrigation was largely replaced by sprinkler and microirrigation, yet consumptive water use decreased by only 1% and return flows declined by 39%. They argue that these outcomes represent a “conflicting legacy” of increased irrigation efficiency alongside substantial reductions in return flow, and they call for basin-scale accounting of the full water balance, including return flows. This paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.
Abstract
Agricultural irrigation is the largest consumer of water in the United States. Many changes have occurred over the years, but we question the recent attention on efficiency. Comparing 2015 and 1985, we find that more land is being irrigated with less water: irrigation withdrawals fell by 14%, irrigated area expanded by 11%, and flood irrigation was substantially displaced by sprinkler and microirrigation systems. However, consumptive water use fell by only 1%, and return flows—an important part of the water balance that supports many downstream needs—declined by 39%. This gain in efficiency and loss in return flow, without any apparent saving of water, is the conflicting legacy of U.S. irrigation. We propose the links among irrigation efficiency, return flows, and consumptive water use as a central theme around which to organize future irrigation research, policy, and management. We call on state and federal agencies that fund research and adoption of improved irrigation practices to require accounting of all aspects of the water balance-including return flow-and promote sustainable, basin-scale water conservation.
Full text
6,318 characters
· extracted from
preprint-html
· click to expand
The Conflicting Legacy of U.S. Irrigation | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 12 December 2025 V3 Latest version Share on The Conflicting Legacy of U.S. Irrigation Authors : Robert B. Sowby 0000-0003-2380-9577 [email protected] , Neil C Hansen , and Easton G Hopkins Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.172252404.43757270/v3 512 views 222 downloads Contents Abstract Supplementary Material Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Agricultural irrigation is the largest consumer of water in the United States. Many changes have occurred over the years, but we question the recent attention on efficiency. Comparing 2015 and 1985, we find that more land is being irrigated with less water: irrigation withdrawals fell by 14%, irrigated area expanded by 11%, and flood irrigation was substantially displaced by sprinkler and microirrigation systems. However, consumptive water use fell by only 1%, and return flows—an important part of the water balance that supports many downstream needs—declined by 39%. This gain in efficiency and loss in return flow, without any apparent saving of water, is the conflicting legacy of U.S. irrigation. We propose the links among irrigation efficiency, return flows, and consumptive water use as a central theme around which to organize future irrigation research, policy, and management. We call on state and federal agencies that fund research and adoption of improved irrigation practices to require accounting of all aspects of the water balance-including return flow-and promote sustainable, basin-scale water conservation. Supplementary Material File (us irrigation legacy v2.pdf) Download 415.92 KB Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 01 August 2024 V2 Version 2 16 December 2024 V3 Version 3 12 December 2025 Copyright This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Keywords agriculture great salt lake hydrology irrigation united states water Authors Affiliations Robert B. Sowby 0000-0003-2380-9577 [email protected] View all articles by this author Neil C Hansen Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University View all articles by this author Easton G Hopkins Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Brigham Young University View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 512 views 222 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Robert B. Sowby, Neil C Hansen, Easton G Hopkins. The Conflicting Legacy of U.S. Irrigation. Authorea . 12 December 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.172252404.43757270/v3 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.172252404.43757270/v3","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9feb6022fa3558d3',t:'MTc3OTI4MDQ2Ng=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.