Agricultural Water Management 162 (2015) 67–77

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Review

Efficient water and energy use in irrigation modernization: Lessons

from Spanish case studies
José M. Tarjuelo a,∗ , Juan A. Rodriguez-Diaz b , Ricardo Abadía c , Emilio Camacho b ,
Carmen Rocamora c , Miguel A. Moreno a
a
Regional Centre of Water Research (CREA), University of Castilla-La Mancha, Campus Universitario, 02071 Albacete, Spain
b
Department of Agronomy, University of Cordoba, International Campus of Excellence ceiA3, 14071 Córdoba, Spain
c
Department of Engineering, University Miguel Hernandez, Ctra. de Beniel km 3.2, 03312 Orihuela, Alicante, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In Spain, farmers and water user authorities have applied a variety of approaches in modernizing irri-
Received 11 March 2015 gation systems to address the delicate balance between water and energy use. This review presents
Received in revised form 11 July 2015 the technical aspects of this process. This delicate balance is strongly manifested when replacing open-
Accepted 16 August 2015
channel, gravity-based systems with pressurized distribution networks and switching from surface to
pressurized irrigation systems, the most common modernization approach in Spain and other countries.
Keywords:
This summary focuses on actions and technologies for improving water and energy use in irrigation and
Water energy nexus
some of the main models and tools for improving irrigation infrastructure design and management. Cal-
Water use efficiency
Irrigation system management
culations of water conservation and energy consumption as a result of improvement demonstrates the
complexity of the balance between energy and water efficiency. The benefits of irrigation modernization
include increased water efficiency and productivity, improved operation and management of irrigation
systems and working conditions of farmers, but increased energy demands and investment amount. It
is necessary to analyze the economic, social, and environmental viability of the irrigation modernization
process in each case. Proper design and management of irrigation systems, promotion of the application
and usefulness of Irrigation Advisory Services and web-GIS platforms to transfer and share real-time
information with farmers in a feedback process are some of the best tools for improving consumption of
water, energy and other production inputs.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2. Modernization of irrigable areas and water and energy conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3. Integration of tools for efficient water and energy use in irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.1. Use of tools for optimization of farm management and profitability using models, DSS and remote sensing for determining crop status . . 70
3.2. Models and tools for improving irrigation infrastructure design and management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.2.1. Optimal design, size and management of pressurized irrigation systems on the plot scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.2.2. Design, sizing and optimal operation of collective irrigation networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.2.3. Optimizing the design, sizing and regulation of pumping systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.3. Actions to reduce energy consumption and/or costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.3.1. Use of benchmarking techniques to evaluate the performance of irrigated areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.3.2. Energy audits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.3.3. Models for optimizing electric rate use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.3.4. Telemetry and remote control systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.3.5. Renewable energy in irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +34 967599238.

E-mail address: Jose.Tarjuelo@uclm.es (J.M. Tarjuelo).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.08.009
0378-3774/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
68 J.M. Tarjuelo et al. / Agricultural Water Management 162 (2015) 67–77

4. Quantification of water savings and energy consumption as a result of modernization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

1. Introduction Many studies in recent years have focused on developing

methodologies to quantify water and energy efficiency with
Low cost, reliable, efficient irrigation systems are needed to sup- improved irrigation systems. Lecina et al. (2010) analyzed mod-
port sustainable intensification of agriculture in addition to policies ernization in the Alto Aragón irrigable area. They highlighted some
that recognize the trade-offs between conserving water, reducing advantages and disadvantages of migrating from surface to sprin-
CO2 emissions and intensifying food production (Daccache et al., kler irrigation systems and quantified water savings and some of
2014). Consequently, optimal irrigation, from a sustainable point the associated economic and social impacts. Moreno et al. (2010a)
of view, should always consider both environmental and economic analyzed energy efficiency in more than 20 water user associations
criteria. Thus, it is necessary to develop tools and models that can in Castilla-La Mancha and proposed measures to increase energy
contribute directly to improving the use of water and energy in irri- efficiency. Abadía et al. (2010) developed a comparative analysis of
gation, with a holistic approach for the design and management of energy efficiency in more than 30 collective irrigation networks
irrigation infrastructure. in Murcia and Castilla-La Mancha, proposing some measures to
Water and energy are important resources for economic and improve energy efficiency and the main problems with these infras-
social development as well as for environmental integrity, while tructures. Rodríguez Díaz et al. (2012a) analyzed some modernized
both are essential to irrigation. An in-depth review of the water- areas in Andalucía that migrated from surface irrigation systems to
energy nexus in irrigation cannot be addressed in just one paper. sprinkler and drip irrigation systems, highlighting some strengths
Thus, in this paper, we focus on what we consider key elements in and weaknesses of this modernization.
the balance between water and energy for pressurized irrigation The energy used by pumping stations generates significant
systems. Moreover, the experiences in Spain have been presented greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which then contribute to acceler-
as an example to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of this ating climate change. Potential for global warming is indicated by
process, and the research that has been conducted to overcome the carbon footprint (CF), and the effects on water availability and qual-
constraints. ity in terms of total freshwater volume consumed or polluted are
Irrigation consumes approximately 70% of freshwater demand indicated by the water footprint (WF). In the irrigation sector, water
in most of the world, reaching 90% in arid and semiarid areas supply, energy consumption and GHG emissions are closely linked,
(Molden, 2007). It plays a major role in guaranteeing food pro- but a reduction in water pumped, and therefore smaller carbon
duction. This, together with legal (European Water Framework footprint (CF), may lead to reductions in yield and farmer income.
Directive (WFD)2000/60/EC and the Hydrological Plans of each Consequently, optimal irrigation, under a sustainable point of view,
country), environmental, social, and economic issues, highlights can only be achieved considering simultaneously environmental
the importance of proper water resource management. Water and economic criteria (Carrillo-Cobo et al., 2014).
availability for different uses will drastically decrease due to The main objective of this paper is to review the main technical
increased demand and the effects of climate change as well as by aspects of irrigation modernization and improvement relative to
the application of the WFD in Europe. In terms of energy, 23–48% water and energy management, and quantify the advantages and
of the energy used directly for crop production is for on-farm water disadvantages of the modernization process from economic, social
pumping (Singh et al., 2002). and environmental points of view. Examples will be drawn from
One approach for improving water use efficiency is to replace work in Spain, an example of this process that is similar to many
surface irrigation systems with more efficient pressurized (sprin- other parts of the world, analyzing the delicate balance between
kler and drip) systems (Playan and Mateos, 2006) to significantly efficient water and energy use in irrigation. Since the change from
reduce water application on the farm scale, thereby increasing open-channel, gravity-based systems to pressurized networks and
water and land productivity, but also increasing energy and invest- from surface irrigation to pressurized irrigation systems are where
ment requirements. this delicate balance is manifested with greatest intensity, these
In Spain, 3.5 Mha of irrigated land consumes 16,000 hm3 y−1 of changes will be emphasized. Moreover, this paper discusses some
water, (30% are groundwater resources), with 48%, 22% and 30% of of the main tools and models that contribute to successful improve-
microirrigation, sprinkler and surface irrigation systems, respec- ments to irrigation systems, and to evaluate the results obtained
tively, making up 68% of Spanish water consumption (ESYRCE during the modernization process in Spain and in some others
2014). In 1996, 17% of the 3.45 Mha of irrigated land had microirri- countries.
gation systems, 24% used sprinkler irrigation systems, and 59% were
surface irrigation systems (Navarro 2002). In 2004, 3.3 Mha of irri-
gated area consumed 17,8000 hm3 y−1 (11% higher than in 2011)
with 36.5%, 26%, and 37.5% using microirrigation, sprinkler and 2. Modernization of irrigable areas and water and energy
surface irrigation systems, respectively. The differences in water conservation
use over time are due to water availability, crop prices, energy
prices, and subsidies, among others. According to the INE (National Specific objectives of modernization include: increasing water
Statistics Institute, 2012), the energy consumed for irrigation in productivity, increasing the cost effectiveness of funds, increasing
Spain has increased from 2136 GWh in 1996–3647 GWh in 2011 (an the reliability and flexibility of irrigation deliveries considering the
increase of 70%). It is therefore necessary to consider energy effi- demands of other users, and meeting environmental requirements
ciency and not only water efficiency in the irrigation modernization (Playan and Mateos, 2006).
process, which further complicates the decision making process, Modernization processes are complex and their features are
especially from economic and environmental points of view. site-specific, depending on the socio-economic and environmental
conditions of each region and country.
 J.M. Tarjuelo et al. / Agricultural Water Management 162 (2015) 67–77
Fig. 1. Phases of irrigation modernization where the water-energy nexus is clearly
manifested. IAS = irrigation advisory services; ICT = information and communication
technologies; DSS = decision support system.
An in-depth analysis of the irrigation modernization process for
each case study should be centered around four main questions:
1. What causes led to modernization of the irrigation system?
2. What type of actions took place in that process?
3. What were the impacts of these actions?
4. What lessons were derived or learned?
In this sense, the modernization process in Spain can be consid-
ered a priority because irrigation is a strategic asset to the farming
sector and the national economy. On average, applying irrigation
increases yields by six times for the main crops and generates a
gross margin that is four-fold the profit of rainfed crops. In addi-
tion, irrigation produces 65% of agricultural production in just 16%
of the cultivated area (ESYRCE, 2014). The most obvious positive
aspects of modernization, are increasing productivity per unit of
land and water consumed and ensuring supply to the agri-food
industry (which represents 17% of the domestic industry) and other
markets. Additional benefits include creating direct and indirect
jobs for highly qualified workers; facilitating the integration of
young people into the rural context; maintaining and diversify-
ing farmer income with the possibility of improving crop rotation;
maintaining the population in rural areas; preventing the abandon-
ment of lands and desertification (Martin de Sata-Olalla, 2001); and
improving quality of life for farmers through training on new tech-
nology. All of these aspects, together with water scarcity in Spain,
justify the modernization process. However, this process has a neg-
ative impact on cost due to the increase in energy consumption and
the rising price of energy over the last five years.
One of the first steps in modernization is to identify the real
values for water and land productivity, as well as the economic,
social, and environmental benefits, and compare them with the
investment required and the increase in energy consumption. Perry
et al. (2009) and Molden et al. (2010) present two very interesting
discussion articles in this regard.
An overview of the main phases of modernization, reflecting
the delicate balance between water and energy consumption, is
presented in Fig. 1.
Each of these phases includes a number of processes, many of
which require tools and models to aid in decision making for proper
implementation and management,which will be discussed in this
review.
As an example, some of the key aspects to be considered in the
improvement and modernization process of irrigable areas in Spain
can be summarized in Fig. 2. From this, it is necessary to highlight:
69
• The need for a written agreement with irrigators because of the
low gross margin of agricultural activity in some cases, increased
input costs, and the long repayment period for investment costs
that they must pay.
• Extension service activities:promoting the participation of water
users in this process is of key importance because they need to use
new irrigation systems and management strategies. This should
be presented as a continuous learning process between the water
management authority and the different water users, and as con-
tinuous technical support to farmers, irrigation managers and
operational staff. Training is essential for reaching the objectives
of the modernization processes.
• The analysis of water and energy management using data col-
lected on the use of infrastructure, which will allow managers to
resolve errors detected in the design process and in infrastruc-
ture management. The proposal and evaluation of measures to
improve the use of water and energy must be constantly reex-
amined during the useful life of the infrastructure.
Normally, the public administration helps farmers with irriga-
tion modernization by providing loans for a high percentage of
the investment cost. In Spain, for instance, a subsidy of 45–50%
for the main infrastructure (wells, reservoirs, pumping stations,
irrigation network, among others) can be covered by the admin-
istration in many cases. In addition, 30–35% of the total cost of the
irrigation system can be also subsidized. This type of financial sup-
port differs by country depending on the importance of agriculture
in the strategic action plan of each government. Thus, it is nec-
essary to identify the real values for water productivity, as well
as the economic, social, and environmental benefits, and compare
them with the large investment required and the increase in energy
consumption. Specific analyses in each irrigable area should be per-
formed to determine the economic viability of the modernization
and improvement process.
3. Integration of tools for efficient water and energy use in
irrigation
The identification and quantification of the different water uses
in irrigation depends on the scale (plot, farm, irrigable area, culti-
vation system, or river basin and aquifer) and on the time period
considered. Burt et al. (1997) characterized water use based on
three criteria: (1) recovery, (2) utility or profitability, and (3) the
rationality of assigning the water to this use. The results of this
analysis show that the possibilities of water conservation at the
plot level have some limitations.
It is therefore necessary to give an overview of the key tech-
nologies included in the literature that can contribute directly to
improving the use of water and energy in irrigation. These tech-
nologies, applied mainly in areas with water scarcity, high water
prices due to energy costs, and a low gross margin for farmers, can
be grouped as:
a. Tools and models for saving water and selecting the proper crop
pattern at the farm level, with a goal of optimizing economic
water productivity and minimizing the environmental impact.
This can be performed with the use of precision agriculture, infor-
mation and communication technologies (ICT) or remote sensing
at different resolutions for crop status determination, combined
with decision support system (DSS) models and tools.
b. Tools and models for improving irrigation infrastructure design
and management as a whole, based on water and energy sav-
ings, such as: (b-1) optimal design, size and management of
pressurized irrigation systems on the plot scale with low pres-
70 J.M. Tarjuelo et al. / Agricultural Water Management 162 (2015) 67–77
Fig. 2. Key aspects to be considered in the modernization process of irrigable areas in Spain.
sure sprinklers and emitters, (b-2) collective irrigation networks,
(b-3) pumping systems.
c. Actions to reduce energy consumption and/or cost such as the
use of: (c-1) benchmarking techniques, (c-2) energy audits, (c-3)
models for optimal use of specific electricity tariffs, (c-4) teleme-
try and remote control systems, (c-5) renewable energy.
In addition to these three specific action items, transversal
activities can be included, such as: (1) to promote the usage and
usefulness of Irrigation Advisory Services (IAS) to transfer and share
real-time information with farmers; (2) to create a network of lead-
ers among farmers and technicians who can act as examples for
farmers; (3) to create web-based GIS platforms or to use existing
platforms for information and technology transfer for end users in
a feedback process.
The CIMIS (California Irrigation Management Information Sys-
tem) is a clear example of success in advisory services. Parker et al.
(2000) estimated that with CIMIS, water consumption was reduced
by 10–20%; 23% of growers increased crop yield, and 28% of grow-
ers increased crop quality. From an economic point of view, the
operational costs of CIMIS were established at $850,000 y−1 , while
the profit to farmers was estimated at $64,200,000 y−1 . IrriSAT
(Hornbuckle et al., 2009) is another good example of application of
satellite-based technologies to advise farmers on proper irrigation
strategies. In Spain IAS are active in most regions, and one of the
most significant is the SIARUCLM in the Region of Castilla-La Mancha
(Ortega et al., 2005) (http://crea.uclm.es/siar).
3.1. Use of tools for optimization of farm management and
profitability using models, DSS and remote sensing for
determining crop status
Optimal irrigation management involves the integration of
many factors: soil–plant interactions; selection of the appropri-
ate irrigation method and system; knowledge of the production
target that leads to economically optimal crop requirements for
water, fertilizer and energy; and social, economic and environmen-
tal considerations. Models for spatial crop growth and DSS with
precision agriculture and remote sensing technologies interacting
in real time with users through web-GIS technologies can provide
a suite of tools to accomplish optimization.
Remote sensing makes it possible to obtain near-real time
spatial crop data regarding the type of crop, crop growth and devel-
opment, water status, and even biomass and crop yield uniformity
at the plot and subplot levels. Through a web-based innovation
platform, this technology can be used for monitoring crop planning
as a water resource control strategy for maximum environmen-
tal and socio-economic efficiency, with models such as ISAREG
(Teixeira and Pereira, 1992), STICS (Brisson et al., 1998), CropSyst
(Stöckle et al., 2003), DSSAT (Jones et al., 2003), AquaCrop (Steduto
et al., 2009) or MOPECO (Dominguez et al., 2011).
Although not all water users and administrators in irrigable
areas throughout the world can afford this type of tool, these are
new lines of research that are being transferred in many areas, offer-
ing good examples of methods for improving water and energy
management in irrigation. However, it is necessary to determine
the limits of this technology and to blend models for building syn-
ergies toward more efficient irrigation management.
3.2. Models and tools for improving irrigation infrastructure
design and management
A holistic approach must be emphasized for addressing the
design and management of irrigation infrastructure from the irri-
gation system in the plot to the water source. This approach would
result in optimal solutions that differ from those obtained when
each part of the whole infrastructure is optimized individually.
3.2.1. Optimal design, size and management of pressurized
irrigation systems on the plot scale
The main aspects that should be considered in the process of
design and management of an irrigation system are maximizing
 J.M. Tarjuelo et al. / Agricultural Water Management 162 (2015) 67–77
uniformity, minimizing drift and evaporation losses, obtaining the
minimum total cost of the system and determining the control and
telemetry system requirements. Thus, aspects related to soil water
redistribution and crop water use are outside the scope of this
paper. In order to optimize the design and management of in-plot
irrigation systems, it is necessary to develop tools and models that
act as decision support systems. Some of these tools are available
already and will be described briefly below.
The design and sizing of irrigation systems in a plot depends on
the manner in which the irrigation system is fed: (1) direct injection
of water from the water source (well, surface water, etc.), (2) a
reservoir between the water source and the irrigation system and
(3) collective irrigation networks for water supply. Each of these
configurations results in different algorithms for irrigation system
design and sizing optimization.
Daccache et al. (2010) developed algorithms to analyze the
relationship between irrigation uniformity and pressure at the
hydrant level. To do so, they developed models based in the
COPAM hydraulic model and applied these models to the Cap-
itanata (Italy) Water User Association (WUA). This is important
because it describes how the strategies to reduce energy consump-
tion could affect irrigation uniformity in a plot, and therefore, crop
yield.
Moreno et al. (2012) developed software for the optimal design
of center pivot and moving lateral systems fed directly from wells,
considering the theoretical relation between the characteristic and
efficiency curves of the pumps (Moreno et al., 2009), hydrologic
variables (water table and its temporal variation), soil variables
(infiltration parameters, surface storage capacity, surface sealing),
hydraulic variables (head losses in pipes, demanded flow), and eco-
nomic variables (energy costs, pump and pipe costs).
Carrión et al. (2013) and Carrión et al. (2014) developed a DSS
tool, named PRESUD, for optimal hydraulic design and sizing of
solid set sprinkler and microirrigation systems with minimum total
cost (operation + investment) per unit irrigated area considering
the proper type and size of pump together with the irrigation sys-
tem. Use of these tools makes it possible to accurately determine
the uniformity of the system, which is directly related with the crop
yield and, therefore, with efficient water use. It is also important
to determine the effect of the working pressure of the sprinklers or
drippers on the balance between energy consumption and the total
water application cost. There are advanced developments on low
pressure sprinklers for center pivot systems and solid set systems.
Pressure is reduced from 3.5 bar to 1–2 bar, making it necessary to
evaluate the effect of this decrease in pressure on the uniformity of
the system and on drift and evaporation losses (Ortiz et al., 2010;
Singh et al., 2010).
Proper sizing and management of reservoirs has also been the
objective of numerous studies, which emphasizes the need for this
kind of research (Hirose, 1997; Pulido-Calvo et al., 2006). Robust
and efficient optimization algorithms should be implemented to
optimize these infrastructures as a whole.
3.2.2. Design, sizing and optimal operation of collective irrigation
networks
Collective irrigation networks are of special interest in large
irrigable areas to reduce investment costs in water allocation. How-
ever, in many instances these collective infrastructures are not
designed or managed properly.
On-demand irrigation networks are more flexible for users since
farmers can irrigate at will; however, the whole irrigation sys-
tem is usually designed to meet peak irrigation demand, which is
limited to a few days, resulting in oversized pumping station and
network pipes during most of the irrigation season (Calejo et al.,
2008). Moreno et al. (2010c) found that irrigation systems under a
rotation schedule are more susceptible to inefficient management
71
than on-demand networks. If properly managed, networks under
rotational management can produce energy savings of 3.5–24.9%,
minimizing the flow rate concentration in specific pipes within the
network and reducing the pressure head needs in the intake.
The proper design, dimensioning and management of water dis-
tribution networks can produce significant energy savings, which
requires tools and DSS to evaluate the behavior of the operation
network under different demand scenarios. Knowledge on the per-
formance of existing irrigation networks can be used to improve
management, and ensure the success by reducing errors in the
design process of new irrigation networks.
Sectoring, where hydrants are grouped according to similar
energy demand and irrigation is arranged following a schedule, is
one way to save energy in water distribution networks (Jiménez-
Bello et al., 2010; Farmani et al., 2007). Rodríguez-Díaz et al. (2009)
modelled the potential effects of sectoring measures in the OPTIEN
algorithm applied to the Fuente Palmera irrigation district (Spain).
Results show that energy savings of over 20% can be achieved in the
peak demand period for the current water demand levels by oper-
ating the network in sectors and concentrating irrigation events
per sector in 12 h rather than 24 h. A further step was achieved with
WEBSO, an algorithm based on a topological characterization using
a dimensionless coordinate system, which provides a monthly sec-
toring calendar for branched networks shown to achieve potential
energy savings of up to 27% in Fuente Palmera (Carrillo-Cobo et al.,
2011). However, it is necessary to consider pumping station behav-
ior after sectoring, which can lead to much lower energy savings
(Fernández García et al., 2014). This approach emphasized that
considering only part of the whole infrastructure could lead to
overestimation of energy savings due to sectoring strategies.
The analysis and control of critical points is another alternative
for improving network operation by saving energy. These points
are hydrants with special energy requirements due to their dis-
tance from the pump station or because of a difference in elevation.
Rodríguez Díaz et al. (2012b) developed the WECP algorithm, use-
ful in detecting critical points and designing improvement actions
to minimize their impacts on energy demand. Application of the
WECP to El Villar irrigation district (Southern Spain) demonstrated
energy savings of up to 30%.
It is necessary to emphasize that most of the above mentioned
papers do not consider the effect of the pumping station efficiency,
which greatly affects the results of energy conservation when defin-
ing new demand patterns.
3.2.3. Optimizing the design, sizing and regulation of pumping
systems
One of the main problems in the design of water distribution
networks is obtaining the type of pump that best fits the water
demand under specific pressure head requirements. This adjust-
ment is particularly complex for on-demand network designs
where the pumping station must supply a very broad range of flows
and pressures with maximum energy efficiency as a function of the
number of hydrants that are open simultaneously. Moreno et al.
(2009) propose an algorithm to obtain the desirable types of char-
acteristic and efficiency curves considering the theoretical relation
between the two curves for a specific pump.
For proper design of pumping stations, the design flow in the
head of the network must be determined. Several methodolo-
gies have been developed to obtain the design flow in each pipe
of a network. The Clément methodology (Clément, 1966) is the
most commonly used method because it is easy to implement.
Some studies have shown that this methodology does not fit prop-
erly with real network behavior. Thus, the Random Daily Demand
Curves Method (RDDC) was developed to obtain the flow rate in
each pipe, and therefore in the head of the network (Moreno et al.,
2007). The RDDC was shown to fit the measured data better than
72 J.M. Tarjuelo et al. / Agricultural Water Management 162 (2015) 67–77
the Clément methodology, which underestimated the design flow
by 35–40% in some networks studied. Many other studies have been
performed on this topic, with similar results (Calejo et al., 2008).
The distribution of water discharge throughout the irrigation
season is an essential parameter for properly studying the energy
used by pumping stations. Moreno et al. (2007) obtained the dis-
charge distribution of a pumping station by measuring electrical
parameters, which produced a good estimate. Typically, only the
design flow and the pressure heads are considered when design-
ing pumping stations, without taking into account the other flow
rates during the irrigation season. However, research has shown
that most pumping stations supply mainly low or medium dis-
charge and infrequent episodes of maximum discharge (Moreno
et al., 2007, Lamaddalena & Khila, 2012). Thus, it is necessary to
improve the efficiency for low and medium flow rates, and not only
for the high flow rate (design flow).
Proper regulation of pumping systems is a key step in fitting
energy consumption to actual energy demand. Marzal and Prat
(2008) proposed a methodology to subdivide the pumping station
of collective irrigation networks depending on energy costs, with
a methodology implemented in GESTAR 2008. This method allows
for integration of the absorbed power and the number of hours
of operation of the pumping station for each flow rate to gener-
ate a theoretical model of the pump with the best performance for
each case study. Moreno et al. (2008) developed a methodology to
measure pressure in a few nodes and estimate the pressure at the
remaining nodes in the network, which allows the user to fit the
energy supply of the pumping station to the energy requirements
of the irrigation network.
Another aspect to consider in the regulation of pumping sta-
tions is the use of variable speed drives (VSD) for fitting energy
consumption to energy demand of the system. Ait Kadi et al. (1998)
demonstrated that approximately 25% of energy can be saved in an
irrigation district in Morocco by using variable-speed pump tech-
nology. Also, Lamaddalena and Khila (2012) demonstrated that
27–35% of energy savings can be achieved using an appropriate
variable speed regulation in two Italian on-demand irrigation dis-
tricts. However, most of these analyses do not consider the effect
of the efficiency of the frequency speed drive on the final result.
Thus, it is crucial to consider the efficiency of the VSD in energy
accounting, and not simply consider it to be high enough that it can
be ignored. It is not possible to generalize an expression to deter-
mine the efficiency of the VSD since it depends on the brand and
model, the pump associated with the VSD, temperature conditions,
and other factors.
Moreno et al. (2010b) developed a DSS tool named A.S. (Bore-
hole Analysis) to analyze the performance of a pumping system
connected to wells, which determined the optimal time to extract
from the well by comparing the suboptimal operation and extrac-
tion costs. Broader studies are needed to consider the progression of
energy efficiency over the lifetime of the pump. Energy consump-
tion increases over time because of decreasing energy efficiency,
reaching 5–20% in the first few years of the working life of the pump,
and increasing with wear on the pumps. Life Cycle Cost analysis
can be used to determine optimal maintenance operation program-
ming to minimize the total operational costs of the pumping system
(Rocamora et al., 2013).
3.3. Actions to reduce energy consumption and/or costs
Over the past few years, several studies have focused on analyz-
ing irrigation energy consumption in response to increasing energy
consumption and prices in Spain (Rodríguez Díaz et al., 2009;
Moreno et al., 2010a). The different actions that can be applied are
as follows.
3.3.1. Use of benchmarking techniques to evaluate the
performance of irrigated areas
Generally, modernization actions for irrigation schemes are
previously analyzed with economic, social or environmental eval-
uations. However, the impacts are rarely evaluated after the
improvements are made. Several researchers have developed and
applied sets of performance indicators to measure the efficiency
and sustainability of irrigation systems, but there are few exam-
ples in the literature of improving efficiency by comparing several
irrigation districts using performance indicators based on bench-
marking techniques. Earlier studies evaluated water but excluded
other resources that play an important role in modern irrigated
agriculture, such as energy. However, recent studies have high-
lighted the need for performance indicators in improving the use of
both water and energy, focusing on alternatives for reducing water
consumption and energy costs (Rodríguez Díaz et al., 2008, 2011;
Córcoles et al., 2012).
In most of these previous experiences, indicators were applied
in comparative analyses of different irrigation districts within a sin-
gle year. This process has limitations: sometimes the indicators
of very different districts were compared, and the best practices
could not be adopted by less efficient districts. Indicators have been
rarely applied to evaluate the efficiency of modernization processes
by comparing the values before and after the improvement and
upgrade actions. There are some good examples in the literature
that have shown their efficiency for this type of evaluation: Mateos
et al. (2010) studied the impact of some rehabilitation measures
on certain irrigation districts in Mauritania; Lecina et al. (2010)
evaluated hypothetical modernization scenarios in the Riegos del
Alto Aragón project (Northeastern Spain) and Rodríguez Díaz et al.
(2012a) evaluated the modernization of the Bembézar M.D. irriga-
tion district (Southern Spain) using water and energy indicators.
From these studies it appears that water use was more effi-
cient in districts where users are charged per unit of irrigation
water consumed. In the permanent sprinkler irrigation systems
using groundwater analyzed in Castilla-La Mancha, energy repre-
sents 45% of the total management, operation, and maintenance
costs, compared with 20% in drip irrigation systems (Córcoles et al.,
2012). Benchmarking and multivariate data analysis techniques are
powerful tools for evaluating water and energy efficiency in irriga-
tion districts and may help managers and policy makers identify
the best practices and the weak points of every irrigation district.
3.3.2. Energy audits
An energy audit is not only an energy analysis, but also includes:
indicators to identify possible solutions, measures for improving
energy efficiency, and an economic evaluation of the proposed
measures for prioritizing implementation. To carry out these
energy audits it is necessary to develop region-specific tools and
models integrated into DSS.
Abadía et al. (2008) proposed a methodology to calculate
the global energy efficiency (GEE) of irrigation distribution sys-
tems that includes the energy efficiency of pumping (EEP), which
depends on the efficiency of the pumping stations, and the supply
energy efficiency (SEE), which depends on the design and manage-
ment of the water distribution system. This methodology has been
applied in the Guidelines for Energy Audits in Water User Associa-
tions edited by the IDAE (Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro
de la Energía; Institute for Energy Diversification and Conservation;
IDAE, 2008).
Measures of improvement identified in an energy audit can be
classified into three groups, depending on the process: (a) mea-
sures of the performance of energy consuming equipment (pumps,
motors, filters, variable speed drives); (b) measures of the design
and management of the network, such as sectoring and designing
new pipelines or reservoirs, and (c) measures of the energy contract
 J.M. Tarjuelo et al. / Agricultural Water Management 162 (2015) 67–77
with the energy supply company. Measures in groups (a) and (b)
affect the EEP and SEE, respectively, and improve energy efficiency
of the irrigation system, while measures in group (c) improve the
economic efficiency of energy.
A comparative analysis of energy efficiency in 22 irrigation
water distribution networks was performed by Abadía et al. (2010).
The average EEP and SEE values obtained in the 22 networks were
approximately 53.0 and 73.0%, respectively. The estimation of aver-
age energy savings was 14.1% (11.2% related to measures of the
performance of energy consuming equipment and 2.9% for mea-
sures of infrastructure design and management), with maximum
values greater than 60%, and economic savings of 20.6% (10.8% for
measures of the performance of energy consuming equipment, 6.1%
for measures of the design and management of infrastructure and
3.7% for measures of the energy contract with the energy supply
company), with maximum values higher than 45%. The authors
conclude that the most representative indicators of energy effi-
ciency in water distribution networks are related to energy costs
and energy consumption for the volume supplied to users, rather
than indicators that relate these parameters to the irrigated area.
Conducting these audits has demonstrated that in irrigated
areas with high elevational differences energy efficiency is much
lower, and the only solution is the establishment of equal-elevation
sectors for managing the irrigation network. In most case studies,
an improvement in energy efficiency was detected after the imple-
mentation of the proposed measures, with average energy savings
of 10.2%. The proposed improvement measures that result in the
highest energy savings are related to equipment improvements,
mostly concerning well pumps. An energy audit can be an excel-
lent tool for improving energy efficiency in irrigation and should
be increasingly applied in the future.
3.3.2.1. Difficulties in implementing the energy conservation mea-
sures proposed in energy audits. The improvement measures
proposed in energy audits do not guarantee energy savings. After
the proposal, the improvement measures must be implemented,
which may present difficulties (Rocamora et al., 2013) such as: (I)
the energy audit represents a static analysis of the distribution sys-
tem energy performance relative to the period during which it has
been conducted. Conditions not contemplated in the analysis may
occur, and may complicate the implementation of corrective mea-
sures; (II) many distribution systems have no technical capability
to implement the measures proposed in the audit; (III) the invest-
ment required makes it difficult to apply the measures, despite the
economic cost-effectiveness and short lag time for return on invest-
ment; (IV) subjective factors are also involved, such as possible lack
of commitment by managers to accept changes when measures
reduce flexibility.
In order to overcome these difficulties, Rocamora et al. (2013)
proposed a Strategy for Efficient Energy Management (SEEM) as
an effective way of achieving implementation of energy efficiency
improvement measures. The SEEM consists of an Energy Manage-
ment System (EMS) adapted for WUAs, taking into consideration
the special characteristics of these organizations. The SEEM pro-
posed by Rocamora et al. (2013) was applied to a WUA in Spain
covering an irrigated area of 5340 ha, where the main crops were
stone fruit trees, grapes and vegetables. The results show that
the cost of the SEEM implementation was very low (0.6% of the
energy cost) compared to the decrease in energy use and costs
simulated in two possible wear and tear scenarios (7.1% and 6%,
respectively).
3.3.3. Models for optimizing electric rate use
It is important to specify that a suitable energy contract will
result in a decrease in energy costs, but has no effect on energy
savings. Improving energy purchasing means looking for the most
73
convenient type of contract, taking into account the contracted
power, which is determined by the power demanded by the pump-
ing systems during the irrigation season. Good energy management
also implies knowledge of the different electricity rates and periods
based on time of day and types of days during the year. Then, if pos-
sible, energy consumption can be adapted to this pattern. Another
factor that must be considered is the need for compensating reac-
tive power.
Traditionally, researchers have developed algorithms to esti-
mate the flow rates of irrigation networks based on the maximum
crop water requirements of a typical crop distribution in an irriga-
ble area. These estimates should be improved for proper design and
management of the irrigation network, especially for energy man-
agement of the pumping station. Thus, it is necessary to determine
the water and energy demand in real time throughout the irriga-
tion season. This is a key point in the current context of energy rates
and types of energy contracts in Spain (Moreno et al., 2010a).
The proper estimation of power requirements for energy con-
tracts requires an understanding of the established crops and an
estimation of the crop water requirements during the irrigation
season. Once the crop water requirements are forecasted and the
distribution in the irrigated area has been defined, the irrigation
time and irrigation interval can be obtained by considering the dis-
charge of the irrigation systems in the plot. Thus, the flow rates
and energy demand on the pumping systems can be forecasted.
This forecast can be used to draw up an optimum contract with the
electrical company, together with the possibility of accessing the
liberalized energy market (energy pool).
In the present context of a deregulated market in many coun-
tries, tariff simulators are useful for comparing offers from different
marketing companies to optimize the power supply capacity and
to calculate the banks of capacitors required to improve the power
factor, taking into consideration the energy use pattern of the WUA.
3.3.4. Telemetry and remote control systems
Determining the volume of water applied and the energy con-
sumed by irrigators at the field scale is a prerequisite for achieving
sound irrigation management at higher scales. In addition, the mea-
surement of applied irrigation water (AIW) is becoming mandatory
in some areas of the world, such as in the European Union, where
the Water Framework Directive requires Member States to develop
water pricing policies linked to metering (EU, 2000). In this process,
telemetry plays a critical role.
Lorite et al. (2013) used a wireless telemetry system to collect
water use records at the individual field level during two irriga-
tion seasons in the Genil-Cabra Irrigation Scheme (GCIS), Spain,
served by an on-demand pressurized irrigation system with a total
of 1365 plots in around 7500 ha to assess the variability in field
water usage and in the timing of water application among farm-
ers. Using the information provided by the telemetry system, a
new irrigation performance assessment based on variability analy-
sis was proposed. In an attempt to explain the observed variability,
interviews were carried out with farmers and their responses indi-
cated that much of the variability was caused by differences in their
approaches to deficit irrigation.
Stambouli et al. (2014) analyzed telemetry data records in
Almudebar irrigation district (Spain) for water and electricity man-
agement analyses for irrigation cost optimization. They cite the
need to know the crop distribution pattern and crop irrigation
requirements as early as possible, and to adjust the contracted
power related to the power demand. A proposed scenario, based on
adjusting the power contracted to average consumption, resulted
in a decrease of 8.4% in the total electricity cost.
74 J.M. Tarjuelo et al. / Agricultural Water Management 162 (2015) 67–77
3.3.5. Renewable energy in irrigation
The use of renewable energy resources in water distribution sys-
tems is becoming increasingly considered as an alternative in urban
supply systems. For example, turbines for harnessing excess energy
when there are large differences in elevation are being installed
in water supply systems. Hybrid systems that establish the opti-
mal combination of several energy sources such as solar, wind
and hydropower are being incorporated in water supply systems
(Ramos et al., 2011). These measures contribute to lowering energy
costs and sustainable management of water distribution systems
at the same time.
In the agricultural sector, the implementation of renewable
energy resources is increasingly common, such as solar energy for
controlling greenhouses, or in pumping systems for irrigation water
supply (Ramazan, 2012). However, these energy resources are used
only in small farms with low power requirements (not exceeding
10 kW). It is necessary to intensify the analysis of the application of
renewable energy, mainly wind and photovoltaic energy, for appli-
cations in medium and large size farms. A comprehensive analysis
should be performed on the applicability of renewable energy in
each country, which is highly influenced by the energy sector and
distribution networks together with the seasonality of the irriga-
tion energy demand.
Carrillo-Cobo et al. (2014) analyzed the role of solar energy in
the Bembézar left margin irrigation district (Southern Spain) which
has an irrigated area of 4000 ha. They combined sectoring as an
energy saving strategy and a 2.15 MW photovoltaic (PV) system
to supply energy to the sector with higher energy consumption.
Results show that both measures together would reduce energy
costs by 71.7% and the greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions by 70.5%.
The total investment was 2.8 MD but with a payback period of
just 8 years. However, these results should be analyzed in-depth
in the specific case of each country, considering the options of
the proportion of energy consumed by the producer and inject-
ing the surplus energy to the electrical grid, which can modify the
results.
4. Quantification of water savings and energy consumption
as a result of modernization
A key issue in the modernization process is the evaluation of
water savings and energy consumption derived from this process.
Thus, it is necessary to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages
of modernization including economic viability, social and environ-
mental aspects.
In general, switching from surface to pressurized irrigation sys-
tems results in a decrease in water use, mainly via reduced losses
to percolation, but an increase in water (evapotranspiration) and
energy consumption, together with maintenance and manage-
ment costs. Thus, Jackson et al. (2010) reported that converting
from surface irrigation to pressurized systems led to reductions in
water application by 10–66% in a surface-water supplied region in
New South Wales and a groundwater dependent region in South
Australia. However, in the surface water supplied region, energy
consumption also increased by up to 163%. In the groundwater
dependent region, energy consumption was reduced by 12–44%
due to increased water use efficiency.
Jiménez-Aguirre and Isidoro (2012) analyzed the effect of an
irrigation modernization process from surface irrigation to sprin-
kler irrigation systems on 3718 ha in the WUA of Almudévar
(Huesca, Spain). They found water conservation reached 32%
(1140–860 mm y−1 ) for a maize crop, even though water consump-
tion increased by 22% (15% from wind drift and evaporation losses
and a 7% increase in evapotranspiration). The crop yield increased
by 40% (from 10.2 to 14.3 kg ha−1 ) from the best adjustment to the
irrigation requirements and to lower nitrogen losses due to per-
colation. Nitrogen application decreased from 431 to 316 kg ha−1 .
Drainage was reduced by 81% and the content of nitrogen in this
water was reduced by 86%. In addition, farmer quality of life
improved as a result of the automation of the irrigation control
system.
Rodríguez Díaz et al. (2011) evaluated energy use in typ-
ical Andalusian (Southern Spain) irrigation districts by means
of performance indicators for water and energy use during
2006–2007 irrigation seasons. The average energy consumption
per irrigated area was approximately 1000 kW h ha−1 , and when
analyzing energy consumption per cubic meter of water pumped,
the average was 0.41 kW h m−3 , with high variability among
districts.
The increase in energy consumption itself is a negative out-
come of some irrigation modernization strategies, but the economic
impact of this increase is even greater with rising energy prices.
Such is the case in Spain, where electricity prices have dramatically
increased over the last several years, and special energy tariffs for
irrigation are no longer available. Ederra and Murugarren (2010)
compared data from 2005 and 2009 to analyze the increase in the
energy bill of an irrigable area of 802 ha which was very sensi-
tive to higher energy rates due to the high pumping head (196 m).
Annual water supply varied between 4000 and 5000 m3 ha−1 . Sup-
ply power was 1750 kW. The power charge increased by 378%, the
energy charge increased by 66% and the electricity bill increased by
82% in this period. This was not only due to the energy rates, but
also irrigation management in peak billing periods and suboptimal
contracting with the energy supplier.
Rodríguez Díaz et al. (2012a), used performance indicators
related to water and energy consumption to analyze systems before
and after the irrigation community modernization process in Bem-
bézar right margin in 2007, where users switched from traditional
surface irrigation to drip irrigation systems. This irrigated area was
created in 1969, with more than 11,600 ha and 1300 farmers, and an
average farm size of 7 ha. The analysis showed an approximate 40%
reduction in water diverted for irrigation due to more efficient irri-
gation systems. However, this situation has promoted the adoption
of crop rotations (mainly citrus) of higher value and water demand,
so the theoretical water requirements increased considerably, by
around 20%. However Berbel et al. (2014) reported that deficit
irrigation is a common practice in the area, so the water consump-
tion (evapotranspiration) has not been considerably increased.
Modernization has also led to an increase in total management,
operation and maintenance costs, which are four times higher than
before modernization (from 99 to 392 D ha−1 ). This cost increase
is closely related with the high energy dependency of the new sys-
tem (0.15 kWh m−3 ), which was negligible before modernization.
In the areas studied, farmers spent approximately 2.6% of their
income to cover water costs before modernization, which increased
to 10% after modernization. However, more flexible irrigation sys-
tems (organized, on-demand) allowed farmers to switch to more
profitable crops. An analysis using general performance indicators
in the 11,600 ha modernized in 2007 showed that in the period
before modernization (1997–2002), land productivity (D ha−1 ) was
slightly lower than in 2008 and 2009 (except in 2002). This analysis
was performed soon after the modernization of the irrigation dis-
trict, and it would be interesting to repeat the analysis after better
consolidation of the modernization process to examine the effect
of modernization on water and energy consumption. In addition,
training and advice with IAS can improve results.
Regarding productivity before and after modernization, there
is a consensus regarding the increase in productivity, but it is
mainly influenced by adequate irrigation management and other
production techniques, and not only by the type of irrigation
system.
 J.M. Tarjuelo et al. / Agricultural Water Management 162 (2015) 67–77
Lecina et al. (2010) analyzed the effects of irrigation modern-
ization on water conservation using the Riegos del Alto Aragón
(RAA) irrigation project (NE Spain, 123,354 ha) as a case study. Tra-
ditional surface irrigation systems and modern sprinkler systems
currently occupy 73% and 27% of the irrigated area, respectively,
where the whole irrigated area is devoted to field crops. Corn, alfalfa
and rice were cultivated in 63% of the surface irrigated areas, and
75% of the sprinkler irrigated areas for analyses in the years 2003
and 2004. The results indicate that irrigation modernization can
increase water use and water depletion (water that is not available
for further use because it is lost to the atmosphere via evapotran-
spiration, wind drift and evaporation losses or other sinks, such as
non-recoverable runoff and percolation). In addition, farmers can
achieve higher productivity and better working conditions: yields
and gross land productivity were 25–33% higher, and the net land
productivity was 29–45% higher in sprinkler systems than in sur-
face irrigated areas. Crops with higher water use, such as corn and
alfalfa, had net land productivity that was approximately 130% and
60% higher than winter cereals (barley and wheat), respectively.
Net water productivity was 75–93% higher in sprinkler systems
than in surface irrigated crops. Irrigation modernization would be
expected to increase the economic activity of the agricultural sec-
tor by 27–68 MD in some of the scenarios analyzed. This increase
would have a cascading economic effect, extending the impact of
irrigation modernization to related economic sectors. A multidisci-
plinary study would be required to estimate the effect on water
productivity computed over water depletion at a regional scale
because this type of modernization, in inland areas with irrigation
return flow quality that allows for downstream reuse, involves a
reduction in water availability in the river basin.
Another barrier to implementation is when promising tech-
nologies are simply not suitable. Although field irrigation should
be improved for many reasons (environmental, crop quality, crop
yield, energy consumption, etc.) it is difficult to find the most
appropriate balance between investments in new infrastructure
and improvements in management practices for a given irriga-
tion district. Burt and O’Neil (2007) compared the water applied
and tomato yield on 187 furrow-irrigated fields and 164 drip irri-
gated fields (with water meters, maximum flexibility in water
delivery, and availability of advisory services). Farmers applied
400–1200 mm of irrigation water with both irrigation systems and
for the same amount of water (700 mm for instance) and obtained
40–130 t ha−1 in yield with both systems. This indicates that pro-
ductivity in irrigated agriculture depends on how water and other
resources are managed as well as fluctuations in market prices. The
authors also conclude that it would be risky to assume that there are
higher yields with drip irrigation. Thus, poorly managed “hi-tech”
systems can be as wasteful and unproductive as poorly managed
traditional systems (Perry et al., 2009).
Although in this paper we focus the discussion on the technical
aspects of irritation modernization related with water and energy
use, in each modernization process it is necessary to identify the
actual increase in water and land productivity, as well as the eco-
nomic, social, and environmental benefits. These benefits should
be compared with the investment costs and the increase in energy
consumption.
5. Conclusions
In countries like Spain, where irrigation plays a crucial role in
the economic viability of many farms located in areas with water
shortages, but high production potential, modernization by chang-
ing from open-channel gravity-based systems to sprinkler and drip
irrigation can be necessary.
75
In this paper, we aimed to quantify the advantages and disad-
vantages of the modernization process from economic, social and
environmental points of view by analyzing relevant publications.
We have also found areas in need of development and research to
advance the modernization process under a context of high energy
cost and water shortage.
Some of lessons learned from Spain are:
• Modernization reduces the amount of water supplied to a crop, as
well as decreasing water drainage and agrochemical contamina-
tion of water and soil, although in some specific cases it increases
the consumptive use of water per unit area due to higher evapo-
transpiration.
• Modernization has increased the productivity per unit of land
and water, ensuring supply to the agri-food industry and other
markets. However, this did not lead to benefits for farmers in all
cases because investment and energy costs have increased.
• The economic crisis suffered since 2010 has doubled energy costs
in Spain, which has a high impact on industry and modernized
irrigation.
• Modernization allowed farmers to include new crops, which
helps with adaptation to international market demand and,
therefore, the variable prices of the agro-market.
• Automation, the use of information and communication tech-
nologies and the application and usefulness of Irrigation Advisory
Services, in conjunction with web-GIS platforms to transfer and
share real-time information with farmers through communica-
tion in a feedback process, contributes to improving water, energy
and fertilizer efficiency, which means a reduction in the environ-
mental impact of irrigation.
• Farmer quality of life has improved, as well as the incorporation
of young farmers in the sector, which has a positive impact in
the creation of direct and indirect jobs. It also greatly reduces
abandonment of lands and desertification in rural areas.
• Several tools for decision making and decision support systems
have been developed for the design and management of irrigable
areas, which leads to further improvement in water and energy
use, as well as other production inputs.
Research is needed in assessing the quantitative effect of irri-
gation modernization and optimization plans on river basin water
resources. The effects on the socio-economic sustainability of agri-
culture and on water quality in the river basin also must be
evaluated. Furthermore, proper analysis of the costs and benefits
of improving water productivity are required. Broader studies are
needed to consider the progression of energy efficiency over the
useful life of a pump, while robust and efficient optimization algo-
rithms that consider the optimization of all infrastructures as a
whole are necessary for drawing a complete picture of farm pro-
ductivity and profit in relation to water and energy efficiency.
Due to the increased costs of energy resources along with the
reduction in unit costs of renewable energy resources, alternative
energy sources are expected to play an important role in the future,
which is another area where further research is needed.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Spanish Min-
istry of Education and Science (MEC), for funding the projects
AGL2011-30328-C02-01 and AGL2014-59747-C2-1-R (Co-funded
by FEDER).
References
Abadía, R., Rocamora, M.C., Ruiz, A., Puerto, H., 2008. Energy efficiency in irrigation
distribution networks I: theory. Biosyst. Eng. 101, 21–27.
76 J.M. Tarjuelo et al. / Agricultural Water Management 162 (2015) 67–77
Abadía, R., Rocamora, M.C., Córcoles, J.I., Ruiz Canales, A., Martinez Romero, A.,
Moreno, M.A., 2010. Comparative analysis of energy efficiency in water users
associations. Span. J. Agric. Res. 8 (S2), 134–142.
Ait Kadi, M., Lamaddalena, N., Bouabe, Z., El Yacoubi, Z., 1998. Study on the
possibility of energy saving in an irrigation system equipped with pumping
station. Riv. Irrig. Dren. 45, 25–30.
Berbel, J., Gutiérrez-Martín, C., Rodríguez-Díaz, J.A., Camacho, E., Montesinos, P.,
2014. Literature review on rebound effect of water saving measures and
analysis of a Spanish case study. Water Resour. Manage. 29 (3), 663–678.
Brisson, N., Mary, B., Ripoche, D., 1998. STICS a generic model for the simulation of
crops and their water and nitrogen balances. I. Theory and parameterization
applied to wheat and corn. Agronomie 18 (5–6), 311–346.
Burt, C.M., Clemmens, A.J., Strelkoff, T.S., Solomon, K.H., Bliesner, R.D., Howell, T.A.,
Eisenhaue, D.E., 1997. Irrigation performance measures: efficiency and
uniformity. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. ASCE 123 (6), 423–442.
Burt, C.M., O’Neil, B.P., 2007. Drip and furrow on processing tomato-field
performance. In: In 28th Annual Irrigation Assoc. Technical Conference, San
Diego, CA. December 9.
Calejo, M.J., Lamaddalena, N., Teixeira, J.L., Pereira, L.S., 2008. Performance analysis
of pressurized irrigation systems operating on demand using flow-driven
simulation modeling. Agric. Water Manage. 95, 154–162.
Carrillo-Cobo, M.T., Rodríguez Díaz, J.A., Montesinos, P., López Luque, R., Camacho
Poyato, E., 2011. Low energy consumption seasonal calendar for sectoring
operation in pressurized irrigation networks. Irrig. Sci. 29, 157–169.
Carrillo-Cobo, M.T., Camacho Poyato, E., Montesinos, P., Rodríguez Díaz, J.A., 2014.
Assessing the potential of solar energy in pressurized irrigation networks. The
case of Bembézar MI irrigation district (Spain). Span. J. Agric. Res. 12 (3),
838–849.
Carrión, F., Tarjuelo, J.M., Hernández, D., Moreno, M.A., 2013. Design of
microirrigation subunit of minimum cost with proper operation. Irrig. Sci.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00271-013-0399-8.
Carrión, F., Montero, J., Tarjuelo, J.M., Moreno, M.A., 2014. Design of sprinkler
irrigation subunit of minimum cost with proper operation. Application at corn
crop in Spain. Water Resour. Manage., http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-
0793-x.
Clément, R., 1966. Calcul des le réseaux d’irrigation fonctionnant á la demande. La
Houille Blanche 5, 553–575 (in French débits dans).
Córcoles, J.I., de Juan, J.A., Ortega, J.F., Tarjuelo, J.M., Moreno, M.A., 2012. Evaluation
of irrigation systems by using benchmarking techniques. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
138 (3), 225–234.
Daccache, A., Lamaddalena, N., Fratino, U., 2010. On-demand pressurized water
distribution system impacts on sprinkler network design and performance. J.
Irrig. Drain. Eng. 136, 261–270.
Daccache, A., Ciurana, J.S., Rodriguez Diaz, J.A., Knox, J.W., 2014. Water and energy
footprint of irrigated agriculture in the Mediterranean region. Environ. Res.
Lett. 9, 12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124014.
Dominguez, A., Tarjuelo, J.M., de Juan, J.A., López-Mata, E., Breidy, J., Karam, F.,
2011. Deficit irrigation under water stress and salinity conditions: the
MOPECO-salt model. Agric. Water Manage. 98, 1451–1461.
Ederra, I., Murugarren, N., 2010. La Nueva Tarifa Eléctrica. La Escalada De Precios
Del Agua De Riego. Navarra agrarian (in Spanish), Spain.
ESYRCE (Encuesta sobre Superficies y Rendimientos de Cultivos). (2014). Análisis
de los Regadíos Españoles. Ministerio de Agricultura Alimentación y
MedioAmbiente http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/
estadisticas-agrarias/agricultura/esyrce/ (accessed: 12.12.14.) (in Spanish).
EU, 2000. Water framework directive (WFD/2000/60/EU). Off. J. Eur. Commun.,
L32/1.
Farmani, R., Abadía, R., Savic, D., 2007. Optimun design and management of
pressurized branched irrigation networks. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. ASCE 133 (6),
528–538.
Fernández García, I., Moreno, M.A., Rodríguez Díaz, J.A., 2014. Optimum pumping
station management for irrigation networks sectoring: case of Bembezar MI
(Spain). Agric. Water Manage. 144, 150–158.
Hornbuckle, J.W., Car, N.J., Christen, E.W., Stein, T.M., Williamson, B., 2009. Irrisat
SMS. Irrigation Water Management by satellite and SMS- A utilisation
framework. CSIRO Land and Water Sience Report No. 04/09.
IDAE (Institute for Diversification and Energy Savings). (2008). Protocolo de
Auditoria Energética en Comunidades de Regantes. Ministerio de Industria,
Turismo y Comercio, Madrid, Spain (in Spanish).
INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística de España). (2012). www.ine.es
Hirose, S., 1997. Determination of the capacity of a regulating pond in a pipeline
irrigation system. Rural Environ. Eng. 33, 66–78.
Jackson, T.M., Khan, S., Hafeez, M., 2010. A comparative analysis of water
application and energy consumption at the irrigated field level. Agric. Water
Manage. 97, 1477–1485.
Jiménez-Aguirre, M.T., Isidoro, D., 2012. Efecto de la modernización de la
comunidad de regantes de Almudévar (Huesca) sobre el cultivo del maíz.
Tierras 193, 102–109.
Jiménez-Bello, M.A., Martínez, F., Bou, V., Bartoli, H.J., 2010. Methodology for
grouping intakes of pressurised irrigation networks into sectors to minimise
energy consumption. Biosyst. Eng. 105 (4), 429–438.
Jones, J.W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C.H., Boote, K.J., Batchelor, W.D., Hunt, L.A.,
Wilkens, P.W., Singh, U., Gijsman, A.J., Ritchie, J.T., 2003. The DSSAT cropping
system model. Eur. J. Agron. 18 (3–4), 235.
Lamaddalena, N., Khila, S., 2012. Energy saving with variable speed pumps in
on-demand irrigation systems. Irrig. Sci. 30, 157–166.
Lecina, S., Isidoro, D., Playán, E., Aragües, R., 2010. Irrigation modernization and
water conservation in Spain: the case of Riegos del Alto Aragón. Agric. Water
Manage. 97, 1663–1675.
Lorite, I.J., Santos, C., García-Vila, M., Carmona, M.A., Fereres, E., 2013. Assessing
irrigation scheme water use and farmers’ performance using wireless
telemetry systems. Comput. Electron. Agric. 98, 193–204.
Martin de Sata-Olalla, F., (2001). Agricultura y desertificación. Ed. Mundi Pensa.
Madrid (in Spanish).
Mateos, L., Lozano, D., Baghil, A.B.O., Diallo, O.A., Gómez-Macpherson, H., Comas, J.,
Connor, D., 2010. Irrigation performance before and after rehabilitation of a
representative, small irrigation scheme besides the Senegal River, Mauritania.
Agric. Water Manage. 97 (6), 901–909.
Marzal, A., Prat, M.R., 2008. Optimización del coste energético para la red de riego a
presión con bombeo directo del Sector VIII-4 de Monegros II. XXVI Congreso
Nacional de Riegos. Huesca 24-26 de Junio de 2008. Spain.
Molden, D., 2007. Water for Food. Water for Life. A Comprehensive Assessment of
Water Management in Agriculture. International Water Management Institute
(IWMI) and FAO.
Molden, D., Oweis, T., Steduto, P., Bindraban, P., Hanjra, M.A., Kijne, J., 2010.
Improving agricultural water productivity: between optimism and caution.
Agric. Water Manage. 97 (4), 528–535.
Moreno, M.A., Planells, P., Ortega, J.F., Tarjuelo, J.M., 2007. New methodology to
evaluate flow rates in on-demand irrigation networks. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 133
(4), 298–306.
Moreno, M.A., Planells, P., Ortega, J.F., Tarjuelo, J.M., 2008. Calibration of
on-demand irrigation network models. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 134 (1), 36–42.
Moreno, M.A., Planells, P., Córcoles, J.I., Tarjuelo, J.M., Carrión, P.A., 2009.
Development of a new methodology to obtain the characteristic pump curves
that minimize the total cost at pumping stations. Biosyst. Eng. 102 (1), 95–105.
Moreno, M.A., Ortega, J.F., Córcoles, J.I., Martínez, A., Tarjuelo, J.M., 2010a. Energy
analysis of irrigation delivery systems: monitoring and evaluation of proposed
measures for improving energy efficiency. Irrig. Sci. 28, 445–460.
Moreno, M.A., Córcoles, J.I., Moraleda, D.A., Martínez, A., Tarjuelo, J.M., 2010b.
Optimization of underground water pumping. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 136 (6),
414–420.
Moreno, M.A., Córcoles, J.I., Tarjuelo, J.M., Ortega, J.F., 2010c. Energy efficiency of
pressurised irrigation networks managed on-demand and under a rotation
schedule. Biosyst. Eng. 107, 349–363.
Moreno, M.A., Medina, D., Ortega, J.F., Tarjuelo, J.M., 2012. Optimal design of centre
pivot systems with water supplied from wells. Agric. Water Manage. 107,
112–121.
Navarro, M., 2002. Situación de los regadíos existentes. Necesidades de un
programa de consolidación y mejora. Monográfico del Plan Nacional de
Regadíos de España. Agricultura n◦ 842 (número especial), 566–573 (In
Spanish).
Ortega, J.F., de Juan, J.A., Tarjuelo, J.M., 2005. Improving water management: the
irrigation advisory service of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). Agric. Water Manage.
77, 37–58.
Ortiz, J.N., de Juan, J.A., Tarjuelo, J.M., 2010. Analysis of water application
uniformity from a centre pivot and its effect on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)
yield. Biosyst. Eng. 105 (3), 367–379.
Parker, D., Cohen-Vogel, D.R., Vanderbilt, D.R., Osgood, D.E., Zilberman, D., 2000.
Publicly funded weather database benefits users statewide. Calif. Agric. 54 (3),
21–25.
Perry, C., Steduto, P., Allen, R.G., Burt, C.M., 2009. Increasing productivity in
irrigated agriculture: agronomic constraints and hydrological realities. Agric.
Water Manage. 96, 1517–1524.
Playan, E., Mateos, L., 2006. Modernization and optimization of irrigation systems
to increase water productivity. Agric. Water Manage. 80, 100–116.
Ramazan, S., 2012. An analysis of solar energy and irrigation systems in Turkey.
Energy Policy 43, 478–486.
Pulido-Calvo, I., Gutiérrez-Estrada, J.C., López-Luque, R., Roldán, J., 2006. Regulating
reservoirs in pressurized irrigation water supply systems. J. Water SRT-Aqua
55 (5), 367–381.
Ramos, H.M., Kenov, K.N., Viera, F., 2011. Environmentally friendly hybrid
solutions to improve the energy and hydraulic efficiency in water supply
systems. Sustain. Dev. 15, 436–442.
Rocamora, C., Vera, J., Abadía, R., 2013. Strategy for efficient energy management to
solve energy problems in modernized irrigation. Analysis of the Spanish case.
Irrig. Sci. 31, 1139–1158.
Rodríguez Díaz, J.A., Camacho, E., López, R., Pérez, L., 2008. Benchmarking and
multivariate data analysis techniques for improving the efficiency of irrigation
districts: an application in Spain. Agric. Syst. 96, 250–259.
Rodríguez Díaz, J.A., López Luque, R., Carrillo-Cobo, M.T., Montesinos, P., Camacho,
E., 2009. Exploring energy saving scenarios for on-demand pressurised
irrigation networks. Biosyst. Eng. 104, 552–561.
Rodríguez Díaz, J.A., Camacho, E., Blanco, M., 2011. Evaluation of water and energy
use in pressurized irrigation networks in southern Spain. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
137 (10), 644–650.
Rodríguez Díaz, J.A., Pérez-Urrestarazu, L., Camacho Poyato, E., Montesinos, P.,
2012a. Modernizing water distribution networks -lessons from the Bembézar
MD irrigation district, Spain. Outlook Agric. 41 (4), 229–236.
Rodríguez Díaz, J.A., Montesinos, P., Camacho Poyato, E., 2012b. Detecting critical
points in on-demand irrigation pressurized networks—a new methodology.
Water Resour. Manage. 26 (6), 1693–1713.
 J.M. Tarjuelo et al. / Agricultural Water Management 162 (2015) 67–77
Singh, H., Mishra, D., Nahar, N.M., 2002. Energy use pattern in production
agriculture of a typical village in arid zone, India. Part I. Energy Convers.
Manage. 43, 2275–2286.
Singh, A.K., Sharma, S.P., Upadhyaya, A., Rahman, A., Sikka, A.K., 2010. Performance
of low energy water application device. Water Resour. Manage., http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s11269-009-9502-6.
Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Raes, D., Fereres, E., 2009. AquaCrop—the FAO crop model to
simulate yield response to water: I. Concepts underlying principles. Agron. J.
101, 426–437.
77
Stambouli, T., Faci, J.M., Zapata, N., 2014. Water and energy management in an
automated irrigation district. Agric. Water Manage. 142, 66–76.
Stöckle, C.O., Donatelli, M., Nelson, R., 2003. CropSyst, a cropping systems
simulation model. Eur. J. Agron. 18 (3–4), 289–307.
Teixeira, J.L., Pereira, L.S., 1992. ISAREG, an irrigation scheduling simulation model.
ICID Bull. 41 (2), 29–48.