Survey of Irrigation Methods in California in 2001

Abstract

Reliable information on irrigation methods is important for determining agricultural water demand trends. Therefore, a study was conducted during 2002 to collect information on irrigation methods that were used by growers to irrigate their crops in 2001. The results were compared to earlier surveys to assess trends in cropping and irrigation methods. A one-page questionnaire was developed to collect information on irrigated land by crop and irrigation methods. The questionnaire was mailed to 10,000 growers in California that were randomly selected from a list of 58,000 growers by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, excluding rice, dry-land, and livestock producers. From 1972 to 2002, the area planted has increased from 15 to 31% for orchards and from 6 to 16% for vineyards. The area planted to vegetables has remained relatively static, while that planted to field crops has declined from 67 to 42% of the irrigated area. The land irrigated by low-volume ͑drip and microsprinkler͒ irrigation has increased by about 33%, while the amount of land irrigated by surface methods has decreased by about 31%. Sprinkler usage has decreased in orchards and vineyards, but it has increased in vegetable crops.

Climate change, wine, and conservation

“…At the same time, these policies will render adaptation to climate change more difficult. Chile and California are areas with traditions of irrigation (26) and high Freshwater Impact Index values, indicating that their freshwater habitats may be most at risk as a result of climate change impacts on vineyard water use. Adaptation strategies involving viticulture, vinification, marketing, land use planning, and water management can all help avoid conflicts with conservation objectives in areas of declining as well as expanding suitability.…”

Exposures of Aquatic Organisms to the Organophosphorus Insecticide, Chlorpyrifos Resulting from Use in the United States

“…First, because of the large volume of CPY used in that state (Fig. 1); second, the historical detections of CPY reported from monitoring studies conducted in the state (CDPR 2012a; CEPA 2011a, b; USGS 2013); third, the availability of detailed records on pesticide applications from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's (CDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) database (CDPR 2012b); and fourth, because of the intensive use of furrow and flood irrigation on crops registered for use with CPY in the state (Orang et al 2008). Losses in furrow and flood irrigation tail-water have been identified as a major cause of transport of pesticides, including CPY, to nontarget aquatic systems (Budd et al 2009;Gill et al 2008;Long et al 2010;Starner et al 2005).…”

Ecological Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos in Terrestrial and Aquatic Systems in the United States

“…First, because of the large volume of CPY used in that state (Fig. 1); second, the historical detections of CPY reported from monitoring studies conducted in the state (CDPR 2012a; CEPA 2011a, b; USGS 2013); third, the availability of detailed records on pesticide applications from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's (CDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) database (CDPR 2012b); and fourth, because of the intensive use of furrow and flood irrigation on crops registered for use with CPY in the state (Orang et al 2008). Losses in furrow and flood irrigation tail-water have been identified as a major cause of transport of pesticides, including CPY, to nontarget aquatic systems (Budd et al 2009;Gill et al 2008;Long et al 2010;Starner et al 2005).…”