Vulnerability in the Food, Energy, and Water Nexus in Arizona:

Concerns for Agricultural Production

Andrew Berardy Arizona State University, aberardy@asu.edu
Mukunth Natarajan Arizona State University, mnatara3@asu.edu
Mikhail Chester Arizona State University, mchester@asu.edu
Abstract. Interdependent systems supporting water and energy services are necessary for
agricultural production. These systems are expected to experience more frequent and severe
strains due to anticipated effects of climate change and increased demands from growing
populations. Arizona relies on water imported through an energy intensive process from other
water-stressed regions and has a large percentage of thermal generated electricity, which
requires water cooling. Irrigated agriculture is the predominant form of farming in Arizona, and is
responsible for the majority of water withdrawals, most of which is powered by electricity.
Arizonas agriculture could be impacted by failures in the water and energy systems, creating a
food-energy-water nexus of vulnerability. Temperature change has a non-linear effect on crop
yields where increases up to a certain threshold are beneficial, but after that point there are
severe negative impacts on not only yield, but also quality and even viability. Crops capable of
tolerating increased heat require additional irrigation due to increased evapotranspiration rates,
which in turn requires more energy use. For the majority of AZ crops, temperature increases
due to climate change will result in decreased crop yields as well as increased water and energy
use. We construct a model including irrigation requirements based on crop cardinal
temperatures, Arizona-specific yield responses to temperature change where available, and
energy for water delivery divided into categories of water source and pump energy source.
The model predicts decreased yields in agricultural commodities of between half a percent and
ten percent per degree Fahrenheit, depending on the crop analyzed, one to seventeen percent
increased water usage for crops, and corresponding increased irrigation energy usage.
Additional work is necessary to account for interactions between elements influenced by
temperature increases, as this model treats them separately and as having a cumulative impact.

Vulnerability in the Food, Energy, and Water Nexus in Arizona: Concerns for Agricultural Production

Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technologies (ISSN 2329-9169) is
published annually by the Sustainable Conoscente Network. Jun-Ki Choi and Annick Anctil, co-editors 2016.
ISSSTNetwork@gmail.com.
Copyright 2016 by Andrew Berardy, Mukunth Natarajan, Mikhail Chester Licensed under CC-BY 3.0.
Cite as:
Vulnerability in the Food, Energy, and Water Nexus in Arizona: Concerns for Agricultural Production Proc. ISSST,
Andrew Berardy, Mukunth Natarajan, Mikhail Chester. Doi information v4 (2016)

Berardy et al.

Introduction. Vulnerability of the food system to increasing temperatures is exacerbated by

agricultural requirements for water and energy. There is potential for failures in energy and
water systems to cascade to food systems, creating an interdependent network of systems
through which vulnerabilities may propagate. The food-energy-water (FEW) nexus will face
additional strain as climate-related events such as droughts and extreme heat become more
intense and frequent and overall demand increases due to a growing population.
Arizona, and especially the Phoenix region, has characteristics which increase its vulnerability in
the FEW nexus when considering potential impacts of climate change scenarios. Vulnerability to
climate change is defined by the IPCC as, the extent to which climate change may damage or
harm a system; it depends not only on a systems sensitivity but also on its ability to adapt to
new climatic conditions, (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1995). Arizona is a state
that is severely water constrained and dependent upon fossil fuel for most of its electricity
generation, creating dependencies that limit its adaptive capacity. Arizona is also projected to be
the second fastest growing state in the country, with a population of over 10 million by 2030
(United States Census Bureau, 2005). The Phoenix region is predicted to experience an
increase in the number of extreme heat events by between 340 and 1800 percent (Bartos &
Chester, 2014). The combination of dependency, exposure, and strain contribute to Arizonas
vulnerability to climate change, especially in the Phoenix region.
The nature of farming in Arizonas climate creates a heavy dependence on water for irrigation,
delivered through energy-intensive processes, which also use water. In fact, Arizonas energyintensity of water supply delivery is twice as high as the national average, and water-intensity of
thermoelectric power generation is 30% higher than the national average (Bartos & Chester,
2014b). Rainfall in Arizona is only about 9 inches per year, and the remaining demand of
between 8.6 and 9.9 billion cubic meters (m3) (70% of which is for Agriculture) is met with 48%
groundwater, 29% surface water, 20% Central Arizona Project (CAP) water, and 3% reclaimed
water (Bartos & Chester, 2014). Also, 74% of agricultural water withdrawals are lost to
evaporation through irrigation application and plant evapotranspiration (Bartos & Chester,
2014a). Most of Arizonas electricity is produced by nuclear power plants (33%), coal fired
power plants (31%), and natural gas power plants (26%), which use water for cooling (US
Energy Information Administration, 2015).
Agriculture is not only a key part of Arizonas history and identity, but a significant economic
activity. Crops produced by Arizona farms are worth over $3.7 billion in market value and
agriculture is the primary occupation of over 13,000 people, based on 2012 values (USDA
NASS Arizona Field Office, 2015). Arizonas agriculture is watered primarily by irrigation, so it
depends on both water and energy to maintain production (Vilsack & Reilly, 2014). Arizonas
agricultural production helps meet the demand for food across the US and beyond through
export, especially during the winter growing season when many other productive regions are too
cold to be productive.
Food Water Energy Nexus in Arizona Food, water, and energy are interconnected components
in which perturbations can spread across systems, leading to both direct and indirect negative
impacts (Hellegers, Zilberman, Steduto, & McCornick, 2008). Water supplied for irrigation is
pumped from groundwater or transported across a long distance through canals, both of which
require electricity. CAP water requires 2.8 TWh of electricity per year for pumping to overcome a
nearly 1 km elevation difference over 541 km while ground water pumping requires 0.175 GWh
of electricity per million cubic meters (Bartos & Chester, 2014). Based on data for 2013,
approximately 64% of AZ cropland is irrigated and over 99% of cropland harvested is irrigated,

Vulnerability in the Food, Energy, and Water Nexus in Arizona: Concerns for Agricultural Production

with a total application of water from all sources of about 3.75 million acre-feet over about
850,000 acres, translating to about 4.4 acre-feet of water per acre irrigated (Vilsack & Reilly,
2014).
Table 1. Irrigation expenses by fuel type and water source. Total expense is about $42 million.
Data from (Vilsack & Reilly, 2014).
Irrigation Fuel Type Total Expense Expense per Acre Wells
Expense per Acre Surface Water
Electricity

$36,901,000

$124.51

$16.90

Natural Gas

$3,302,000

$169.41

Diesel / Biodiesel

$2,259,000

$53.32

$41.63

Table 1 shows the cost of irrigation based on the energy source and water source. There is no
data in Arizona for natural gas used to pump surface water. Apart from the expenses from
pumping, farms also purchase about 4 gallons of gasoline per acre, in addition to diesel, to fuel
the different equipment that prepares the land, sows the seeds, fertilizes the crops, and
harvests the produce (Arizona Field Crop Budgets, n.d.)(Arizona Vegetable Crop Budgets, n.d.).
The food system feeds back into the hydrological cycle in that the extent of green cover
increases rainfall levels and the runoff from fields can be treated and stored as groundwater
reserves (Los S et al., 2006).

Berardy et al.

Figure 1: Food-Energy-Water Nexus Influence Diagram. Arizona agriculture is connected to interdependent

energy and water systems.
Figure 1 is an influence diagram which shows the interdependencies of the agricultural system
in Arizona with the energy and water systems. Interactions between food and the other systems

Vulnerability in the Food, Energy, and Water Nexus in Arizona: Concerns for Agricultural Production

occur at the points of water and energy for irrigation, land cover influencing rainfall, and energy
used for farm operations. Further upstream from the influence diagram, water and energy are
embedded in farming inputs such as fertilizer and equipment production. Evidence for the water
- energy nexus already exists where water is needed as a coolant or as steam to produce
energy while energy is needed to pump the water (Gleick, 1994). There is increasing interest in
studying the role of food connected to the energy-water nexus, as demonstrated by the recent
NSF INFEWS initiative to fund $50,000,000 in research on the food-energy-water nexus
(Program Solicitation NSF 16-524).
Cascading failures Temperature is an important aspect of agriculture. Crop-specific cardinal
temperature thresholds govern the expected impacts on yield and viability due to temperature
changes, which also influence evapotranspiration and therefore irrigation requirements. Cardinal
temperatures govern the relationship between individual crop types and consequences of
ambient air temperatures. Luo (2011) provides an overview of the low and high limits for lethal
temperatures, optimum temperatures, and failure points where available for a number of crops,
also making note of distinct temperatures with impacts at different phenophases. Increasing
temperatures pose a direct threat to the productivity of the food system by increasing the water
required for irrigation and successful crop cultivation (Blaney & Criddle, 1962; Erie, French,
Bucks, & Harris, 1982). Increasing temperatures are the most direct cause of failures within the
FEW nexus as they increase demand for water and energy supplied to the agricultural sector.
Increased demand couples with reduced supply, which is constrained due to use in other
sectors, which may be given priority in shortage scenarios. In fact, agricultural water can be
curtailed to preserve water for metropolitan residents and may be interrupted for this purpose
(Gammage Jr, Stigler, Clark-Johnson, Daugherty, & Hart, 2011). Finally, water and energy
infrastructure may be impacted due to increased temperature, causing interruptions to supply.
There are many scenarios where failures may cascade across the FEW nexus, including the
following:
1) With increasing temperatures, the rate of evaporation along Arizonas canals and other
conveyance infrastructure for water will increase. This decreases the water available to
the Phoenix area. If residences are given priority supply to meet their demand, then the
water available for agriculture would be reduced, thus affecting the production capacity
of the agricultural system.
2) Rising temperatures and population will cause elevated demands for electricity to keep
households cool. As more generation capacity is required, the price of electricity will rise,
and the potential to require imported electricity will place additional strain on an aging
electric grid. This stress increases the chances of an infrastructure failure and if demand
is closer to generation capacity, the system will have lowered capability to compensate.
Such failures may result in interruptions to electricity supply for agriculture, which Table 1
demonstrates is the dominant source for fueling irrigation.
3) Components of energy and water infrastructure are more prone to failure due to higher
temperatures, increasing the potential for service interruptions. Farmers will respond by
accepting increased risk, shifting to crops that dont require irrigation, or discontinuing
their farming activities.
In 2013, Arizona experienced the impact of a lack of water supplied to farmers. 828 Arizona
farms experienced diminished crop yields resulting from irrigation interruptions, including 480
with surface water shortages, 217 with ground water shortages, 304 with irrigation equipment
failures, 114 with energy price increases or shortages, 135 due to the cost of purchased water,
and 373 with other reasons for a total of 78,170 irrigated acres with diminished crop yields
(Vilsack & Reilly, 2014). 2,139 Arizona farms rely on irrigation for 100% of their total sales, so

Berardy et al.

any such interruptions could be devastating to the viability of these farms (Vilsack & Reilly,
2014). Some farms already feel the effects, with 419 farms that discontinued irrigation between
2008 and 2013, including 47 that reported shortage of surface water and 12 that converted to
agriculture that doesnt require water (Vilsack & Reilly, 2014).
Hypothesis. Increased temperatures will result in direct and indirect negative effects for the
FEW nexus in Arizona, including reduced yield and increased irrigation requirements for major
crops. Increasing temperatures have a negative correlation with crop yields and positive
correlation with irrigation requirements. Further, disruptions to energy and water supply also
caused by increased temperatures will lead to cascading failures that exacerbate impacts on
agriculture by interrupting irrigation.
Investigative Method. We construct a model utilizing crop-specific cardinal temperatures and
relevant literature documenting observed effects of temperature changes on plants, using data
specific to Arizona where available, to predict the expected impacts of increasing temperature
on crop yield and irrigation requirements in Arizona. The model also accounts for energy use
through estimation of fertilizer application, farm equipment usage, and irrigation pumping
requirements.
Vensim
The Vensim software platform is used to construct a model of the FEW nexus for Arizona
agriculture based on specified parameters defined for Arizona related to agricultural energy and
water use. Vensim is a dynamic simulation platform developed by Argonne National lab that
allows for the definition of relationships between sub-processes in larger systems and recursive
analysis to reveal emergent behaviors of complex systems. Governing relationships between
sub-processes are defined through data gathered from Arizona-specific sources and equations
established in the literature to determine consumptive water use, energy use for pumping, and
irrigation requirements when considering application efficiency and precipitation. Temperature
change is treated as an input variable that influences the governing relationships between many
of the variables included in the model.
Consumptive Water Use
Arizona agriculture relies on irrigation to meet the water needs of crops, so it is necessary to
estimate the extent to which temperature increase will change water requirements. The BlaneyCriddle formula is used to estimate the consumptive water use of crops based on expected
evapotranspiration (Blaney & Criddle, 1962).
In this formula, u is monthly consumptive use per acre, k is an empirical consumptive use crop
coefficient, t is mean monthly temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, and p is the monthly
percentage of daytime hours of the year.
Irrigation Requirements
Irrigation requirements are calculated based on predicted consumptive use minus average
precipitation on a monthly basis. Although rainfall totals in the Phoenix region are low, there are
some months where it is sufficient enough to offset irrigation for certain crops. If monthly
precipitation exceeds evapotranspiration requirements, the excess is assumed to be lost as
runoff and is not applied towards the water requirements in the next month. The model therefore
ignores any potential water harvesting and storage as a method to offset irrigation requirements.

Vulnerability in the Food, Energy, and Water Nexus in Arizona: Concerns for Agricultural Production

External Validation
External validation of the model is performed through comparison of the baseline scenario
predictions to reported farm level water and energy use in Arizona. As the model is based on
theoretical predictions of water use based on evapotranspiration, it is expected that actual
irrigation and energy use will exceed model estimates due to farmers concern with protecting
crops exceeding their desire to minimize irrigation expenses. For crops considered in this
model, blue water footprint (evaporated surface and groundwater) totals about 822 million m3 of
water based on estimated crop yields and water footprint per ton of crop (Arizona Agricultural
Statistics, 2007; Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2010).
Consumptive Energy Use
Fertilizers contribute considerable amounts to the energy consumed by agriculture. A literature
suggests that the average embedded energy in N type fertilizers is 44MJ/kg, that of P type
fertilizer is 21.6 MJ/kg and that of the K type fertilizer is 10 MJ/kg (Skowroska & Filipek, 2014).
The crop budgets developed by the University of Arizonas Cooperative Extension provides data
on the fertilizer used by type. This helps determine the energy embedded in fertilizer. Similarly
the crop budgets also provide information on the amount of natural gas, gasoline, diesel, and
electricity used (Arizona Field Crop Budgets, n.d., Arizona Vegetable Crop Budgets, n.d.). NREL
estimates the energy intensity of gasoline and diesel at 0.38 MJ/ MJ of fuel ((Hsu, 2011)).
Natural gas and Electricity are measure in therms and KWh respectively. These are combined
together to determine net energy consumed per acre of crop.
Crop Types
Crops selected for inclusion in the model to calculate consumptive water use include alfalfa,
barley, corn, cotton, sorghum, and wheat. This decision is based on a combination of
representativeness and data availability. These six crops account for 92% of the acres planted
in Arizona and have data available for acres harvested, yield per acre, economic value, and
consumptive use coefficients.
Results.
Yields
Yields of agricultural commodities are predicted to fall in response to rising temperatures in AZ
by up to 10% per degree Fahrenheit, depending upon the crop examined. Irrigation
requirements are expected to increase due to rising temperatures in AZ by up to 17% per
degree Fahrenheit, depending upon the crop examined.

Berardy et al.

Figure 2: Yield change estimates for major AZ crops in response to 1F temperature increase. Range is
based on data availability and impacts on different plant phenophases.
As figure 2 shows, crop yields fall in response to temperature increase above the current
average temperature in Phoenix, except in the case of alfalfa, which has a small increase in
yield.
2.35=.92x
Irrigation
Baseline irrigation requirements for crops considered are calculated to be approximately 2.35
million acre-feet or 2.9 billion m3 of water. The USGS reports total AZ irrigation to be about 3.22
million acre-feet per year in 2010, which is about 81% of the total water withdrawals of 3.97
million acre-feet per year (Maupin et al., 2010). This places the baseline estimate at about 73%
of actual reported water for irrigation. Another source provides a lower estimate, which attributes
1.8 million acre-feet of water per year to agriculture in the Sun Corridor and asserts that 77% of
Arizona water goes to agriculture (Gammage Jr et al., 2011). Using this percentage and USGS
estimates, this would place total AZ irrigation at about 3.05 million acre-feet per year, making the
baseline estimate about 77% of reported irrigation. The difference between calculated and
reported irrigation may be explained by the fact that the model estimates irrigation requirements
based on evaporative transpiration, meaning that the water use is the theoretical minimum to
ensure successful crops. Other factors increasing actual water use include low application
efficiency due to evaporation and farmers likelihood to favor over-watering to under-watering.
Also, the model calculates irrigation offset by precipitation based on a monthly value, but rainfall
in Phoenix often occurs in large amounts over a period of days. This may result in further
excess runoff not captured by the farm but assumed in the model to count against irrigation
requirements.

Vulnerability in the Food, Energy, and Water Nexus in Arizona: Concerns for Agricultural Production

Irrigation requirements are expected to increase due to rising temperatures in AZ by up to 17%

per degree Fahrenheit, depending upon the crop examined. Total predicted increase in irrigation
requirements is calculated to be about 47,535 acre-feet or 58 million m3 of water, equating to an
average increase of about 2% for a 1F temperature increase. Irrigation in Arizona is estimated
at 3.22 million acre-feet per year

Figure 3: Irrigation requirement percent change estimates for major AZ crops in response to 1F temperature
increase. Range is due to crops unique k factors and growing seasons, which are used to calculate
consumptive water use.
A 1F temperature increase will result in elevated irrigation requirements, especially for corn,
which will require 17% more water based on calculations of consumptive water use. Corn has a
much shorter growing season than other crops considered, and a lower total water usage in
comparison. However, it also has the highest average k factor considered, so rising temperature
causes a greater increase in consumptive water use. The combination of the high k factor and
low overall water use mean that as a percentage of total irrigation requirements, corn is much
more sensitive to a temperature increase.
Energy
Energy requirements are tied to irrigation requirements, and are expected to rise in proportion to
increased demand for water to meet crops higher evapotranspiration needs.
Table 2. Irrigation types, percent of AZ total, and their energy use. Data from USGS 2005 and Bartos and
Chester, 2014
Irrigation Type
Percent of
Energy
Application Water Required
Total Energy
Total
Use (kWh) Efficiency
to Apply 1000 m3 to Apply
Irrigation
per 1000
1000 m3 in
3
m Water
kWh

Berardy et al.

Surface/Flood
Sprinklers
Drip/Microirrigation

70-75%
22-25%
2-4%

~0
230
170

65%
75%
95%

1538 m3
1333 m3
1052 m3

754
960
695

Table 2 provides information regarding irrigation types and their energy use in Arizona.
Surface/flood irrigation is the most common type, and fortunately has negligible energy use
(Bartos & Chester, 2014a; US Geological Survey, 2005). However, it also has 10% lower
application efficiency than sprinklers and 30% lower application efficiency than drip /
microirrigation (Bartos & Chester, 2014a). Application efficiency below 100% means that the
actual application of 1,000 m3 of water requires additional water supplied based on the efficiency
of the irrigation type. Water delivery has associated energy costs of 490 kWh per 1,000 m3
delivered in Arizona (Bartos & Chester, 2014b). Therefore, additional water delivery requires
additional energy consumption, adding to the total energy usage. Although this burden is not
captured by costs directly to the farmer, the overall system energy requirement is increased.
The lowest total energy cost is in the form of drip / microirrigation due to its high application
efficiency despite lower energy use than sprinklers. Sprinklers have the worst total energy cost
due to their high energy use for delivery coupled with only a modest improvement in application
efficiency compared to surface / flood irrigation.
Arizona irrigation withdrawals are about 4808 million gallons per day, which is 18.2 million cubic
meters of water (US Geological Survey, 2005). Based on ranges of percentages irrigated by
type provided in Table 2, direct energy use for irrigation can be calculated. This information is
presented in Table 3.
Irrigation Type

Table 3. Total AZ irrigation energy use, by type of irrigation

Percent of Total Energy Use
Total Energy Use
Irrigation
(kWh) per 1000
(kWh) for Arizona
m3 Water

Surface/Flood
Sprinklers

70-75%
22-25%

~0
230

Drip/Microirrigation

2-4%

170

~0
920,9201,046,500
61,880-123,760

Energy Use for

Irrigation
Increased by 1%
Above Baseline
~0
930,1291,056,965
62,498-124,997

Table 3 demonstrates how energy use is tied to irrigation, and quantifies the total energy use for
irrigation of Arizona agriculture. Energy use for a 1% increase in irrigation is also increased by
1% as there is a direct correlation between pumping activity and energy use. Unfortunately, data
is are not available for specific crop types irrigated by specific methods in Arizona, so an
estimate of energy use for increased individual crop irrigation requirements is not possible.
Apart from the embedded energy in water and energy used for irrigation, energy is also used
during the cultivation process to power farm machinery. The direct energy consumed for the
production of crops is estimated to be about 9 trillion BTU for the year 2014. The estimation is
performed using the fuel and electricity budgets from the crop budgets for Arizona (Arizona Field
Crop Budgets, n.d., Arizona Vegetable Crop Budgets, n.d.). Arizona crops with the highest total
energy consumption are cotton, corn, and alfalfa. However, energy consumption associated with
crops is correlated with the acreage for each crop rather than the crop type. This is due to the
fact that fuel consumption is based on the extent of the machinery used, and the processes of

Vulnerability in the Food, Energy, and Water Nexus in Arizona: Concerns for Agricultural Production

land preparation, seeding, fertilizing and harvesting are quite similar across most crops
considered. Crop yields per acre vary, so energy per kilogram of crop are different. In this case,
cotton, durum wheat, and dry beans are the top three energy-intensive crops in Arizona. This is
due to lower yields per acre than other crops and consideration on that basis rather than total
acreage. As energy consumption is determined based on acreage of crops, there is no influence
from temperature increase.
Impacts from temperature change come primarily in the form of increased irrigation
requirements. As the estimations of consumptive use are based on theoretical calculations, it is
reasonable to expect irrigation requirements to rise in proportion to temperature increases up to
the point where crops are no longer viable or fail due to exceeding lethal temperature
thresholds.
Discussion.
Climate change represents a significant but poorly understood threat to agriculture and the FEW
nexus, which requires additional research to understand the complex and interacting dynamics
between temperature and carbon dioxide concentration and irrigation and energy requirements
and yield. Better data availability and accessibility would improve the quality of the model.
The Energy-Water Nexus in Arizona Agriculture
Quantifiable connections in the Arizona FEW nexus in the context of agriculture are primarily in
the form of supplies provided from energy and water systems. Water delivery is necessary for
irrigating crops and electricity as well as fossil fuels are used in pumping and distributing water
for irrigation. Embedded energy and water in fertilizers are an indirect connection that
demonstrates interdependency upstream. Some systems exist to transform agricultural waste
into energy and many farms grow biofuel crops, but Arizona does not have any significant
biofuel production. When considering interactions in the Arizona FEW nexus, temperature is the
primary driver of changes that influence other systems. Temperature increase causes higher
water requirements for successful crop production, which means that more irrigation is required,
which also uses more energy. Decisions made by farmers in response to temperature change
can lead to other outcomes such as changing cultivation practices to lower water use, more
drought tolerant crops. However, for Arizona farms to continue operations, they must be able to
cope with the direct and indirect impacts of temperature increases on required energy and water
supplies for crops.
Uncertainty
Uncertainty exists in the model due to the fact that it does not account for interactions between
elements influenced by temperature increases, but treats them separately and as having a
cumulative impact on crop yields. For example, crop yield decreases due to increased
temperature can be partially offset by increased irrigation, cooling the plants, but this is not
accounted for. In addition, model calculations are based on theoretical requirements for
evapotranspiration. Farmers may choose to provide more water than necessary as a
preventative measure to protect crops from failure.
Alfalfa
Alfalfa, as a perennial crop, has unique characteristics that make comparison to annual crops
difficult. These include that it can be harvested multiple times after planting, even over the
course of several years, depending on management. Therefore, data regarding area of alfalfa
planted is not reported to avoid confusion, but data for area of alfalfa harvested is (National

Berardy et al.

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 2015). However, for the purposes of this study, it is
sufficient to know the acreage of alfalfa harvested as a representation of the area irrigated and
cultivated to estimate associated energy and water use. Alfalfa is important to include in this
model due to the fact that more than half of water used for Arizona agriculture goes to hay
production like alfalfa (Gammage Jr et al., 2011).
Adaptation
About 5% of Arizona farmers use a soil or plant moisture sensing device to determine when to
irrigate, and about 15% use a scheduling service or daily evapotranspiration reports, leaving a
large number of farmers that rely on reacting to the condition of the crop or the feel of the soil
(Vilsack & Reilly, 2014). Irrigation scheduling based on monitoring soil water and estimating crop
water use rates can save 1.5 to 2.0 inches of irrigation water (Martin, Dorn, Melvin, Corr, &
Kranz, 2011). Increased irrigation efficiency is possible through better use of technology and
reports rather than relying on traditional methods. Of 3.75 million acre-feet of water used for
irrigation, about 1% comes from recycled or reclaimed water (Vilsack & Reilly, 2014). Increasing
percentage of reclaimed water use could reduce overall consumptive water use. Irrigation
method has an impact not only on energy use associated but also efficiency of application of
water. 471 AZ farms use drip, trickle, or low-flow micro sprinklers, while 1,640 farms use
traditional sprinkler systems and 3,005 use gravity systems (Vilsack & Reilly, 2014). This leaves
significant room for improvement in water efficiency through extended use of drip irrigation. For
instance, 2013 corn farming using gravity systems for irrigation resulted in 4.8 acre-feet applied
per acre and a yield of 158 bushels per acre while a pressure system only used 2.9 acre-feet
per acre and yielded 216 bushels per acre (Vilsack & Reilly, 2014). Only about half of AZ farms
with gravity systems for irrigation engaged in any water conservation technique (Vilsack & Reilly,
2014).
Barriers
Farmers cite many barriers to making improvements to reduce energy use or conserve water,
including that type of investment not being a priority, believing there is a risk of reduced yield or
poorer crop quality, physical field/crop conditions that limit improvements, lack of savings to
cover installation costs, inability to finance improvements, and uncertainty about future
availability of water (Vilsack & Reilly, 2014).
Trade-offs
Some adaptations provide significant benefits in one or more areas, but cause disadvantages in
others and the consequences both positive and negative must be weighed to determine the best
course of action. For example, lowering the operating pressure of an irrigation system will
reduce energy use, but increase water application rate, increasing the potential for runoff and
water waste (Martin et al., 2011). In this case, the ideal would be to minimize pressure up to a
threshold past which runoff would occur.
Acknowledgements. This work is supported by an NSF INFEWS supplement to NSF WSC
Award No. 1360509.
References
Arizona Agricultural Statistics. (2007). Field crops.
Bartos, M. D., & Chester, M. V. (2014a). Supporting Information for: The conservation nexus:
Valuing interdependent water and energy savings in Arizona. Environmental Science and
Technology, 48(4), 21392149. http://doi.org/10.1021/es4033343
Bartos, M. D., & Chester, M. V. (2014b). The conservation nexus: Valuing interdependent water

Vulnerability in the Food, Energy, and Water Nexus in Arizona: Concerns for Agricultural Production

and energy savings in Arizona. Environmental Science and Technology, 48(4), 21392149.
http://doi.org/10.1021/es4033343
Blaney, H., & Criddle, W. (1962). Determining Consumptive Use and Irrigation Water
Requirements.
Erie, L., French, O., Bucks, D., & Harris, K. (1982). Consumptive use of water by major crops in
the southwestern United States. Retrieved from http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/clc/187571
Gammage Jr, G., Stigler, M., Clark-Johnson, S., Daugherty, D., & Hart, W. (2011). Watering the
Sun Corridor: Managing Choices in Arizonas Megapolitan Area. Arizona Board of Regents.
Martin, D. L., Dorn, T. W., Melvin, S. R., Corr, A. J., & Kranz, W. L. (2011). Evaluating Energy
Use for Pumping Irrigation Water. Proceeding of the 23rd Annual Central Plains Irrigation
Conference, Burlington, 104116.
Maupin, M., Kenny, J., Hutson, S., Lovelace, J., Barber, N., & Linsey, K. (2010). Estimated Use
of Water in the United States in 2010.
Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2010). The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Crops
and Derived Crop Products: Volume 2: Appendices (Vol. 2). Delft, The Netherlands.
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). (2015). Acreage.
United States Census Bureau. (2005). 2005 Interim State Population Projections. Retrieved
from https://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/state/projectionsagesex.html
US Energy Information Administration. (2015). Arizona - State Energy Profile Analysis - U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). Retrieved March 29, 2016, from
http://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.cfm?sid=AZ
US Geological Survey. (2005). USGS Water Use in the United States - County data download
2005. Retrieved from http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/index.html
USDA NASS Arizona Field Office. (2015). 2015 State Agriculture Overview for Arizona.
Retrieved
March
29,
2016,
from
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=ARIZONA
Vilsack, T., & Reilly, J. T. (2014). 2012 Census of Agriculture: Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey
(2013). United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service
(Vol. 3).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1995). IPCC Second Assessment Climate
Change 1995.
Arizona Vegetable Crop Budgets | AREC. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2016, from
https://ag.arizona.edu/arec/arizona-vegetable-crop-budgets
Arizona Field Crop Budgets | AREC. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2016, from
https://ag.arizona.edu/arec/arizona-field-crop-budgets
Hsu, D. D. (2011). Life Cycle Assessment of Gasoline and Diesel Produced via Fast Pyrolysis
and Hydroprocessing. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Skowroska, M., & Filipek, T. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment of Fertilizers: a review.
International Agrophysics, 101-110.

Berardy et al.

Supplementary Information (It is not requirement, where appropriate, include data and
necessary information in this section separately)

Vulnerability in the Food, Energy, and Water Nexus in Arizona:

Concerns for Agricultural Production
Andrew Berardy Arizona State University, aberardy@asu.edu
Mukunth Natarajan (First Last) Affiliation, email address
Mikhail Chester Arizona State University, mchester@asu.edu