Scientific Irrigation Scheduling, No. 3

Transcription

1 Market P rogress E valu a tion R eport Scientific Irrigation Scheduling, No. 3 prepared by Research IntoAction,Inc. report #E November SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, Oregon telephone: fax:

2 Final Report THIRD MARKET PROGRESS EVALUATION REPORT: SCIENTIFIC IRRIGATION SCHEDULING VENTURE END OF YEAR 2000 Funded By: Submitted To: Phil Degens, Ph.D. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Prepared By: Jane S. Peters, Ph.D. AG Flynn Research Into Action, Inc.

3

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the staff of the Alliance and the agencies implementing the Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Venture for their assistance in this evaluation. In particular, the following people contributed to the project: Amy Cortese and Phil Degens of the Alliance; Gerry Galinato and Warren Weihing of the Idaho Department of Water Resources; Phil Oestreich, formerly of Broadwater Conservation District; Brian Leib of Washington State University Cooperative Extension; Rich Topielec of Oregon State University Extension; and Peter Palmer of the Bureau of Reclamation.

5 Acknowledgements

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...I PROGRAM PROGRESS... I IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT EQUIPMENT MARKET... III PROGRESS INDICATORS...IV RECOMMENDATIONS... V AgriMet... V Irrigation Management Equipment...VI Irrigation Management Services...VI 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND...1 SCIENTIFIC IRRIGATION SCHEDULING...1 Background of SIS in the Pacific Northwest...1 Description of the SIS Venture...3 VENTURE EVALUATION...4 Approach...4 Data Collection and Analysis...5 FINDINGS FROM THE FIRST MPER...6 Progress Indicators Identified In the First MPER...8 Recommendations from the First MPER...10 FINDINGS FROM THE SECOND MPER...11 Progress Indicators from the Second MPER...13 Recommendations from the second MPER...14 Response by Venture Organizations to Recommendations...17 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT PROJECT PROGRESS...21 IDAHO...23 Services Offered to Growers...24 Partnering Projects...26 Market Barriers and Opportunities...27 Project Comments...27 Summary...28 PAGE I

7 Table of Contents MONTANA...28 Services for Growers...29 Partners...30 Market Barriers and Opportunities...30 Project Comments...31 Summary...32 OREGON...32 Services for Growers...33 Partners...34 Market Barriers and Opportunities...35 Project Comments...36 Summary...36 WASHINGTON...37 Services for Growers...37 Partners...38 Market Barriers and Opportunities...39 Project Comments...39 Summary...40 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION...40 Year 2000 Activities...40 Expectations for System Growth and Use...42 Comments on the Project...43 Summary SENSOR EQUIPMENT MARKET CONDITIONS...45 INTRODUCTION...45 DESCRIPTION OF MANUFACTURERS...45 Product Experience...46 Partnerships...47 Primary Customers...48 Educating, Marketing, and Distributing...49 MARKET PERCEPTION...50 Soil Moisture Sensing Equipment Saturation...50 Reasons for Sales Growth...52 Trends...52 How the Regional Market Compares to Other Markets...53 SUMMARY...54 GLOSSARY...54 PAGE II

8 Table of Contents 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...57 PROGRAM PROGRESS...57 IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT EQUIPMENT MARKET...58 PROGRESS INDICATORS...58 RECOMMENDATIONS...59 AgriMet...59 Irrigation Management Equipment...60 Irrigation Management Services...60 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE SIS IMPLEMENTATION STAFF 2000 SIS EVALUATION...A-1 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW GUIDE MANUFACTURERS 2000 SIS EVALUATION...B-1 APPENDIX C: IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS...C-1 PAGE III

9 Table of Contents PAGE IV

10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (the Alliance) is a non-profit group of electric utilities, state governments, public interest groups and industry representatives committed to bringing affordable, energy-efficient products and services to the marketplace. In 1997, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (the Alliance) began providing funds to a venture co-sponsored by agencies from four states, as well as one federal agency, to support the market expansion of Scientific Irrigation Scheduling. Scientific Irrigation Scheduling (SIS) refers to the practice of meeting crop moisture needs by supplying the right amount of water at the right time (with reference to soil moisture measurement and evapotranspiration [ET] models). The program varies slightly in each state, but generally involves demonstration of SIS with irrigation opinion leaders. In addition to SIS field demonstration sites, promotion and education activities encourage growers to adopt SIS, and training encourages consultants to offer SIS services. In addition, two agencies Washington State University and Idaho Department of Water Resources conducted comparison testing of different soil moisture sensing equipment. This is the third Market Progress Evaluation Report (MPER) covering the program and it focuses on the SIS program s third and final year This third MPER includes an assessment of program progress based on interviews with agency staff and a review of program documents, and an assessment of the market for irrigation management equipment based on interviews with soil moisture monitoring equipment manufacturers. PROGRAM PROGRESS Table ES-1 displays the accomplishments relative to project goals for each of the four states over the contract period from May 1998 to December PAGE I

11 Executive Summary Figure ES SIS GOAL ACHIEVEMENTS ACHIEVEMENTS IDAHO MONTANA OREGON WASHINGTON Goal for Annual Field Days (other events not specified in contracts) Field Days Achieved Field Days Achieved Field Days Achieved Percent Achieved % 400% 1000% 150% Total Field days Achieved Field Days Percent 100% 216% 400% 250% Goal for Total Field Years (over 3 years) Demonstration Fields Achieved Demonstration Fields Achieved in Demonstration Fields Achieved Total Demonstration Field Years Percent Achieved (goal 100% in 2000) 243% 236% 126% 266% Annual Goal for Sensor Demonstration Fields Sensor Demonstration Fields Achieved 2000 NTS NTS NTS 4-6 NA NA NA 5 Percent Achieved NA NA NA 100% 1. Oregon staff participated in field days conducted by local growers groups. 2 Oregon conducted small-scale field visits in Central Oregon. Neighboring growers were invited to come to the cooperator's farm for a demonstration when the agent was meeting with the grower. No field days were conducted in Union or Klamath Counties. 3. The totals for Washington do not include acreage or fields covered by consultant contracts. Inclusion of these fields and acres would further increase the accomplishment. PAGE II

12 Executive Summary The final year of the SIS program saw all four states continuing to provide services to growers in their target areas. Idaho and Montana effectively expanded their target areas by reducing the in-field hours with growers. Montana services expanded into Eastern Montana with funding from Montana Power through the Alliance. Oregon purchased 13 AM400 (a low cost data logger and graphing device for use with inexpensive soil moisture sensors) and tested these with growers in two areas. They proved to be well received and led to several growers considering purchases on their own. Washington continued to focus on developing spreadsheet tools and workshops with growers and consultants. These efforts were effective in expanding capability and after three years the consultant pool in Washington has doubled. The Bureau of Reclamation s AgriMet continued to expand with one new site located in 2000, bringing the total new sites during the three years to seven, a 12% increase in the system. AgriMet has also contracted for the development of WaterRight, which will enable AgriMet users to calculate ET and forecast water needs directly on the Internet at the AgriMet site. IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT EQUIPMENT MARKET We conducted a survey of irrigation management equipment manufacturers, focusing on soil moisture sensors. We found that manufacturers perceive increasing growth and a strong future for irrigation management among large-scale growers. However, market conditions are less optimal for growth among small and medium scale growers in the Pacific Northwest: ¾The farm economy is weak, leading to limited ability of farmers to invest in irrigation management equipment or to learn how to use it. ¾The equipment manufacturers are poorly organized for distribution. Many are small-scale businesses with limited capital and marketing savvy, others do irrigation management equipment as a sideline to other measurement equipment they design, build and sell. There is no network of distributors. ¾Equipment manufacturers are leery of government and utility involvement in irrigation management. They fear that the involvement reduces the incentive for growers to invest in the equipment on their own, and they fear that investment by government and utilities will show preferences. PAGE III

13 Executive Summary PROGRESS INDICATORS We assessed the SIS program relative to the four progress indicators established at the outset of the program. 1. An increasing number of agricultural consultants and fieldmen are able to offer SIS as part of their on-farm services without utility aid. As noted in the second MPER, there is growth of SIS in the region, especially among large-scale growers with high value crops. Most of these growers use consultants and fieldmen. Nonetheless, the growth of consulting is not assured. While Washington saw a doubling of consultants between 1998 and 2001, Oregon dropped from 3 to 1, Idaho stayed constant at 11 and Montana stayed constant at zero. 2. Establishment of local networks during the course of the project to maintain the education and technical assistance beyond the end of Alliance support. All four state agencies explicitly sought to work with local agricultural extension agents and soil and water conservation districts during This resulted in several new agencies becoming more familiar with SIS techniques. The effectiveness of these agencies and their ability to support growers in the future was not explored. 3. An increasing number of individual irrigators begin practicing scientific irrigation scheduling on their own (towards an adoption rate of 51% over ten years). As reported in the second MPER, the US Census Bureau Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey for 1994 and 1998 indicates that the adoption goal of 51% of acreage will be achieved by 2010 as part of the market growth already occurring before the SIS program. However, this will mainly be accomplished by the largescale farms that make up less than 20% of the growers in the Pacific Northwest. 4. Increasing support of AgriMet weather stations from user fees. AgriMet was able to obtain support for all seven new AgriMet stations installed during the program except one. Obtaining support for existing stations proved to be quite difficult and was not accomplished. Use of the AgriMet website showed a steady increase throughout the program period. PAGE IV

14 Executive Summary RECOMMENDATIONS The Scientific Irrigation Scheduling program has received minimal funding for This funding is focused on AgriMet and Eastern Montana. Specific programmatic recommendations for efforts in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington therefore would not be meaningful. Yet, there remain specific needs in the irrigation market that warrant attention by the Alliance. AgriMet AgriMet funding is based on seeing the system as an infrastructure for management activities, and the development of the irrigation management consultation industry. This is probably a reasonable approach. Yet, specific issues need to be considered and monitored: ¾Sponsorship of existing sites has been difficult to achieve, yet our perception is that the Alliance could more actively facilitate sponsorship of these sites by working with the utilities that have AgriMet stations in their territories. The Alliance could encourage these utilities to work more closely with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to identify and recruit local organizations to consider sponsorship. The Alliance could offer to cost share with utilities and local organizations on a trial basis. Bureau staff is insufficient to do this activity on their own. ¾The AgriMet website remains relatively un-user friendly. Graphics are needed as well as an ability to convert AgriMet data to fit the precise planting schedule of the grower s crop. WaterRight will help in this, but web development efforts and technical support work is needed to really make AgriMet effective for growers, especially the least experienced with SIS. Funding to support these activities should be considered; possible increased coordination with PAWS and WISE should also be more thoroughly explored. ¾AgriMet, even if the website is improved, remains but one piece of the SIS process. It is a complicated piece and one that very few growers were able to learn and understand during the SIS Venture. While consultants seem to be the primary users, making AgriMet work for self-implementers will expand its use even further. To facilitate that process however, there needs to be training and, again, a much user-friendlier website. PAGE V

15 Executive Summary Irrigation Management Equipment The irrigation management equipment market is too poorly organized to meet the needs of either self-implementers or growth in the consulting market. There is no distribution network and the majority of equipment available is high cost and generally manufactured on a unit-by-unit basis. Also, the market is leery of involvement in irrigation management by government and utilities. ¾The Alliance should consider supporting manufacturers that will work to develop a distribution network and low-cost equipment for irrigation management. Irrigation Management Services During the course of the three-year SIS program, the four state agencies developed an understanding of the types of services needed by the different markets they serve: self-implementers, consultants and large-scale growers. A variety of tools were developed to serve the needs of self-implementers and contacts were made with consultants throughout the four-state region. The agencies also learned to tier demonstration of the technology so growers are encouraged by the nature of the assistance to implement on their own. Finally, the project facilitated the development and introduction of a new irrigation management tool (AM400) and dissemination of valuable information comparing different soil moisture sensors. ¾The tools for self-implementers will only be adopted if there is on going education and training in how to use these tools. This type of education will not surface in the market and will need to be provided through infrastructure investment. ¾There remain on-going issues with irrigation hardware. Pumping and distribution systems are often inadequate. Hardware audits, when conducted, always find opportunities for improvement. Linking management with hardware improvement in a cost-share framework may provide an opportunity for resource acquisition and market transformation. PAGE VI

16 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (the Alliance) is a non-profit group of electric utilities, state governments, public interest groups and industry representatives committed to bringing affordable, energy-efficient products and services to the marketplace. In 1997, the Alliance began providing funds to a venture co-sponsored by four states and one federal agency. The venture was designed to support the market expansion of Scientific Irrigation Scheduling. The venture was co-sponsored by the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR), Soil and Water Conservation Districts of Montana, Inc. (Broadwater Conservation District in Montana), Washington State University (WSU) Cooperative Extension, Oregon State University (OSU) Extension, and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (the Bureau). Scientific Irrigation Scheduling (SIS) refers to the practice of meeting crop moisture needs by supplying the right amount of water at the right time (with reference to soil moisture measurement and evapotranspiration [ET] models). SCIENTIFIC IRRIGATION SCHEDULING Background of SIS in the Pacific Northwest The earliest report of irrigation scheduling using moisture measurement by the participating agencies comes from Union County, Oregon. In the 1950s and 1960s, growers in Union County were using gypsum blocks and electrical resistance meters for irrigation scheduling. The OSU SIS project manager located a 1963 brochure from the OSU Extension Service describing this method. Use of the approach in Union County appears to have waned in the 1970s and early 1980s. In Klamath County, irrigation scheduling was also available in the 1960s through programs initiated by OSU. In , Pacific Power and Light initiated a program. A consultant used a neutron probe to measure soil moisture until his business failed. Since the early 1990s, another scheduling consultant has been active in the Klamath Basin. In Central Oregon, two retired professors from OSU began offering irrigation scheduling in the 1980s. 1 1 Monthly Status Report Oregon, May Initial Baseline Data. PAGE 1

17 1. Introduction and Background In Oregon, as elsewhere in the region, SIS activities increased in the 1980s and 1990s as the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) funded pump hardware testing and irrigation management and scheduling programs. Bonneville s focus during the 1980s and 1990s was on pump efficiency, or hardware. The first hardware program began in 1979, while Bonneville s Irrigation Scheduling Program was piloted in Between 1983 and 1989, a total of 594 growers participated in the scheduling program. 2 After 1989, most of the Bonneville funding for irrigation focused on pump hardware, with pump efficiency testing offered by utilities throughout the Pacific Northwest. Bonneville funding for irrigation scheduling was more limited, focusing on specific demonstrations and pilots. Yet throughout the Pacific Northwest, soil conservation agencies, agricultural extension agents, and water resource agencies were using irrigation management and scheduling where they could as a tool to help growers gain better yields and reduce their water and energy costs. A key component of irrigation scheduling has been access to weather data. There are two systems in the Northwest. From 1983 to 1997, Bonneville funding for irrigation scheduling included support of the Bureau of Reclamation s AgriMet system. The AgriMet system (for agricultural meteorology) has two primary activities: installing and maintaining weather stations and making weather data and information on crop evapotranspiration rates available to growers. The latter is accomplished both through media dissemination and electronically through a dialup bulletin board and Internet access. Bonneville funded approximately 80% of the AgriMet system prior to The other weather information system is PAWS (Public Agriculture Weather System) in Washington State. The PAWS system was established during the summer and fall of 1988 at seven sites. It was the first real-time weather station network in the nation. The PAWS network coordinates with AgriMet, sharing data and linking with AgriMet sites in Washington. Funding for PAWS has come from a variety of public and private sources over the years. Access to the system is limited to subscribers, of which there were 181 in Washington and NE Oregon in 2000, down from 277 in According to the proponents of the SIS Venture, by 1997 the hardware efficiency opportunities appeared to have been tapped. With higher pump efficiencies in place, the remaining savings for Northwest growers lay in improved irrigation scheduling 2 J. Jennings. (1990) Process Evaluation of the Bonneville Power Administration Irrigation Management and Scheduling Program. For the Bonneville Power Administration, Contract DE-AC79-88BP ERCE, January PAGE 2

18 1. Introduction and Background practices and successful continuance of the AgriMet system through funding by non-public sources, fees or subscription services. Description of the SIS Venture The SIS Venture includes four state agencies and one federal agency. The program varies slightly in each state, but generally involves demonstration of SIS with irrigation opinion leaders. In addition to SIS field demonstration sites, promotion and education activities encourage growers to adopt SIS, as well as and train and encourage consultants to offer it. In addition, the WSU and IDWR projects both include comparison testing of different sensor equipment. In the demonstration portion of the project, growers are recruited in the spring. These cooperating growers receive weekly or bi-weekly readings of the soil moisture in their fields. Typically, a cooperator has one or two fields in the demonstration. The field agents, or consultants on contract with the SIS agency, make the readings and provide them to the farmer along with training in how to use the information. The distance and time involved in visiting each field, taking the readings, translating this into information the cooperator can use and meeting with the cooperator, even on an occasional basis, is substantial. To address this issue, several modifications to the program design were tested throughout the project period, especially in Montana, Idaho and Washington. The programs in these states were able to reduce in-field visits from monthly to bi-monthly or less. The education and promotion portion of the project includes workshops and training in SIS for growers and consultants, attendance at meetings and participation in events where potentially interested growers and consultants will be present, and development of materials for describing and promoting the concept. The testing portion of the program involves recruiting growers willing to have multiple sensors used in their fields in different locations and at different depths. The readings are taken on a regular basis and comparisons between readings are made to assess the consistency and accuracy of the sensors. Table 1 displays the activity goals as detailed in the contracts for each state. In several cases, the contracts specified activities in addition to those listed in the table, but did not specify a goal with respect to the number of activities that were to occur. The table provides the activity goals for which the number of occurrences was specified. These goals are the only ones that can be used to compare progress across the four states. PAGE 3

19 1. Introduction and Background Table 1 SIS VENTURE ACTIVITY GOALS GOAL IDAHO MONTANA OREGON WASHINGTON Annual Field Days (other events not specified in contracts) Total Fields (over 2 years) Sensor Demonstration Fields NTS NTS NTS 4-6 NTS = No Target Specified A key component of the venture concerns increased coordination and cooperation between the four state agencies, the Bureau of Reclamation and other agencies not directly involved in the venture. Quarterly meetings of the SIS implementers facilitate the attainment of this objective; additional coordination is by phone, fax, and throughout the year. Each agency also developed a website to provide information to growers in their areas. VENTURE EVALUATION The Alliance developed a set of criteria for success for each venture. The criteria for the SIS Venture are noted in Figure 1. These criteria drive the evaluation approach. Approach Our evaluation approach includes three major components: ¾Documentation of project history and progress; ¾Assessment of project progress and determination if progress indicators have been achieved or are likely to be achieved; and ¾Estimation of project impacts. PAGE 4

20 1. Introduction and Background Figure 1 Alliance Criteria for Success, SIS Venture 5 Goal: To make scientific irrigation scheduling (SIS) a common practice for irrigators and a profitable service for consultants. Definition of Success: A majority of irrigators with pressurized systems use SIS regularly; an adequate number of trained consultants are available and they profitably offer the service; AgriMet weather stations are supported by user fees. Progress Indicators: An increasing number of agricultural consultants and fieldmen are able to offer SIS as part of their on-farm services without utility aid. Establishment of local networks during the course of the project to maintain the education and technical assistance beyond the end of Alliance support. An increasing number of individual irrigators begin practicing scientific irrigation scheduling on their own (towards an adoption rate of 50% by 2010). Increasing support of AgriMet weather stations from user fees. Data Collection and Analysis 3 The data collection effort for this third Market Progress Evaluation Report (MPER) includes interviews with project agency staff, a review of program monthly report documents, and interviews with manufacturers of soil moisture sensing equipment and related products. Staff Interviews The interviews with program staff and technicians and review of program documents occurred in December 2000, and covered program activities throughout the year. Appendix A provides lists of staff interviewed and a copy of the staff interview guide. The analysis of these data was qualitative. For verification of staff interviews, we relied on the documents and multiple points-of-view to triangulate on those factors of importance. 3 Criteria for Success of Alliance Projects. The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Draft Final September 3, PAGE 5

21 1. Introduction and Background Survey of Soil Moisture Sensing Equipment Manufacturers We identified 25 firms that manufacture and sell soil moisture-sensing equipment and related products, such as data loggers and software for use with the equipment. We surveyed a sample of these companies in January 2001 to obtain their views on market conditions in the Pacific Northwest. We completed interviews with 18 companies. A copy of the survey is provided in Appendix B and a list of firms is provided in Appendix C. Table 2 displays the sample disposition for the 25 firms. Table 2 POPULATION AND CONTACT HISTORY DESCRIBED CATEGORY POPULATION DID NOT MANUFACTURE PRODUCT MESSAGES NOT RETURNED REFUSED COMPLETED 1. Sensor Only (S) Sensor and Other (SO) 16 0 (3) (3) Other Only (O) 6 (1) TOTAL 25 (1) (3) (3) 18 FINDINGS FROM THE FIRST MPER The first MPER addressed progress for the 1998 program year from June to December The SIS Venture was slow to start. Approval from the Alliance came in the fall of 1997, and contracts were signed in February and March Staff had to be recruited and trained, which was completed by May. Thus the program really did not start until the growing season was underway. Recognizing these difficulties, the Alliance program staff agreed in June 1998 that the 1998 effort would be considered a start-up year. The slower-than-desirable start had the effect of truncating field time in Data were not collected up-front and could not be generated after the fact. Contacts were limited and thus the number of growers involved in the demonstrations (though not the number of fields) were less than expected. Nonetheless, the four states did successfully implement the planned activities in PAGE 6

22 1. Introduction and Background Table 3 shows the 1998 SIS achievements. The goals noted in the table are those in the contracts for each agency. In cases where the achievement appears to be below goal (e.g., Oregon field days and Washington demonstration fields), other activities were conducted instead. In Oregon, other meetings with growers were held to compensate for the difficulty in scheduling field days and in Washington sensor demonstration sites were higher than goal. Table SIS ACHIEVEMENTS ACHIEVEMENTS IDAHO MONTANA OREGON WASHINGTON Goal for Field Days (others not consistently specified in contracts) Field Days Achieved 2 2 0* 6 Percent Achieved 100% 100% 0 100% Goal for Total Field Years (over 3 years) Demonstration Fields Achieved Percent Achieved (goal 33% in 1998) 43% 62% 30% 30% Goal for Sensor Demonstration Fields NTS NTS NTS 4-6 Sensor Demonstration Fields Achieved 2 test plots NA NA 4 Percent Achieved NA NA NA 100% NTS = No Target Specified NA = Not Applicable One Field Year = one season of effort in one field * Oregon field staff participated in field days sponsored by local groups Probably most significant to the venture was the need for the four states and the Bureau to fully embrace the idea of what market transformation means for SIS in the Pacific Northwest. This was a frequent topic of discussions between Alliance staff and the SIS state coordinators during the year. By the end of 1998, there was some evidence that the states were embracing a market transformation perspective. Each state had recognized that they needed to develop plans for weaning PAGE 7

23 1. Introduction and Background cooperating growers from two years of free soil moisture readings to being able to do the readings on their own. However, efforts to work with consultants who did or could offer SIS, and formalization of an exit strategy had just begun by December In 1998, we conducted a baseline survey of nonparticipants in the target areas of the venture. The baseline survey findings provided evidence consistent with expectations for the type of growers interested in and practicing SIS. As expected, those with higher value crops and higher pumping costs were more likely to be using SIS on their own. The main surprise was the level of SIS currently being practiced in the IDWR target area, Basin 36. Forty-three percent of the nonparticipants indicated they used SIS in While all of the coordinators believe that SIS will be common practice for 50% of the growers who irrigate in ten years, the major concern from staff was that the Alliance funding period would be too short to have the effect they would like to see. The baseline survey suggested that for Montana in particular, and perhaps also for Oregon, this was a reasonable concern. The degree to which SIS was practiced in the target areas for these two states was low and two to three years of effort might not make a sufficient difference. However, Idaho and Washington were likely to achieve the goal, especially if their programs could be structured to exploit the current levels of awareness and interest in SIS. Specific market barriers to SIS appeared to be knowledge and awareness. Those growers who were more aware also perceived SIS to be costly and time consuming. There did not appear to be any significant technological barrier to SIS, as most growers have computers. However, access to the Internet lagged behind computer ownership. SIS staff noted two other barriers to SIS implementation: ¾The cost of investing in the moisture sensors was high; making it unlikely farmers could fully monitor their fields. ¾Very few farmers actually download ET data from the Public Agriculture Weather System (PAWS) or AgriMet, suggesting either few were aware of the sites and/or few knew how to use the data. Progress Indicators Identified In the First MPER Based on discussions with program staff and review of program documents, at the end of 1998 the SIS Venture appeared to be demonstrating progress relative to the Alliance progress indicators as per the following assessment. PAGE 8

24 1. Introduction and Background Progress Indicators: 1. An increasing number of agricultural consultants and fieldmen are able to offer SIS as part of their on-farm services without utility aid. Some progress was made on this indicator. Oregon and Idaho were actively working with consultants as part of the Alliance project. The Washington coordinator had contacted all consultants in the state as well as other agencies involved in SIS. In Oregon, three consultants had been identified and in Montana, one fertilizer advisor was considering including SIS as a service. 2. Establishment of local networks during the course of the project to maintain the education and technical assistance beyond the end of Alliance support. Initial work to coordinate with other agencies had occurred in all four states. As of the end of 1998, other agencies had not offered support to replace the Alliance funding, although many contributions to the Montana program in the form on in-kind payments had occurred. 3. An increasing number of individual irrigators begin practicing scientific irrigation scheduling on their own (towards an adoption rate of 51% over ten years). Progress was being made on this indicator in all four states. Demonstrations in each state were successful and irrigators planned to continue in However, given the baseline data, we believed that achieving the 51% goal for Montana and Oregon would be more difficult than for Idaho and Washington. All four states also began to work on how to structure the project to wean cooperators off of free readings in order to increase the likelihood that they will do the readings on their own after the Alliance project ends. 4. Increasing support of AgriMet weather stations from user fees. Some progress was made on this indicator. Growers throughout the region were discussing how to support the AgriMet facilities they use, weather station sites were being established, and improvements to the Website were expanding the network and increasing the probability that users would find it valuable. During 1998, Website traffic and downloads increased. PAGE 9

25 1. Introduction and Background Recommendations from the First MPER At the conclusion of the first MPER, we made the following recommendations: ¾The strategy for the SIS Venture is to use extension agents and irrigation field agents to train opinion-leading growers who irrigate. This strategy makes sense, given the growers stated preferences for information sources about irrigation. Training consultants also makes sense, as these are the next most preferred source of information about irrigation. Crop advisors and other agricultural consultants who are not dealers should be targeted for training as irrigation consultants. ¾IDWR should reevaluate its selection of Basin 36 as the target area for the SIS Venture in Idaho. Conditions in Basin 36 are such that SIS is already practiced by 43% of the nonparticipating growers. IDWR should shift the target area to an area of the state with less penetration of SIS and less attractive conditions for SIS, or should adopt a different strategy for expanding SIS to capitalize on the already high adoption rate in Basin 36. One strategy might be to locate field staff in other basins. ¾The states should continue their efforts to develop processes to transition growers to self-implementation of SIS. These include identifying and training consultants in SIS and formalizing an exit strategy for the venture. ¾The cost and time requirements of providing SIS services to farmers is very high. Oregon has addressed this by having staff in three separate areas of the state. This decentralized approach, also used in Montana, appears to be a good model for expanding the reach of SIS demonstration staff. ¾Cost issues for soil measurement are also a concern. The testing of soil moisture monitoring devices should help determine whether dependence on the neutron probe can be reduced. Along with identification of lowercost monitoring devices, devices should be rented or leased to growers to aid them in gaining familiarity with soil moisture monitoring devices prior to purchase. ¾In 1999, the Bureau will develop a business plan for AgriMet. There should be more coordination among agencies on how the AgriMet system can obtain additional funding. PAGE 10

26 1. Introduction and Background ¾The growers in Idaho not using SIS exhibited a greater awareness of SIS and greater resistance to the perceived time and cost aspects of SIS than growers in the other states who are not using SIS. Efforts to address these barriers are important. Possible means include development of software that can be used on computers, hand-calculation slide-rule type tools, and demonstration of low-cost soil moisture measurement devices that are easy to install and use. ¾Internet access is lower than might be expected (47%) given the prevalence of computers (73%) among the growers who responded to the survey. To address this, growers may need training in use of modems, the Internet and dial-up billboards. This type of training could be included in the workshop efforts offered by the SIS programs in each state or coordinated with continuing education programs. Such classes might attract a larger group of growers who want to know how to access information on farm equipment and agricultural products. They could be introduced to SIS during the training on computers. ¾The data currently available for baseline measurement is not sufficient to conduct an analysis of program savings. These data need to be collected and the method for savings calculations needs to be reviewed and approved by SIS Venture implementation staff. FINDINGS FROM THE SECOND MPER The Second Market Progress Evaluation Report covered the period from January to December The second year of the program was a full program year. During the non-growing season from November 1998 through April 1999, and again in November and December 1999, the SIS implementation teams offered training, presentations and classes to educate, inform and attract growers to the SIS effort. The teams conducted demonstrations that effectively met the requirements of their contract in most categories. The overall achievements for the program, relative to contract requirements, are presented in Table 4. By these measures the SIS Venture did well, accomplishing most of the tasks set out for it within less than the three-year contract period. A variety of lessons were learned over the two years. These included the recognition that a one-size fits all approach to irrigation scheduling will not work. Another lesson was recognizing the demonstration approach exposes a small number (less than 200 growers) to a hands-on experience with irrigation scheduling methods and that the delivery is very labor-intensive. As a result, the SIS implementation teams developed tools and PAGE 11

27 1. Introduction and Background approaches that together may be more effective at increasing the adoption of irrigation scheduling practices. Finally, the SIS implementation staff recognized that they were working in a very difficult setting. Growers, who are reluctant to change behaviors in good times, are even more reluctant to change behavior in bad times, and 1999 proved to be another bad economic year for agriculture. While nothing can be done about the economics of agriculture, expectations for increased use of consulting services were modified, as growers are unlikely to invest in these services. Table SIS ACHIEVEMENTS ACHIEVEMENTS IDAHO MONTANA OREGON WASHINGTON Goal for Annual Field Days (other events not specified in contracts) Field Days Achieved Percent Achieved 100% 100% 100% 100% Goal for Total Field Years (over 3 years) Demonstration Fields Achieved Percent Achieved (goal 67% in 1999) 100% 100% 100% 77% Goal for Sensor Demonstration Fields NTS NTS NTS 4-6 Sensor Demonstration Fields Achieved 2 NA NA 6 Percent Achieved NA NA NA 100% NTS = No Target Specified NA = Not Applicable One Field Year = one season of effort in one field * Oregon field staff participated in field days sponsored by local groups PAGE 12

28 1. Introduction and Background Progress Indicators from the Second MPER The evaluation results indicated that assessing the success of the venture by determining if it is meeting a goal of market transformation and increased adoption of SIS methods is different from assessing how well the venture met it's contractual obligations. As noted above, the SIS Venture had met most of it contract goals by the end of The Alliance also established progress indicators of market transformation for the Venture. Looking at these progress indicators, it is equally possible to conclude that the Venture had made moderate progress as that it had completed its task before the venture began. The assessment of moderate progress was made because we found no clear indication that the program was having an impact on the existing rate of change. The conundrum exists because the baseline analysis completed for the second MPER was through an analysis of the Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (FRIS) results for 1994 and This analysis, demonstrated that SIS levels were already increasing at sufficient levels on larger farms that produce energy intensive, high value crops, to meet the Alliance market targets by the year The following presents our assessment for the second MPER of Venture progress relative to the Alliance Progress Indicators: 4 1. An increasing number of agricultural consultants and fieldmen are able to offer SIS as part of their on-farm services without utility aid. There was a slight increase in the number of consultants in Washington, but not in other states. Crop fieldmen in Oregon and Idaho expressed interest in either doing SIS (Idaho) or having their growers learn and use SIS (Oregon). However, consultant opportunities were relatively static at the time. 2. Establishment of local networks during the course of the project to maintain the education and technical assistance beyond the end of Alliance support. Work had progressed in Montana and Washington in this area and Idaho Department of Water Resources was planning to work closely with Idaho University Extension Service in However, a great deal of opportunity remained for working with other groups. 4 Criteria for Success of Alliance Projects. Draft Final. The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. September 3, PAGE 13

29 1. Introduction and Background 3. An increasing number of individual irrigators begin practicing scientific irrigation scheduling on their own (towards an adoption rate of 51% over ten years). An analysis of the 1994 and 1998 US Census Bureau Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (FRIS) indicated that the baseline rate of growth for SIS will achieve over 50% by 2010, demonstrating that the adoption goal has been achieved. However, our discussions with participating growers indicated that they used a high level of SIS at the time of MPER #2, but that about 21% would continue to use SIS and expand its use over the next two years. Such an increase was unlikely to substantially increase the rate of adoption over baseline conditions. Consultant comments supported the FRIS analysis, noting that the natural increase in scheduling would likely lead to a doubling of managed acreage in the next five years. 4. Increasing support of AgriMet weather stations from user fees. Some progress was made on this indicator. During 1999, Website traffic and downloads increased at a much higher level than the increase in computers and Internet access among Pacific Northwest farmers in general. All new weather stations had local support for ongoing maintenance. However, response to efforts to raise support for existing AgriMet stations had been poor and it was unlikely that many would obtain private support in the near future. Recommendations from the second MPER The following recommendations were offered to assist the SIS program in facilitating a market transformation of irrigation scheduling practices. Continue the SIS Program The analysis of FRIS data showed that the target for the SIS program will be achieved with current adoption patterns stimulated by past programs and the economic advantages of SIS for large farms with energy intensive, high value crops. However, the adoption of SIS could be stimulated to exceed this natural progression, especially on medium-sized farms. The constraints on such a transformation are multiple. The major challenge is that current farm economics are poor and growers are reluctant to outsource irrigation scheduling, or to try new methods. Yet, the SIS program has identified the tools that have the capability to transform the market beyond the 51% target set in the original program plan. The SIS program can provide this acceleration if it continues PAGE 14

30 1. Introduction and Background for another three to four years. During this time it would have to enhance the capabilities currently in place in the four states, by using consultant-focused strategies in Idaho and Washington and grower-focused strategies in Oregon and Montana. The following recommendations would facilitate such acceleration: ¾Provide irrigation scheduling training/education for growers to increase their ability to be informed consumers and enhance their capability to manage their water on their own. ¾Use ET as the SIS information tool for self-implementing growers, with occasional soil moisture measurement using feel and appearance. Expand on the development of tools for disseminating ET to growers. ¾Explore how to establish a hardware audit component to address other water management aspects of irrigation and integrate this with the SIS effort to encourage growers to take a system-focused approach to irrigation management. ¾Provide support for development of consultant networking options by supporting and encouraging the expansion of irrigation meetings, schools, or associations. ¾Work closely with existing networks of consultants and various irrigation and agricultural agencies to enhance and support their ability to deliver SIS methods to farmers. Support the consultant environment by only offering soil moisture measurement services for a fee. Learn More about Irrigation Scheduling Technologies and Methods There are irrigation scheduling technologies that are just emerging, some of these technologies hold the key to widespread adoption of SIS methods. Soil moisture measurement needs to be cost efficient for the grower. The agencies have developed a variety of tools to address this need and are going to test them in ¾The project should examine the results of SIS 2000 and the use of new tools such as Irritalk and other ET dissemination strategies and the AM400. If these tools are successful the program should shift to focus on these new tools. ¾Conduct an assessment of irrigation management technologies and examine options to determine if other new approaches might be viable at less cost to growers, if so facilitate their development and adoption. PAGE 15

31 1. Introduction and Background Changes in Program Implementation May Improve Delivery ¾Schedule more field days. Field days, even if the attendance is small, provide the "show me" experience growers need to understand SIS technology. The example of Washington and Oregon suggest that linking programs more closely with Extension Service will help in coordinating field days with commodity/crop days/schools, thus both increasing attendance and providing further credibility to the technology. ¾Explore ways to utilize 4H, Future Farmer of American (FFA), commodity growers group, irrigation districts, soil conservation districts and other existing networks to disseminate ET and AgriMet information. Youth groups may be willing to take on a public service project of distributing ET information to designated public places. Oregon has been successful in identifying key public places. ¾These same networks may provide a means for training growers on computers and Internet access to irrigation data. Young people may be excited at the prospect of applying computers to farming, may be willing to work with growers who need help on computers. ¾Continue to refine and improve web sites and web-based services. Learn from private sector web sites and from each other. Ensure that web sites are more than a brochure (Montana and Washington offer good examples) and actually offer information and services e.g., downloadable pamphlets and documents, actual weather and ET data, guidelines for interpretation of soil moisture testing equipment, contact information, and results of SIS sensor testing studies. ¾Structure the program to meet market needs: In areas where SIS currently has a high level of penetration or presence (Washington and Idaho) support the active consultants while expanding field days with very targeted demonstration sites and SIS education opportunities. Consultants we spoke with would be happy to support field days, set up booths, use their fields as demonstration sites and the like. Where possible, contract demonstration services with existing consultants and seek sponsorship of field days with trade allies (Idaho, Oregon). In areas where SIS has a low penetration or presence work closely with irrigation and conservation districts and Extension Service. Target a limited number of demonstration sites with true opinion PAGE 16

32 1. Introduction and Background leaders and couple multiple field days at the demonstration sites with other agricultural events in the area. Offer a variety of educational events and field days. For all areas, get more articles into the publications farmers read that discuss the results of the sensor testing sites and case studies from working with growers at demonstration sites. Use the results of these studies in presentations and workshops for growers. Develop presentations that target the specific crops common in the area and make this information widely available. ¾Communicate effectively to the grower that SIS activities are demonstrations and not a service; couple all sites with field days. Charge for some services, or provide the farmer with accounting of the value of the service received for free (Consultant providers). ¾Ensure farmers get schedules as quickly as possible, mail is too slow in most cases. Analysis needs to be done on the day of the reading and delivered within a few hours in-person, by phone, fax or computer (Idaho). Ideally, the computer skills of the grower should be encouraged so they can do more of this on their own. ¾Expand the use of signage to draw attention to the demonstration sites. This has been effective in Oregon and will make sure that growers see the project as operating in their area. Response by Venture Organizations to Recommendations The organizations involved in the SIS Venture attempted to address the recommendations following each MPER. Table 5 presents a brief synopsis of each of the recommendations provided in the first and second MPERs. The response by the Venture organizations to the recommendations is provided in the response column. PAGE 17