florida statewide agricultural … irrigation demand project, or fsaid; ... will continue to be an...

JUNE 30, 2017

FLORIDA STATEWIDE AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION DEMAND

ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL WATER DEMAND, 2015 - 2040

THE BALMORAL GROUP 165 Lincoln Ave Winter Park, FL 32789

2

Table of Contents List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 9

Methodology and Agricultural Land Acreage Estimates ............................................................................... 9

A. Development and Update of the Agricultural Lands Geodatabase .................................................. 9

B. 2015 Irrigated Land Acreage Estimates .......................................................................................... 10

i. Comparisons to Other Estimates ................................................................................................ 12

C. Projections of Future Irrigated and Agricultural Land Area ............................................................ 13

D. Estimated Water Use ...................................................................................................................... 16

i. Metered Data Records ................................................................................................................ 16

ii. Current Water Use Estimates ..................................................................................................... 17

E. Projected Water Use Methodology ................................................................................................ 18

i. Price Simulation .......................................................................................................................... 19

ii. Future Land Area and Spatial Distribution of Future Water Use ................................................ 20

iii. Sensitivity Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 20

Water Use Projection Results ..................................................................................................................... 21

F. Average Year Estimates .................................................................................................................. 21

G. Dry Year Estimates .......................................................................................................................... 22

H. Frost and Freeze Protection Estimates ........................................................................................... 23

I. Conservation Estimates/ Irrigation Efficiency Improvements ........................................................ 24

J. Livestock and Aquaculture Water Use ............................................................................................ 26

FSAID Online Interface and Geodatabase ................................................................................................... 27

Conclusions and Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 29

Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 29

Future Efforts .......................................................................................................................................... 30

Reference Literature ................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix A – Acreage Projections .............................................................................................................. 35

Appendix B – GIS Maps ................................................................................................................................. 1

Appendix C – Cropland Water Use Projections ............................................................................................ 1

Appendix D – Other Agricultural Water Use Projections .............................................................................. 1

Florida Statewide Agricultural Irrigation Demand Estimated Agricultural Water Demand, 2020 ‐ 2040

3

Appendix E – Technical Information ......................................................................................................... 231

FSAID Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 5

Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 6

Model Performance .................................................................................................................................. 7

Citrus Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 9

FSAID Methodology for Dry‐Year Water Demand Estimation ................................................................ 11

ALG Statewide Revision – Description and Methodology ...................................................................... 13

Irrigation efficiency improvements ......................................................................................................... 16

Soils represented in the FSAID model ..................................................................................................... 19

List of Figures

Figure 1. SRWMD Trend in % irrigated land 1987‐2012 ............................................................................. 14

Figure 2. County level projections of % change in irrigated area: 2015‐2040 ............................................ 15

Figure 3. Spatial Distribution of Water Use Process ................................................................................... 19

Figure 4. County level projections of % change irrigation demand: 2015‐2040......................................... 22

Figure 5. FSAID data online interface screenshot ....................................................................................... 28

List of Tables

Table ES‐ 1. Agricultural Acreage in Florida, by District ................................................................................ 6

Table ES‐ 2. Estimated Irrigated Cropland Water Use .................................................................................. 6

Table ES‐ 3. Estimated Livestock/Aquaculture Water Use ........................................................................... 6

Table ES‐ 4. Irrigation Demand, MGD by Crop, 2015‐2040 .......................................................................... 7

Table ES‐ 5.Projected Irrigated Acreage by Water Management District, 2015‐2040 ................................. 7

Table ES‐ 6. Estimated Efficiency Improvements by Water Management District, MGD ............................ 7

Table 1. Summary of ALG ............................................................................................................................ 10

Table 2. Summary of ALG and ILG for 2015 baseline .................................................................................. 12

Table 3. 2015 Florida Irrigated Cropland Acreage by Primary Crop ........................................................... 12

Table 4. Estimated Florida Agricultural Acreage, Other Sources ................................................................ 13

Table 5. Estimated Florida Agricultural Acreage by Crop, Other Sources .................................................. 13

Table 6. Projected Irrigated Acreage by District ......................................................................................... 15

Table 7. Metered Data Records Summary by Crop .................................................................................... 17

Table 8. Statewide Average inches/acre/year by Crop ............................................................................... 17

Table 9. Estimated Statewide Water Use, 2015 ......................................................................................... 18

Table 10. Water Use Estimates by Crop Average Year ............................................................................... 21

Table 11. Water Use Estimates by District, Average Year .......................................................................... 21

Table 12. Water Use Estimates by District, Dry Year .................................................................................. 23

Table 13. Water Use Estimates by Crop, Dry Year (1‐in‐10) ....................................................................... 23

Table 14. Estimated Freeze Protection Estimates by Year ......................................................................... 24


4

Table 15. Estimated Efficiency Improvements by District .......................................................................... 25

Table 16. Statewide Livestock and Aquaculture Totals for Current and Projected Periods ....................... 27

Table 17. Livestock and Aquaculture Total Water Use by District, MGD ................................................... 27

List of Acronyms

AFSIRS Agricultural Field Scale Irrigation Requirements Simulation ALG Agricultural Lands Geodatabase AWS Actual Water Savings CDL Cropland Data Layer CFWI Central Florida Water Initiative CUP Consumptive Use Permit DOC Department of Citrus DPI Division of Plant Industry ET Evapotranspiration EWUR Estimated Water Use Report FAPRI Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FDOR Florida Department of Revenue FLUCCS Florida Land Use/Land Cover and Forms Classification System FRIS Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey GIS Geographic Information System GOES Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites GPD Gallons per Day ILG Irrigated Lands Geodatabase INYR Inches/Year LKB Lower Kissimmee Basin LWC Lower West Coast MGD Millions of Gallons per Day MIL Mobile Irrigation Labs NAIP National Agricultural Imagery Program NASS National Agricultural S NRSP North Ranch Sector Plan NWFWMD Northwest Florida Water Management District SFWMD South Florida Water Management Districts SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District SRWMD Suwannee River Water Management District SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District UEC Upper East Coast UKB Upper Kissimmee Basin USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USGS U.S. Geological Survey WMD Water Management District WUP Water Use Permit


5

Executive Summary

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) is charged with developing

estimates of statewide agricultural water demand1. The process is described as the Florida Statewide

Agricultural Irrigation Demand project, or FSAID; the 2017 report is the fourth, annual update of FSAID

water use estimates. Prior to the statutory requirements for FDACS to prepare projections, Florida’s five

water management districts prepared estimates independently. Long‐term water use for agriculture

will continue to be an important factor in water supply planning. The objective of the FSAID planning

process is to identify potential future demand to inform planning at the statewide level. Projected

acreage and water use are estimated in five‐year increments to cover the period 2015‐2040. The

estimates have been provided to the Water Management Districts (WMDs) for consideration in

development of their respective water supply plans. The spatial data that provides the field‐level

estimates of acreage and water demand for irrigation, livestock/aquaculture, freeze protection, and

conservation has been provided in a geodatabase and has also been made available through a web‐

based interface at www.fdacs‐fsaid.com.

Agricultural water use has intensified nationally over the past three decades, while total agricultural

land has contracted. The effects of the housing boom then bust, competition from Brazil, and drought

conditions in the western U.S. have influenced the decisions of Florida farmers. At the same time,

improved efficiencies in irrigation technology and management practices have slowed the rate of

agricultural water use increase. The net effects of these factors are reflected in actual water use

records. For the 2017 FSAID update, more than 22,000 water use records throughout the state were

used to estimate the effects of location, irrigation equipment, soils, crop choice (including multi‐

cropping where applicable), crop prices, and climate conditions on irrigation volumes2. Long‐term

projections of future crop prices prepared by USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) and the

Florida Department of Citrus were then applied to average climate conditions to simulate farmers’

response to future market conditions, including expanding or reducing irrigated acreage and/or shifting

future crop mix.

A significant factor in the 2017 update is the wide variation in estimated future citrus production for

Florida. A conservative midpoint of future citrus prices was used, and declines in citrus acreage were

aligned with Department of Citrus forecasts to capture shifts into other crops, where feasible, given soils

and other factors. The forecast reflects a gradual decline in citrus acreage statewide of about 23,000

acres through 2040; in some areas this is accompanied by an increase in local water use based on the

water use for alternative crops.

Agricultural lands in Florida total about 8 million acres, of which about 24%, or just under 2 million acres

are irrigated for crops (Table ES‐1). Through 2040, irrigated acreage is forecast to increase, by about

1 Florida Statute 570.93. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; agricultural water conservation and agricultural

water supply planning. 2 The available data records of actual water use, as measured through metered or self‐reported pumpage data from farmers,

increased substantially for the 2016 update, from 6,022 to 11,696 records. The improved dataset supported a more thorough analysis and enhanced estimates of water use, local variation and future conservation.


6

78,000 acres, or 4%. The associated water use is projected to increase overall by 14%, with varying

impacts on individual WMDs. SJRWMD and SWFWMD are forecast to see declines in irrigated areas,

while the northernmost districts are expected to see significant increases in the share of land that is

irrigated.

Table ES‐ 1. Agricultural Acreage in Florida, by District

WMD Agricultural Lands 2015 Irrigated Crop Land 2015 Irrigated Crop Land 2015

Acres Parcels Acres

NWFWMD 646,709 915 51,131 SFWMD 3,338,225 7,622 1,159,148

SJRWMD 1,236,149 5,206 167,161

SRWMD 746,546 1,878 121,693

SWFWMD 2,064,772 11,207 414,440

Total 8,032,399 26,828 1,913,573

Total agricultural irrigation water use statewide is estimated at 2,099 MGD for an average year and

2,857 for a 1‐in‐10 dry year. Table ES‐2 provides a breakdown by district of total crop irrigation use.

Table ES‐3 provides estimated water use for livestock (dairy, cattle, poultry, equine) and aquaculture.

Table ES‐ 2. Estimated Irrigated Cropland Water Use

WMD 2015 2015 2015

Acres MGD Inches/Year

NWFWMD 51,131 37 9.83

SFWMD 1,159,148 1,298 15.05 SJRWMD 167,161 203 16.33 SRWMD 121,693 136 15.01 SWFWMD 414,440 425 13.77

Total 1,913,573 2,099 14.75

Table ES‐ 3. Estimated Livestock/Aquaculture Water Use

WMD Livestock water

use (MGD) Aquaculture water

use (MGD)

NWFWMD 2.5 3.3 SFWMD 12.5 2.0 SJRWMD 4.8 1.7 SRWMD 10.6 0.3 SWFWMD 9.4 2.1

Total 39.9 9.4

Table ES‐4 shows projected water use estimates by crop, while Table ES‐5 summarizes district level

irrigated acreage projections from 2015 to 2040. By 2040, total average‐year agricultural water use is

estimated at 2,509 MGD, including livestock/aquaculture and freeze protection demands.


7

Table ES‐ 4. Irrigation Demand, MGD by Crop, 2015‐2040

Statewide 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Predominant Crop Avg MGD Avg MGD Avg MGD Avg MGD Avg MGD Avg MGD Dry MGD

Citrus 528.9 526.1 527.7 536.0 544.1 548.5 810.7

Field Crops 134.6 137.1 138.0 137.5 136.7 135.9 177.7

Fruit (Non‐citrus) 64.9 64.1 63.4 62.5 64.0 65.6 86.2

Greenhouse or Nursery 148.8 139.9 134.2 128.7 123.2 118.2 132.3

Hay 117.2 123.9 133.9 134.8 132.0 130.9 184.2

Potatoes 39.4 39.8 41.4 44.9 47.2 49.4 71.4

Sod 52.0 50.8 49.9 48.8 48.2 47.6 57.8

Sugarcane 704.8 713.8 732.2 765.7 800.3 828.7 1,143.7

Vegetables (Fresh Market) 308.8 330.9 364.0 396.4 434.1 474.3 603.4

Total 2,099.2 2,126.5 2,184.7 2,255.5 2,329.8 2,399.1 3,267.4

Table ES‐ 5.Projected Irrigated Acreage by Water Management District, 2015‐2040

WMD 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2015‐2040 2015‐2040

Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Difference % Difference

NWFWMD 51,131 53,078 55,130 57,193 59,208 61,056 9,925 19%SFWMD 1,159,148 1,163,141 1,172,532 1,180,187 1,186,604 1,195,798 36,650 3%SJRWMD 167,161 165,292 162,892 161,417 160,048 158,697 (8,464) ‐5%SRWMD 121,693 131,581 141,224 151,350 160,900 169,981 48,288 40%SWFWMD 414,440 413,431 410,894 409,646 409,003 406,563 (7,877) ‐2%

Total 1,913,573 1,926,522 1,942,673 1,959,793 1,975,764 1,992,095 78,522 4%

Historical records indicate that Florida farmers have improved efficiency on average about 1% per year,

overall. A long term record of producer‐reported acreage and water use (from the USDA Farm and

Ranch Irrigation Survey within Florida) was used to develop trends to project future irrigation

conservation. An improved dataset allowed more detailed analysis of conservation measures which have

already been implemented at the producer level, and those which could be expected in future. Table

ES‐6 provides the results of the analysis, which project offsets of about 11% from current water use

through efficiency improvements by 2040. Detailed information on conservation methods and data

sources are provided in the Appendix.

Table ES‐ 6. Estimated Efficiency Improvements by Water Management District, MGD

WMD 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

NWFWMD 1.7 2.9 4.1 5.4 6.6

SFWMD 36.2 61.3 86.5 111.6 133.2

SJRWMD 8.3 13.7 18.7 23.1 27.4

SRWMD 6.6 11.4 16.5 21.7 27.1

SWFWMD 14.6 27.2 38.7 49.5 59.6

Total 67.4 116.5 164.4 211.3 253.9


8

The FSAID model incorporates both agronomic and economic factors that affect water demand. The

model’s ability to capture the variation in water use by profitability across crops and within crops over

time provides an enhanced estimate of future irrigation demands. Potential sources of error in the

FSAID model include changes in the share of land that is irrigated over time; gradual shifts to more

intensive irrigation are captured, but if more dramatic shifts occurred, the forecast will be

underestimated.

A number of factors present uncertainty in future projections for Florida agricultural irrigation demand.

Citrus and sugar are both large water users and are also currently more susceptible than other crops to

non‐price impacts, such as tariffs, trade relations, energy prices, food safety laws and environmental

regulations relating to water quality. For current water use and for projections, citrus and sugarcane

represent the greatest irrigation demand; dramatic shifts in either market would impact water use3.

However, agriculture, particularly citrus and sugar operations, has high fixed costs which means that

shocks to the system affect profits long before they affect acreage and water use. For context, a series

of freezes essentially ended citrus farming in Central Florida during the late 1980s and early 1990s; yet

overall irrigated acreage saw greater net impact from the housing boom in the late 2000s. Some portion

of producer response to systemic shocks are embedded in the underlying model; the dataset

incorporates housing boom and bust years, wild swings in energy prices and rapid spread of citrus

greening. The heavy investments in capital and labor arrangements inject an inherent lag to changes in

agricultural practices, which is likely to be evident within water use as well.

3 As previously noted, significant modeling of alternative citrus scenarios was performed and is included.


9

Introduction

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) is charged with developing

estimates of statewide agricultural water demand4. The process is described as the Florida Statewide

Agricultural Irrigation Demand project, or FSAID; this report is the fourth update of FSAID water use

estimates prepared by FDACS. The current and projected agricultural water use estimates incorporate

an additional year of metered data for all Water Management Districts (Districts) and have utilized

updated spatial data to improve the irrigated lands coverage.

The current baseline acreage and water use estimates are for the year 2015, which is the most recent

year of available water use data provided by the Districts. The aerial imagery and the most recent

annual rainfall and evapotranspiration data are also from 2015. Previous iterations of FSAID have also

utilized 2015 as the baseline year in order to align with the convention of water supply plans having

baseline years as a multiple of 5. However, the current irrigated area coverage and water use estimates

are based most directly on 2015 data.

This report includes estimates of irrigated agricultural areas and water demands for 2015 and

projections for 2020 – 2040, in five‐year increments. The estimates herein were provided to the Districts

for consideration in development of their respective water supply plans, and were provided to the

Districts for their review and comment.

This report describes the agricultural land acreage estimates and methodology, followed by the water

use estimates and methodology. Following the water and land use estimates, frost‐freeze protection

estimates, irrigation conservation estimates, and livestock and aquaculture estimates are provided.

This is the fourth iteration of FSAID agricultural water demand projections, and can be referenced as

FSAID IV (FDACS 2017). Previous FSAID reports or datasets can be referenced similarly (i.e. FSAID II;

FDACS 2015).

Methodology and Agricultural Land Acreage Estimates

Two Geographic Information System (GIS) databases of all agricultural lands in Florida, as well as

irrigated lands, were created for the FSAID project. The Agricultural Lands Geodatabase (ALG) includes

all agricultural land, while the Irrigated Lands Geodatabase (ILG) includes only irrigated agricultural land,

as well as the estimated current and projected water use for each parcel. The ILG is a more detailed

subset of the ALG, and the ALG serves as the pool of available lands for areas projected to become

irrigated in future periods.

A. Development and Update of the Agricultural Lands Geodatabase

Five primary spatial data sources were used to develop the initial FSAID ALG in 2014: Florida Statewide

Land Use/Land Cover from the Water Management Districts, Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) polygons

4 Florida Statute 570.93. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; agricultural water conservation and agricultural water supply

planning.


10

from the WMDs, USDA’s Cropland Data Layer (CDL) data, USDA’s National Agricultural Imagery Program

(NAIP) aerial imagery, and Irrigated Areas layers from SJRWMD and SWFWMD. The ALG has been

updated in each of the subsequent years based on identified changes within the ILG, with review of

nearby areas conducted at the same time.

The ALG was updated statewide as part of the FSAID IV process in order to incorporate data reflecting

newer land use and to resolve disparities in land use descriptions between various data sources.

Updates incorporated Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR) data statewide to identify parcels that

were no longer categorized as agricultural, resulting in a substantial volume of acreage being removed

to reflect development. Other updates included utilizing the most current version of the Statewide Land

Use Land Cover data (2004‐2016 land use / land cover compiled from the Water Management Districts).

Updated land use data from the 2015 SJRWMD Ag Layer and the updated SFWMD land use coverage in

the Upper Kissimmee Basin (UKB) and Lower Kissimmee Basin (LKB) were also utilized for ALG updates.

The resulting ALG reflects acreage of 8,032,399 statewide, divided into 144,106 individual fields,

representing 5% fewer fields and about a 6% decrease in acreage (486, 222 acres) from FSAID III

estimates; see Table 1 for a breakdown by District. A more detailed explanation of the ALG update

methodology is available in Appendix E.

Table 1. Summary of ALG

WMD ALG 2015 ALG 2015

Parcel Count Acres

NWFWMD 22,929 646,709

SFWMD 34,132 3,338,225

SJRWMD 29,998 1,236,149

SRWMD 20,702 746,546

SWFWMD 36,345 2,064,772

Total 144,106 8,032,399

Total prior year (for comparison)

151,108 8,518,621

B. 2015 Irrigated Land Acreage Estimates

The Irrigated Lands Geodatabase was updated to 2015 conditions (end of year 2015). New and modified

Consumptive Use Permits (CUPs) were manually checked to update the ILG. CUP information on crop

type and irrigation system were combined with data from the Cropland Data Layer (CDL), National

Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial imagery, and Google Earth imagery to classify field geometry,

crop type, and irrigation system. The following list of data sources describes the spatial datasets used to

refine the FSAID ILG.


11

DATA SOURCE DESCRIPTIONConsumptive Use Permits

(CUP; recent new and

revised were reviewed)

CUPs typically provide information on crop type and irrigation system, in

SWFWMD, a separate spatial coverage of irrigated areas was utilized in the

original development of the ILG

Cropland Data Layer (CDL;

2015)

The CDL is a gridded dataset (30 meter resolution) that classifies crop type based

on satellite data and groundtruth data from the Farm Service Agency (FSA) field

reports at the Common Land Unit (CLU) scale. It is updated annually based on

satellite data during the peak growing season (April to September).

National Agricultural Imagery

Program (NAIP; 2015)

The NAIP provides annually updated peak growing season aerial photography.

U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS; 2015‐2017)

USGS, under contract to FDACS, performed field work to verify irrigated areas in

some counties.

FDACS Division of Plant

Industry (DPI) active citrus

layer; 2016

Statewide dataset of citrus areas, with attributes indicating survey date and

classification that describes active production or abandonment; most survey

dates are 2015 or older.

SJRWMD 2015 Ag Layer

update; 2015

Spatial dataset of agricultural areas (including un‐irrigated lands) for the

SJRWMD.

SFWMD land use layers;

2015

Tabular data of irrigated pasture with permit numbers provided by SFWMD; UKB

and LKB updated land use layers.

SWFWMD irrigated area

review file; 2016

Spatial coverage of individual areas to review and adjust irrigated coverage based

on District analysis.

Updates to the ILG were reviewed with staff at each District. Draft ILG shapefiles were provided to each

District during January 2017, and meetings were set with the FSAID team staff in each District during

January and February to review. In some Districts, staff provided marked‐up shapefiles for

consideration. In other Districts, comments were provided via email and were researched as part of

continued ILG updates. In all cases, input was acknowledged and addressed, by incorporating requested

changes, providing examples of corroborating data that supported or refuted a specific requested

change, and/or a combination of the two.

Validation efforts included using GIS to visually review aerial photography (NAIP and Google Earth), CDL,

and permit data (reading permit documents to extract crop type, irrigation system, and irrigated area).

Under contract to FDACS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) performed field work in several counties to

confirm areas of irrigated cropland and provided shapefiles; USGS data was compared to the 2015 ILG,

and areas having differences were manually reviewed using recent aerial imagery and the CDL. The

FDACS DPI Active Citrus layer was compared with the ILG to facilitate addition or removal of citrus areas

in the ILG. Specific areas provided by each of the District were also reviewed for indicated changes and

incorporated.

The resulting ILG includes 26,828 polygons totaling 1,913,573 acres, out of 8,032,399 total agricultural

acres. This compares with an estimated 1,800,312 irrigated acres in 2010, out of total agricultural land

of 8,613,770 acres. The updated estimate reflects an increase in irrigated land of about 6%, and a

reduction in total agricultural land of about 7%.


12

Table 2 provides a summary of the total acreage in current ILG and ALG. Table 3 provides a breakdown

by crop acreage at the statewide level. Appendix C provides detailed tables by Water Management

District and County, with estimates for split district counties available in Table C‐ 28.

Table 2. Summary of ALG and ILG for 2015 baseline

WMD ALG fields ALG area ILG fields ILG area

Parcels Acres Parcels Acres

NWFWMD 22,929 646,709 915 51,131

SFWMD 34,132 3,338,225 7,622 1,159,148

SJRWMD 29,998 1,236,149 5,206 167,161

SRWMD 20,702 746,546 1,878 121,693

SWFWMD 36,345 2,064,772 11,207 414,440

Total 144,106 8,032,399 26,828 1,913,573

Table 3. 2015 Florida Irrigated Cropland Acreage by Primary Crop

Primary Crop 2015 Acres Share of total

Citrus 577,751 30%

Field Crops 153,645 8%

Fruit (Non‐citrus) 31,034 2%

Greenhouse/Nursery 63,533 3%

Hay 175,479 9%

Potatoes 32,895 2%

Sod 58,471 3%

Sugarcane 586,756 31%

Vegetables (Fresh Market) 234,010 12%

Total 1,913,573 100%

i. Comparisons to Other Estimates

For purposes of context and in accordance with Florida Statute, other relevant published estimates of

irrigated and total agricultural area are provided. These are provided to evaluate reasonableness of the

FSAID estimates and should not be used to evaluate trends over time. There are a handful of statewide

estimates of irrigated or total agricultural land produce by other sources, as shown in Table 4. Published

estimates of Florida crop land include the Ag Census, prepared by USDA every five years, and Florida

Agricultural Statistics Service, which is updated annually. The Ag Census 2017 update is currently

underway and scheduled for release in early 2019. Table 4 provides a snapshot of the most recent

estimates of statewide agricultural land and irrigated land available from other frequently cited sources.

Given the difference in dates of the other estimates and the data collection methods, the ranges of

variation are considered reasonable. In Table 5 the crop‐specific irrigated acreages are compared to

estimates from other sources. There is no completely comparable dataset, and pieces of other datasets

are used to provide context for the FSAID estimates.


13

Table 4. Estimated Florida Agricultural Acreage, Other Sources

Time Period Agricultural Land Irrigated LandShare of Irrigated

Land*

FSAID IV (2017) 8,032,399 1,913,573 24%

FSAID III (released 2016) 8,518,621 1,995,071 23%

FASS 2013 9,550,000 1,492,808 16%

Ag Census 2012 9,548,342 1,492,808 16%

FRIS 2013 Not comparable 1,493,320 n/a

FSAID 2010 8,613,770 1,738,961 20%

Ag Census 2007 9,231,570 1,558,137 17%

*Calculated, from data within the report. With the exception of FSAID, the data sources do not directly provide the information.

Table 5. Estimated Florida Agricultural Acreage by Crop, Other Sources

Acreage by Primary Crop FSAID IV Other Estimates

Citrus 577,751 515,1471

Field crops 153,645 71,3052

Fruit (Non‐citrus) 31,034 22,3001

Greenhouse/Nursery 63,533 Not available

Hay 175,479 119,1582

Potatoes 32,895 22,7422

Sod 58,471 Not available

Sugarcane 586,756 462,6672

Vegetables (Fresh Market) 234,010 196,6001

Source: 1FDACS 2016, Florida Ag by the Numbers 2014; 2FRIS 2013

C. Projections of Future Irrigated and Agricultural Land Area

Long‐term trends in irrigated agricultural lands were projected using historical and current data. NASS

reports total agricultural land each five years, and is the longest consistent data stream available 5 NASS

data was used to develop trend analysis for each county from 1987‐2012; Appendix A provides graphs

for each of Florida’s 67 counties6.

Total irrigated land for each county was used to build a ratio of irrigated to agricultural land. Consistent

with national trends, urbanization continues to displace agricultural land in Florida. However, a higher

proportion of remaining agricultural lands become irrigated, as the long term trends in USDA Ag Census

data show (Figure 1), particularly in SRWMD (Figure 2).

5 NASS data is available for 1982, but a significant change in how the data was reported in 1987 renders intertemporal

comparisons not meaningful. Hence 1987 was used as the earliest year for trend analysis. 6 Note the 2017 Ag Census is scheduled for release in February 2019.


14

Figure 1. Statewide Agricultural and Irrigated Land

Figure 2. SRWMD Trend in % irrigated land 1987‐2012

An auto regressive procedure was used to forecast County‐specific trends in irrigated share based on

statistical fit. The functional form of each regression was selected based on best fit criteria from

logarithmic, linear, moving average and quadratic forms. In some areas of the state, the share of

agricultural land that is irrigated has remained relatively constant, while in other areas the data reflect

steady, significant increases.

The trend in agricultural land was projected to 2040 for each county, and the projected change in share

of agricultural land that is irrigated was used to forecast irrigated land. The amount of acreage change

resulting from the calculation was subtracted from the ILG, in the case of negative growth, or in the case

of positive growth, extracted from the unirrigated ALG and brought into the ILG. Projected agricultural

acreage and irrigated acreage through 2040 by county are provided in Table A‐1 in the Appendix. Figure

3 illustrates the changes in irrigated areas from 2015 to 2040 by county; the majority of counties with

large percent increases in irrigated area are in the northern portion of the state.


15

Figure 3. County level projections of % change in irrigated area: 2015‐2040

Overall agricultural lands are expected to decline statewide by about 5% (from 8,032,399 to 7,621,333),

while total irrigated acreage is projected to expand by 4%. Resulting acreage projections by District are

provided in Table 6. Acreage projections by county are provided in Appendix A.

Table 6. Projected Irrigated Acreage by District

WMD 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2015 ‐ 2040 2015 ‐ 2040

Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Difference % Difference

NWFWMD 51,131 53,078 55,130 57,193 59,208 61,056 9,925 19%

SFWMD 1,159,148 1,163,141 1,172,532 1,180,187 1,186,604 1,195,798 36,650 3%

SJRWMD 167,161 165,292 162,892 161,417 160,048 158,697 (8,464) ‐5%

SRWMD 121,693 131,581 141,224 151,350 160,900 169,981 48,288 40%

SWFWMD 414,440 413,431 410,894 409,646 409,003 406,563 (7,877) ‐2%

Total 1,913,573 1,926,522 1,942,673 1,959,793 1,975,764 1,992,095 78,522 4%


16

D. Estimated Water Use

As required by Florida Statute, observations of irrigation water use form the basis for the FSAID

estimates of spatially distributed statewide irrigation demand. Metered and reported water use data is

collected each year from the water management districts. Historical metered data extends from 2007 to

2015. The data is inspected to remove estimated records and outliers. District datasets are then

formatted into a single statewide dataset. Water use is estimated using an analytical model. The model

specification is estimated using Ordinary Least Squares regression analysis to generate coefficients from

the actual water use for each field‐level variable. Variables include agronomic variables (crop choice, soil

type, location, climate), engineering or physical factors (irrigation equipment, plot size) and economic or

behavioral factors (crop prices, share of land irrigated); the dependent variable is actual water use,

derived from metered or reported pumpage data (hereafter, “metered data”). The model was initially

developed based on published literature reflecting national trends in agricultural irrigation, and has

been refined each year based on feedback from Districts, producers and academics7. In the 2017 model,

approximately 22,000 farm observations are included in the model used to generate coefficients

(including all years). The R2 or statistical “fit” of the model output to actual data is 0.79.

Appendix E provides further detail on the model inputs, a detailed example of the model and discussion

of specific elements of the model including price, costs and soils data.

i. Metered Data Records

The existing dataset of metered data records across Districts included data from years 2007 – 2015, with

years before 2013 unevenly represented across Districts. Substantial effort was expended during the

dataset assembly to evaluate input data for consistency8. In the current iteration, review of prior years

was conducted to determine whether additional records could be included in the modeling dataset,

using a 25th‐90th percentile cutoff to screen “outliers”.

Table 7 provides a summary by crop of metered data records; Appendix E provides additional detail on

screening of input data and distribution by District.

7 de Bodisco, Christopher. 2007. The Regional value of water in agriculture. PhD Dissertation, Vanderbilt University. Nashville,

TN: Proquest/UMI (Publication No. AAT 3301032).

Livanis, G., Moss, C. Breneman, V., “Urban Sprawl and Farmland Prices” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(4) (November 2006): 915–929.

Moss, Charles B. and Chris de Bodisco. “Projected Water Demand by Agriculture in the Northwest Florida Water Management

District.” Economic Information Report. Food and Resource Economics Department, IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville,

Fl., February, 1998. 77pp.

Schoengold, K., D. L. Sunding, and G. Moreno (2006), Price elasticity reconsidered: Panel estimation of an agricultural water

demand function, Water Resources Research, 42. 8 Input data was evaluated for outliers, infeasible estimates (greater volume than a given well size could physically produce

during a given time period), and statistical heterogeneity. Multiple thresholds for inclusion in the data set were tested including multiple standard deviations from the mean by crop by district; 10th and 90th percentile by crop by district; hard upper bounds like 100 inches/acre/year. Repeated statistical testing determined that 10th and 90th percentile thresholds performed best, and were used.


17

Table 7. Metered Data Records Summary by Crop

Primary Crop Acres MGD

Citrus 911,414 781.2

Field Crops 107,696 78.5

Fruit (Non‐citrus) 30,726 62.7

Greenhouse/Nursery 28,658 60.7

Hay 143,973 111.1

Potatoes 49,353 62.0

Sod 72,132 58.5

Sugarcane 139,870 227.1

Vegetables (Fresh Market) 316,603 402.2

Total 1,800,424 1,844.0

For context, Table 8 provides statewide average inches/acre/year by crop as calculated by the

Agricultural Field Scale Irrigation Requirements Simulation Model (AFSIRS) for FSAID I, metered data for

FSAID III, and the current (metered) dataset. As a result of re‐screening prior years’ input for

consistency, the average inches/year increased for some crops and decreased for others, although

overall, the ending dataset is within 1% of the prior year’s estimate of 13.7 inches /year.

Average water use based on metered data appears reasonable based on stakeholder feedback.

Table 8. Statewide Average inches/acre/year by Crop

Statewide Average IN/YR

Primary Crop FSAID1 AFSIRS FSAID3 Metered or Reported Usage Input

FSAID4 Metered or Reported Usage Input

Citrus 14.37 11.33 11.52

Field Crops 10.16 8.33 9.80

Fruit (Non‐citrus) 16.63 20.62 27.42

Greenhouse/Nursery 48.55 34.86 28.49

Hay 15.12 11.07 10.37

Potatoes 12.46 23.93 16.89

Sod 37.52 10.69 10.90

Sugarcane 24.63 19.10 21.83

Vegetables (Fresh Market) 11.85 16.11 17.08

Total 19.52 13.66 13.77

ii. Current Water Use Estimates

The resulting current water use estimates reflect a 4% decrease in overall irrigated acreage over the

prior year, a 1% increase in overall water use as measured in Millions of Gallons per Day (MGD) and a 6%


18

increase in overall intensity, as measured in inches/year; see Table 9. The increase is primarily driven by

the higher intensity water use reflected in updated metered records.

Note the current water use for 2015 was modeled using rainfall and ET data for 2015. For ease of

comparison in planning, in the projections tables the 2015 baseline estimate is replaced with the

estimates based on model results using the average of rainfall and ET from 2005‐2015.

Table 9. Estimated Statewide Water Use, 2015

Statewide 2015 2015 2015

Crop Acres MGD INYR

Citrus 577,751 549 12.8

Field Crops 153,645 121 10.6

Fruit (Non‐citrus) 31,034 65 28.3

Greenhouse/Nursery 63,533 148 31.4

Hay 175,479 117 9.0

Potatoes 32,895 38 15.7

Sod 58,471 53 12.2

Sugarcane* 586,756 698 16.0

Vegetables (Fresh Market) 234,010 314 18.0

Total 1,913,573 2,104 14.8

FSAID III Totals (for comparison) 1,995,071 2,075 13.9

Source: TBG Work Product *Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) area of 451,398 acres is held constant for sugarcane at 463.69 MGD

E. Projected Water Use Methodology

Projected water use for the time period 2020‐2040 is estimated by simulating future conditions using

coefficients from the econometric model, and substituting forecast future values for each variable.

Since location and climate‐related variables are either fixed or long‐term averages, the simulation is

driven mainly by price forecasts and future land area, which are discussed in turn. For planning and

comparison purposes, a baseline estimate for 2015 is included using average values for rain and ET

rather than actual values for 2015. A one‐page summary has been provided for use by the Districts in

Appendix E.


19

Assign coefficients

to ILG Data for all

attributes

Assign Net

Price

Is Crop change

indicated?

No Yes

Assign Net

Price for

new crop

Calculate

water use

Does water use

exceed prior

period water

?

No Yes

No Yes

Assign water

use to new

acreage

Reduce

water

Is water use less

than prior period

water use?

No Yes

Is polygon in a

County with

declining acreage?

Delete

polygon

acreage and

water use

i. Price Simulation

Future water use estimates were simulated by updating each

explanatory variable in the model, and using the regression

equation to estimate future water use. Each variable was

estimated as follows:

1. Prices and costs were forecast for five‐year periods

from 2020 to 2040 using 10 year crop price forecasts

from USDA, Food and Agricultural Policy Research

Institute (FAPRI) extended using a crop specific

growth trend.

a. Forecast net revenue can be used to adjust

crop mix to maximize farm profit subject to

soil and land use constraints. Using current

forecast trends, only two crop mix changes

are indicated and for limited periods:

i. The fresh market vegetable and non‐

citrus fruit margins invert relative

profits between 2015 and 2020;

however, the non‐citrus fruit in the

database is primarily strawberries,

which typically rotate with a fresh

market vegetable already. Hence, no

crop mix change was incorporated for

this situation.

ii. The sod net revenue exceeds fresh

market vegetable net revenue

between 2015 and 2020, but by less

than $10 per acre at the peak

difference. Given the small average

change in margin, and the short time

period that the reversal holds, no

crop mix change was incorporated

for this situation.

2. The irrigated acreage changes were used to identify

irrigated acreage for each five‐year interval, as

described in Section C: Projections of Future

Irrigated and Agricultural Land Area. The net

revenue variable was calculated by applying updated

net revenue values to forecasted acreage.

3. ET and rainfall variables were updated by calculating Figure 4. Spatial Distribution of Water Use Process

No

Change


20

mean historical values for an average year (2005‐2015), assigned at the farm level.

4. Estimated coefficients from the regression model were applied to forecast variables to simulate

projected water use. The change in total water use was estimated at the field level, and applied

to the acreage increase or decrease in each county.

ii. Future Land Area and Spatial Distribution of Future Water Use

Spatial distribution of water use was applied according to the process outlined in Figure 4. Future water

use changes that exceed water applied to current acreage were allocated across fields that were

selected from the ALG as follows. For additional acreage, the pool of permitted but currently unirrigated

land was considered first, followed by unpermitted acreage, subject to constraints. Constraints included

poor soils, defined as soil grade with Land Capability Classification of 4 or greater, lands designated in

water resource caution areas, and/or Florida Natural Areas Inventory.

The projected irrigated acreage trend was used to identify areas requiring addition or deletion in the

existing irrigated lands for each county. Fields were selected from the ALG until the total amount of

new acreage was obtained but not divided; i.e., if a field was identified as required for new acreage and

slightly exceeded the new acreage needed, the entire field was moved into the ILG; as a result, new

acreage may vary slightly from the exact acreage forecast.

In some counties, agricultural acreage was not sufficient to absorb the projected irrigated acreage after

the constraints were applied, and if so, the acreage was capped once the available land identified in the

ALG was used. Conversely, if a County indicated fewer irrigated acres, the algorithm identified fields to

remove from the ILG, with accordant water use. Crops were assigned based on the indicated crop mix

from modeling results; i.e. the “excess” water from crops (crops that show higher water use for

increased acreage). The predominant irrigation system used in the county for the crop was assigned.

Rainfall and ET were assigned in the same manner as the rest of the ILG.

iii. Sensitivity Analysis

A number of model iterations were run to test the sensitivity of various parameters and alternative

approaches to measuring variables. Notable tests include:

The added 2015 metered data, combined with the effects of different screening thresholds for

excluding outlier records, resulted in inclusion of about 6,800 additional metered data records.

Sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare the impacts of truncating outliers through several

approaches as detailed in Appendix E.

The effects of actual 2015 rainfall data and an average of 11 years (2005‐2015) were tested and

found to cause results that vary by less than 1% overall.

ET data were tested to determine the impact of the RET data applied to the smaller, regression

dataset versus the entire 2015 projection ILG, and found to vary by approximately 2.3%.


21

Water Use Projection Results

F. Average Year Estimates

The resulting statewide water use estimates for each five‐year period are provided in Table 10 by crop,

and Table 11 by District. The net change in acreage of 78,522 acres over the next twenty years is

accompanied by a net change in irrigation volume of 300 MGD for an average year and 410 for a dry

year. The substantial decline in citrus acreage over the past year lowers overall agricultural acreage and

water use, and redistributes the impacts of future changes.

The effects are unevenly distributed by District, with nearly a 50% increase in irrigation demand

expected in Suwannee River Water Management District by 2040 and substantial increases (38%) in the

Northwest Florida Water Management District. Slight demand decreases were projected in St. Johns

River Water Management District and Southwest Florida Water Management District. Detailed

breakdowns of county‐level acreage by crop and district are included in the Appendix. Figure 5

illustrates the percent change in irrigation water demand by county from 2015 to 2040.

Table 10. Water Use Estimates by Crop Average Year

Statewide 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Predominant Crop Avg MGD Avg MGD Avg MGD Avg MGD Avg MGD Avg MGD

Citrus 529 526 528 536 544 549

Field Crops 135 137 138 138 137 136

Fruit (Non‐citrus) 65 64 63 63 64 66

Greenhouse/Nursery 149 140 134 129 123 118

Hay 117 124 134 135 132 131

Potatoes 39 40 41 45 47 49

Sod 52 51 50 49 48 48

Sugarcane 705 714 732 766 800 829

Vegetables (Fresh Market) 309 331 364 396 434 474

Total 2,099 2,126 2,185 2,255 2,330 2,399

Table 11. Water Use Estimates by District, Average Year

WMD 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Avg MGD Avg MGD Avg MGD Avg MGD Avg MGD Avg MGD

NWFWMD 37 39 42 45 48 51

SFWMD 1,298 1,313 1,349 1,393 1,438 1,480

SJRWMD 203 200 201 202 204 205

SRWMD 136 147 161 176 189 202

SWFWMD 425 426 431 440 451 461

Total 2,099 2,126 2,185 2,255 2,330 2,399


22

Figure 5. County level projections of % change irrigation demand: 2015‐2040

G. Dry Year Estimates

Dry year estimates were calculated using crop and District‐specific ratios of average irrigation water use

to 1‐in‐10 use. The FSAID dry year estimates represent the irrigation demand that would be expected in

1 out of 10 years. Statewide, the overall average ratio is 1.34, but this varies widely by District. Table E‐ 7

in Appendix E provides the ratios by crop and District and Appendix E also provides a more detailed

description of how the average‐to‐dry ratios were developed. Table 12 provides Dry Year Estimates by

District, and Table 13 shows Dry Year Estimates by Crop.


23

Table 12. Water Use Estimates by District, Dry Year

WMD 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Dry MGD Dry MGD Dry MGD Dry MGD Dry MGD Dry MGD

NWFWMD 51 54 59 63 67 71

SFWMD 1,745 1,766 1,816 1,876 1,938 1,996

SJRWMD 290 287 287 290 292 294

SRWMD 174 189 208 227 245 262

SWFWMD 597 598 605 616 632 645

Total 2,857 2,895 2,974 3,072 3,174 3,267

Table 13. Water Use Estimates by Crop, Dry Year (1‐in‐10)

Statewide 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Predominant Crop Dry MGD Dry MGD Dry MGD Dry MGD Dry MGD Dry MGD

Citrus 783 779 781 793 805 811

Field Crops 176 180 181 180 179 178

Fruit (Non‐citrus) 84 83 82 81 84 86

Greenhouse/Nursery 166 156 150 144 138 132

Hay 165 174 188 190 186 184

Potatoes 57 58 60 65 68 71

Sod 63 62 61 59 59 58

Sugarcane 973 985 1,010 1,057 1,104 1,144

Vegetables (Fresh Market) 390 418 461 503 551 603

Total 2,857 2,895 2,974 3,072 3,174 3,267

H. Frost and Freeze Protection Estimates

Irrigation for freeze protection is used on a variety of crops in Florida where freezes occur. Freeze

protection water volumes are a relatively small percentage of the total statewide demand for normal

irrigation, but the withdrawals happen in a short time frame, meaning that planning and/or mitigating

for the potential impacts from this short‐term water demand is necessary. Frost protection water use in

FSAID was limited to the major crops commonly requiring freeze protection: strawberries, blueberries,

peaches, citrus, and ferns. Freeze‐related irrigation events were estimated to occur on days with

minimum temperature at or below freezing for fields in the ILG where crop type matched one of those

listed above.

The USGS gridded ET data (from GOES9 platform) from 1996 to 2015 were used for estimating the

average number of annual freeze events at ILG fields with a crop type that would be freeze protected.

The dataset includes minimum temperature at 2km grid resolution, which was used to count the annual

number of freeze events at the locations of ILG fields which would likely be freeze protected. The annual

freeze events at ILG locations were then averaged at the county level for the 20 year period. The

9 Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite


24

average number of freeze events for a county was combined with information on crop type and

irrigation system to calculate annual average amounts of freeze protection water use. To calculate the

amounts of freeze‐protection water, the following irrigation intensities were used: 0.07 inches/hour for

micro‐spray irrigated citrus, 0.2 inches/hour for blueberries or strawberries or peaches, and 0.3

inches/hour for ferns. A 14‐hour freeze event duration was assumed. Frost/freeze water demand for

future projections of the ILG varies from the current frost/freeze demands due to the additions or

deletions of ILG polygons classified as Non‐citrus Fruit (which would include strawberry, blueberries, and

peaches) and Citrus. It was assumed that all additional acres of Non‐citrus Fruit and Citrus in the ILG

projection periods would be irrigated for freeze protection.

The average annual frost protection demand for the current ILG was 106.3 MGD on an average annual

daily flow (AADF) basis. This increases to 109.6 MGD by 2040 due to additions of new irrigated areas

being projected to have crop types that would be freeze protected. Table 14 summarizes freeze

protection estimates at the District level.

Table 14. Estimated Freeze Protection Estimates by Year

WMD 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD

NWFWMD 0.13 0.22 0.47 0.49 0.84 1.17

SFWMD 23.28 23.08 23.13 23.67 23.76 23.87

SJRWMD 23.68 23.47 23.23 23.56 23.56 23.55

SRWMD 1.70 2.94 4.13 5.09 6.92 8.11

SWFWMD 57.53 56.67 56.13 55.06 53.91 52.91

Total 106.32 106.38 107.10 107.87 108.98 109.62

In Appendix D, Table D‐1 provides a breakdown by Crop by District for freeze protection estimates, and

Table D‐2 provides the County‐level breakdown.

I. Conservation Estimates/ Irrigation Efficiency Improvements

Under Florida Statute 570.93, “projected future water demands must incorporate appropriate potential

water conservation factors”. For purposes of incorporating potential water conservation factors,

estimates of improvements in irrigation efficiency that can reasonably be expected over the planning

period have been developed.

Two main datasets were explored for the purpose of estimating future irrigation efficiency

improvements: the Mobile Irrigation Labs (MIL) actual water savings (AWS) data and the USDA’s Farm

and Ranch Irrigation Surveys, known as FRIS. The documented actual water savings through the MIL

program are based largely on improvements in irrigation system distribution uniformity. The data

available for MIL‐based irrigation improvements from scheduling changes and sensor‐based automation

and other management improvements are not of sufficient length to develop long‐term future

projections in conservation. Also, the MIL program data have shown substantial water savings in some

regions, but very limited participation in other areas. For example, the AWS estimated through the MIL


25

in the Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint River Basin has been very large in recent years, but the unusual

participation rate and dominance of center‐pivot irrigation systems makes it difficult to translate these

results to other parts of the state.

Data reflecting changes in farmers’ use of irrigation water over the past 35 years is available from the

USDA Farm and Ranch Irrigation Surveys, known as FRIS. Using long‐term trends avoids the uncertainty

of estimating at the field level exactly what type of management change would be made and how many

farms or field would be expected to make that change. The FRIS estimates show that over the entire

time period for which data is available (1978‐2013), the average farmer in Florida has decreased the

amount of water used by 5,500 gallons/acre/year.

Because some of the improvement will be due to irrigation system changes that have already been

mostly implemented in many areas of the state (primarily a shift from gravity systems to drip and micro‐

spray systems), remaining improvements are likely to come from management changes through better

scheduling and sensor‐based automation. Evaluation of the FRIS data for the period from 2003‐2013

shows approximately 2,800 gallons/acre/year in improvement, which is likely more representative of

future improvements to irrigation efficiency on newly irrigated land and for fields irrigated with drip or

microsprinkler systems. Two exponential trends from the FRIS dataset were used to estimate future

irrigation efficiency improvement. The trend from 1978‐2013 is used for currently irrigated fields that

are not drip or microsprinkler irrigated, and the more gentle trend from 2003‐2013 is used for newly

irrigated fields or those irrigated with drip or microsprinkler. The Appendix provides more detail on the

calculations used to derive the estimates and the supporting literature.

The resulting estimate of total irrigation efficiency improvements is 253.87 MGD by 2040. This

compares to a net increase in overall irrigation demand of 300.0 MGD by 2040 for an average year.

Table 15 provides a summary of estimated efficiency improvements by District.

Table 15. Estimated Efficiency Improvements by District

WMD 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD

NWFWMD 1.7 2.9 4.1 5.4 6.6

SFWMD 36.2 61.3 86.5 111.6 133.2

SJRWMD 8.3 13.7 18.7 23.1 27.4

SRWMD 6.6 11.4 16.5 21.7 27.1

SWFWMD 14.6 27.2 38.7 49.5 59.6

Total 67.38 116.51 164.41 211.25 253.87

Detailed efficiency improvements estimates are provided in Appendix D by Crop by District (Tables D‐3

through D‐7), and by County (Table D‐8).


26

J. Livestock and Aquaculture Water Use

Livestock demands were determined using animal inventories from USDA Ag Census data and the

typically utilized per animal daily water use allocations. The most recent Ag Census (2012) was used to

define the numbers of cattle, cows, poultry, horses, and other livestock. Livestock inventories from the

Ag Census have remained relatively stable in Florida for the last three censuses (2002, 2007, and 2012).

Several developments have occurred in the Florida livestock industry in the past few years that could

change this trend. While traditionally more than 90% of Florida cattle have been shipped to Texas for

finishing and processing, in 2015, a group of Florida ranchers formed Florida Cattle Ranchers to finish

cattle in Florida. The demand for locally raised beef has increased as interest in farm‐to‐table foods has

grown. While the venture appears successful, it is probably too early to determine if this will affect

overall numbers of cattle raised in Florida.

An offsetting trend is that of urbanization. As of this writing, Sector plans to eventually develop more

than 20,000 acres of what is currently cattle‐ranching land in Osceola County appear to be in the process

of being expedited. While this large of an area is unlikely to develop overnight, it may displace a

relatively large number of cattle when land clearing begins. For purposes of current water use

estimates, stable livestock inventories and water use are assumed in the coming decades. Total

statewide livestock demand for current conditions is estimated at 39.9 MGD.

County‐level water withdrawals for aquaculture were compiled using USGS 2010 water use data. CUPs

for several counties were found to have available metered data for aquaculture withdrawals, and these

were used in conjunction with the USGS county‐level aquaculture withdrawals to produce statewide

aquaculture water demands. The maximum of county level sums of CUP‐reported water use and USGS

aquaculture water use was used. For counties with zero water use from the combination of USGS

county‐level aquaculture withdrawals and CUP data, aquaculture water demands may still occur if

aquaculture features are present in the spatial dataset. The average statewide water demand per unit

area for aquaculture features was used to estimate aquaculture water demand for features in counties

with no other county total for aquaculture. Future aquaculture demands are held constant at current

levels of 9.4 MGD statewide total.

Spatial distribution of county‐level livestock and aquaculture water use at the sub‐county level was

achieved using a combination of ALG polygons and Water Use Permit (WUP) GIS data from the Water

Management Districts. If the ALG polygons designated as livestock or aquaculture were contained

within a WUP boundary, those fields were utilized to spatially distribute livestock or aquaculture water

use based on area. If no ALG shapes designated as livestock or aquaculture were found within a WUP

shape that is classified as livestock or aquaculture, then the WUP shape is used to distribute water use

based on classification of the permit (livestock or aquaculture). Areas of the livestock or aquaculture

shapes were used to apportion the county‐level totals using the product of county totals and the ratio of

shape area to total livestock or aquaculture area within a county. While there are several crop types in

the ALG that might have grazing livestock present, only improved pastures are included in the livestock

layer for the purposes of spatially distributing the county totals of livestock water use. This provides


27

sufficient spatial disaggregation of water demands, while reducing the size and complexity of the

livestock/aquaculture spatial dataset.

The statewide livestock inventory and water use is summarized in Table 16, and the total livestock and

aquaculture water demands by District are presented in Table 17. A table of the County totals for

livestock and aquaculture water demand are provided in Appendix D, Table D‐9.

Table 16. Statewide Livestock and Aquaculture Totals for Current and Projected Periods

Animal group Estimated Number

of Animals

Water Use per Animal

(gpd/head)

Total Demand (mgd)

Dairy Cows 121,200 150 18.18

Beef Cattle 1,575,531 12 18.91

Poultry, chickens 13,026,011 0.09 1.17

Equine 120,997 12 1.45

Goats 57,613 2 0.12

Hogs 17,622 2 0.04

Sheep 11,763 2 0.02

Aquaculture NA NA 9.40

Statewide Livestock and Aquaculture Total Demand 49.28

Table 17. Livestock and Aquaculture Total Water Use by District, MGD

WMD Livestock Water

Use (mgd)

Aquaculture Water

Use (mgd)

NWFWMD 2.55 3.33

SFWMD 12.50 2.05

SJRWMD 4.79 1.68

SRWMD 10.64 0.28

SWFWMD 9.41 2.07

Total 39.87 9.40

FSAID Online Interface and Geodatabase An online user interface (available at www.fdacs‐fsaid.com) was created to allow easier access to the

agricultural water demand data. The interface allows users to extract water use and acreage data by

crop, county, planning area, and Water Management District. Users can stratify irrigated acreages and

water demand by spatial units (County, planning area or WMD) or crops, and see how changes occur

over time based on projections. The interface generates charts based on the chosen attributes, and

allows data to be exported for further analysis in excel, access or other database programs. Charts can

be printed or downloaded in a number of formats for use as graphics in other documents. Figure 6

provides a screen shot of the interface.


28

In addition to the web‐based interface, the complete FSAID IV geodatabase has been made available.

This contains shapefiles of water demand to facilitate further analysis and application of spatial water

demand data. All appropriate metadata has been provided in the geodatabase. The FSAID4

geodatabase includes:

The projections ILG: 2015 to 2040 irrigated acreage, crop type, average year and dry year water

demand, conservation estimates, and freeze protection estimates (based on average 2005‐2015

rainfall and ET)

The 2015 ILG: this includes only the base year 2015 irrigated areas and water demands (based

on 2015 actual rainfall and ET)

The ALG, which includes both irrigated and non‐irrigated agricultural areas

Livestock and Aquaculture: water demand estimates for all livestock and aquaculture

Climate Factors: this links the 2015 ILG with attributes for rainfall and ET (both for 2015 and

2005‐2015 average), and soils (mukey and land capability classification)

Figure 6. FSAID data online interface screenshot


29

Conclusions and Discussion

Summary

Overall agricultural water demand in Florida is anticipated to increase about 14% over the next 25 years

(not considering the potential conservation), on a base of declining agricultural land, while the

proportion of irrigated land is projected to increase. Overall, while agricultural land declines by about

5%, irrigated lands increase by 4% and irrigation volumes increase by 14% due to shifts over time to

irrigation of currently unirrigated areas, thirstier crops or multi‐cropping, and higher profit margins. The

FSAID model incorporates historical behavior, through actual water use records, as well as behavior that

is forward‐looking, through spatial allocation of projected water demand. Increased irrigation intensity

revealed in the forecasts reflects anecdotal evidence and continues a trend reported nationally and

regionally. As urbanization encroaches on rural lands, and as western irrigation practices migrate

toward Florida, lands that traditionally were not irrigated, or irrigated for small portions of the year, are

increasingly irrigated at a greater rate.

The increase could be offset somewhat by estimated improvements in efficiency. On a per acre basis,

Florida farmers are projected to increase their irrigation efficiency by about 0.5% per

year. Management practices can have an even greater influence than irrigation equipment, and the

increased adoption of technology by Florida farmers continues to result in improvements in

conservation of water. To the extent that more significant conservation quantities are desired,

significant incentives are likely to be required to meaningfully shift this trajectory.

A number of factors will influence the agricultural irrigation patterns of Florida farmers over the next 25

years. Among the most concerning is citrus greening, which researchers have made great strides in

addressing but still vexes citrus farmers’ ability to plan long‐term production. In current terms, avoiding

all stress to citrus stock and frequently resetting groves with much smaller trees reflect different

irrigation practices than traditional behavior. This report incorporates estimates from the Florida

Department of Citrus to place realistic bounds on likely future citrus production.

Trends in consumer preference toward locally produced beef have resulted in cattle processing facilities

commencing operations in Florida. Final finishing typically occurred in Texas, and if additional facilities

shift to Florida, there is potential for increases in cattle lands and irrigation needs beyond those

estimated herein. Current producers indicate informally that assumptions used herein are reasonable

given currently available information. On a related note, the acquisition of substantial acreage in

Northwest Florida by the Suburban Land Reserve, and the potential transition of Central Florida land

currently owner by Suburban Land Reserve, have the potential to shift demand for ranch lands beyond

the estimates in this report, which used best available data.

Farm bills, sugar tariffs, energy policy (e.g. biofuels), and water quality rules can all exert significant

influence on agricultural practices, and, in turn, agricultural irrigation demand. Sugarcane and citrus are

by far the greatest variables in Florida’s agricultural water use. Sugarcane is the single largest user of

water in Florida agriculture. However, if sugarcane production were halted tomorrow, there is not an

expectation that agricultural production in the EAA would cease; rather, production would likely shift to


30

fresh market vegetables and other products that take advantage of Florida’s unique harvest market

season. Overall policy changes or external factors will affect agricultural demand for water in

Florida. However, adjustments would be spread over time, and are likely to affect overall water use at

the margin.

Future Efforts

There are several issues that will be explored as the FSAID program continues in the coming years.

1) One area for future efforts is the planned incorporation of irrigated area estimates from the

North Ranch Long‐Term Master Plan/Sector Plan (NRSP) and other established sector plans,

where appropriate. The North Ranch Plan NRSP has estimated that irrigated area will increase

to about 11,000 acres by 2040 and will decline to about 3,700 acres by 2080 as a result of

changing land use. Currently the FSAID irrigated area within the boundary of the NRSP North

Ranch area is 3,111 acres in 2015 and increases moderately, based on the Osceola County trend,

to 3,831 acres by 2040. There is a statutory requirement regarding sector plans (163.3245

(4)(b)), which indicates that water supply planning should account for established sector

plans. The NRSP is contained within the Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) Regional Water

Supply Planning Region. Therefore, it is recommended that future CFWI Regional Water Supply

Plans should incorporate agricultural water use projections from the NRSP. FDACS will work

together with personnel associated with the North Ranch Sector Plan NRSP in order to decide

how the planned irrigated acreage trends can be incorporated into future iterations of FSAID.

2) Another area for future work is to assess if there is a suitable way for metered or reported water

use data to be used to revise irrigated areas in the ILG without imposing unreasonable

assumptions about irrigation practice. This initiative is in response to differences in water use in

the FSAID estimates and the 2015 Estimated Water Use Report from SWFWMD.

3) The surface water projects of SFWMD will be reviewed with the District in order to decide which

projects have sufficient assurance of implementation in order to remove these areas from being

selected for future irrigation.


31

Reference Literature

Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency Potential in California. http://pacinst.org/wp‐

content/uploads/sites/21/2014/06/ca‐water‐ag‐efficiency.pdf

Bockstael, Nancy E. 1996. “Modeling Economics and Ecology: The importance of a Spatial Perspective.”

American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol. 78, No. 5, Proceedings Issue (Dec.,. 1996), pp.1168‐

1180.

de Bodisco, Christopher. 2007. The Regional value of water in agriculture. PhD Dissertation, Vanderbilt

University. Nashville, TN: Proquest/UMI (Publication No. AAT 3301032).

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (2016). 2014 Florida Agriculture by the Numbers. Retrieved from: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Florida/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/FL_Agriculture_Book/2014/2014%20FL%20Ag%20by%20the%20Numbers.pdf

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (2013). Florida Citrus Statistics 2011‐2012. Retrieved from http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Florida/Publications/Citrus/fcs/2011‐12/fcs1112.pdf

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (2015). 2011 Florida Greenhouse/Nursery – Cash Receipts. Retrieved from http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions‐Offices/

Gollehon, N., 2014. Water, Irrigation and U.S. Agriculture. Presentation for AWRA. Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. Washington, DC.

Irwin, Elena and Bockstael Nancy E., 2007. “The evolution of urban sprawl: Evidence of spatial heterogeneity and increasing land fragmentation”. Proceedings of the National of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).

Livanis, G., Moss, C. Breneman, V., “Urban Sprawl and Farmland Prices” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(4) (November 2006): 915–929.

Moss, Charles B. and Chris de Bodisco. “Projected Water Demand by Agriculture in the Northwest Florida Water Management District.” Economic Information Report. Food and Resource Economics Department, IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fl., February, 1998. 77pp.

Schoengold, K., D. L. Sunding, and G. Moreno (2006), Price elasticity reconsidered: Panel estimation of an agricultural water demand function, Water Resources Research, 42.

Sustaining California Agriculture in an Uncertain Future http://pacinst.org/wp‐

content/uploads/sites/21/2014/04/sustaining‐california‐agriculture‐pacinst‐full‐report.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture (2014). Crop Projections to 2023. [Data files]. Available from http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome


32

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007 Census of Agriculture. (2009). Horticulture Production Expenses, Returns and Allowances, and Number Hired Workers: 2009; Value of Horticultural Specialty Crops Sold: 2009. Available from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Census_of_Horticulture_Specialties/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture. (2007). Census of Horticultural Specialties. [Data files]. Available from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Census_of_Horticulture_Specialties/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture. (2009). [Data files]. Available from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Census_of_Horticulture_Specialties/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2014). Horticulture Crops Long‐Term Supply and Use Projections, Calendar Years. [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2014). USDA Long‐term Projections, February 2014 – U.S. Crops. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1279439/oce141d.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2015). Cost and Return Estimates. [Data files]. Available from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data‐products/commodity‐costs‐and‐returns.aspx

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Variable Costs of Fertilizer; Average U.S. Farm Prices of Selected Fertilizers [Data files]. Available from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data‐products/fertilizer‐use‐and‐price.aspx#26727

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007 Census of Agriculture Greenhouse, Nursery and Floriculture Operations. Retrieved from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Fact_Sheets/Production/nursery.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2010). 2007 Census of Agriculture, Census of Horticultural Specialties (2009), 3. Retrieved from www.agcensus.usda.govU.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2010). Citrus Fruits 2010 Summary. Retrieved from http://www.nass.usda.gov/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2014). 2012 Census of Agriculture, United States Summary and State Data, 1. Available from www.agcensus.usda.gov

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2015). Crop Production. Retrieved from http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/crop1014.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2015). Floriculture Crops 2013 Summary. Retrieved from http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/FlorCrop/2010s/2014/FlorCrop‐06‐19‐2014.pdf


33

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2015). Tree Nuts, Noncitrus, and Citrus ‐ Production, Acres Bearing, and Yield – 2007‐2014 [Data files]. Available from http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/index.php?sector=CROPS

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2015). Acres Harvested –Various Crops [Data files]. Available from http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2015). Citrus Price [Data file]. Available from http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2015). Crop Production and Peanut Stocks and Processing. [Data files]. Available from http://www.nass.usda.gov/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2015). Potato Prices [Data file]. Available from http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2015). Price Received ‐ Various Crops [Data files]. Available from http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2015). Totals –Production, Various Crops, Florida [Data files]. Available from http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2015). Yield and Acres Harvested For Various Crops [Data files]. Available from http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2014). Per Capita Meat Consumption, Beef Long‐Term Projections; Pork Long‐Term Projections; Young Chicken Long‐Term Projections; Turkey Long‐Term Projections; Egg Long‐Term Projections. [Data files]. Available from http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2015). USDA Agricultural Projections to 2024. Available from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/oce‐usda‐agricultural‐projections/oce151.aspx

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (2015). Horticultural Crops, Long‐Term Supply and Use Projections, Calendar Years [Data file]. Available fromhttp://www.census.gov/

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Foreign Trade Statistics. [Data files]. Available from http://www.census.gov/

U.S. Farm Irrigation Becomes More Efficient, Moves East.

http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2014/world/u‐s‐farm‐irrigation‐becomes‐efficient‐moves‐

east/

University of Florida, International Agricultural Trade & Policy Center. Cost of Production for Florida Vegetables 2008‐2009. [Data files]. Available from http://www.fred.ifas.ufl.edu/iatpc/budgets.php

University of Georgia College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences. (2016). Annual Georgia Sod Producers Survey 2002 ‐ 2016. [Data files]. Retrieved from http://www.commodities.caes.uga.edu/turfgrass/georgiaturf/Publicat/1700_Sod_Inventory.html

University of Georgia. The Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development. 2006‐2015 Georgia Farm Reports.. http://www.caes.uga.edu/center/caed/pubs/annual.html


34

University of Georgia. (2006‐2015). Farm Gate Value Reports 2006‐2015. Georgia Nursery Acreages and Prices. [Data files]. Available from http://www.caes.uga.edu/center/caed/pubs/annual.html

University of Missouri, Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI). FAPRI‐MU Baseline Outlook. [Data files]. Available from http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/publications/outlook/

USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2012 Census of Agriculture, Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (FRIS). Retrieved from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/Irrigation_Survey/


florida statewide agricultural … irrigation demand project, or fsaid; ... will continue to be an...

Documents