Integration of the Farm Level - Department for Environment

DELIVERING IMPROVELD

WATER USE EFFICIENCYACROSS THE HURRAY- DARLING BASIN

Milestone 6 Report

Integration of the Farm LevelWater Management Module and

Irrigation Inventory Module

November 2003

Murray- Darling Basin Commission

Strategic Investigations and Education Program

12003

Milestone 6 Report

DELIVERING IMPROVED

WATER USE EFFICIENCYACROSS THE MURRAY - DARLING BASIN

Integration of the Farm Level Water

Management Module and Irrigation Inventory

Module

Tony AdamsIrrigated Crop Management Service, Rural Solutions SA

Dan MeldrumRiver Murray Catchment Water Management Board

Sarah RhodesDepartment for Environment and Heritage

November 2003

< `J^im _ Í1 _

MURRAYDARLINGBASINCOMM6SION

Governmentof South Australia

INTEGRATION OF THE FARM LEVEL WATER MANAGEMENT MODULE AND IRRIGATION INVENTORY MODULE CONTENTS

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. MILESTONES 2

2.1. Trial site reports 2

2.2. Riverland Field day display 2

2.3. Preliminary water use efficiency results 3

2.4. Integrate the Farm Level Water Management Module and Irrigation Inventory Module 7

2.5. Agreed Presentation Plan to Industry and Stakeholders 8

APPENDIX 1: PRESENTATION PLAN TO INDUSTRY AND STAKEHOLDERS 9

1. Identify a single point of contact for WUE M &R package 9

2. Presentations targeted to specific audiences 9

3. Pdfs of all reports and documentation 10

4. Grower Testimonials and Demos 10

5. Canned Demo Of Tools In Action 10

6. Sample Outputs and Analyses 10

7. Glossy 4 -page fact sheet/pamphlet 10

8. Presentation Timeframes and Audiences 11

1

1

1

1

INTEGRATION OF THE FARM LEVEL WATER MANAGEMENT MODULE AND IRRIGATION INVENTORY MODULE CONTENTS

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Annual irrigation applied and deep percolation 3

Figure 2: Annual irrigation applied and field application efficiency [(I- DP) /I] 4

Figure 3: Annual irrigation applied and crop water use efficiency [ETc /(I +Pe)] 4

Figure 4: Difference between field application efficiency and crop water use efficiency 5

Figure 5: Dollars per hectare 6

Figure 6: Changes in Field Application Efficiency from 2001 -02 to 02 -03 irrigation seasons 7

Figure 7: Data pathways for the irrigation reporting and evaluation system prototype software 8

INTEGRATION OF THE FARM LEVEL WATER MANAGEMENT MODULE AND IRRIGATION INVENTORY MODULE INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION

The project team provided presentations to the Project Steering Committee (PSC) convened

21/11/2003 at the Mildura Sunraysia Horticultural Centre on activities performed to meet the

obligations described under Milestone 6. Activities described under Milestone 6 include:

Presented reports for trial sites to participating irrigators and relevant stakeholders

Displayed WUE package at the Riverland Field day

Integrate the Farm Level Water Management Module and Irrigation Inventory Module into

generic water use efficiency and reporting package and report preliminary water useefficiency results to the project steering committee.

Agreed presentation plan to industry and stakeholders with the PSC.

This report documents the presentation of the trial site reports to irrigators and relevantstakeholders and describes the content of the trial site report. The WUE package was displayed at

the Riverland Field day and is discussed in this report. A detailed study of the integrated FLWMM

water use efficiency results was undertaken, with various water use efficiency indicators described

in the content of this report. Finally, the agreed presentation plan to industry and stakeholders is

discussed.

The PSC approved the completion of obligations described under Milestone 6.

-1-

INTEGRATION OF THE FARM LEVEL WATER MANAGEMENT MODULE AND IRRIGATION INVENTORY MODULE MILESTONES

2. MILESTONES

2.1. Trial site reports

Written trial site reports were provided to participating irrigators in October and November 2003.

The reports contained:

Aerial photographs showing planting and irrigation valve unit boundaries

A range of water use efficiency indicators displayed in tables and graphs

Water use efficiency indicators calculated to irrigation valve unit level and summarised for

each planting variety in the study area

Graphs of irrigation applied on the trial site relative to reference crop and cropevapotranspiration

Graphs showing irrigation events rainfall and soil water monitoring readings for the

irrigation season

Simulated changes in soil water content in the crop root zone based on irrigation events,

rainfall and daily crop evapotranspiration calculated from climatic data and cropcoefficients

A tabular summary of irrigation dates, hours, water meter readings, irrigation shift and

valve unit details

Tables showing crop information and irrigations system specifications

2.2. Riverland Field day display

The Irrigated Crop Management Service manned a double site within the PIRSA tent at the

Riverland field days in September 2003. The display comprised of at least six laminated Al

posters presenting the Irrigation inventory Module and Farm Level Water Management Module.

Several A3 laminated photographs depicting field activities performed on the project trial sites.

An automated PowerPoint display complemented the posters and photographs. ICMS consultants

were available to answer any inquiries and explain the project.


2.3. Preliminary water use efficiency results

Preliminary water use efficiency results for 2002/03 irrigation season were included in the trial

site reports provided to participating irrigators. Irrigators provided irrigation records. Results

were generated and graphed by the ICMS using excel. Individual trial site results were compiled

to summarise results for the project steering committee.

Figure 1 displays a large range in the in the irrigation depth applied to each trial site. The

associated deep percolation below the crop root zone generally increases as irrigation depth

increases. However, it is important to note the exceptions such as site b and e. Site b appliedapproximately 100mm more irrigation water without a corresponding increase in deep

percolation.

1300 -

1200

1100

1000

900

800m

m 700E= 600

500

400

300

200

100

0

I Imm *DDmm

ad m d w h I a e p ae j k z aa b g o t ag c s ab f u r vGrower site

Figure 1: Annual irrigation applied and deep percolation

Figure 2 displays a general trend of declining field application efficiency with increasing irrigation

application. However, notable exceptions occur such as sites b and c. It is also worth noting that

site "ag" received 960mm and remained relatively efficient (FAE > 80 %). Irrigation management per

irrigation event plays an important role in overall efficiency.


200019001800 -17001600150014001300 -

120011001000900800 +-700 t600500400300200100

0

Imm FAE

ad m d w h I a e p ae j k z aa b g o t ag c s ab f u r v

Grower site

0.9

0.8

0.7a).

0.6 ac

0.5ocoU

0.4 áco

0.3 d

0.2

0.1

Figure 2: Annual irrigation applied and field application efficiency [(I- DP) /I]

Figure 3 shows a comparison between irrigation depth applied and Crop Water Use Efficiency

indices, which use a different method of calculating water use efficiency compared to Field

Application Efficiency.

1300

1200

1100

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0ad m d w h I a e p ae k z aa b g o t ag c s ab f u r v

Grower site

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 3: Annual irrigation applied and crop water use efficiency [ETc /(I +Pe)]

-4-

1INTEGRATION OF THE FARM LEVEL WATER MANAGEMENT MODULE AND IRRIGATION INVENTORY MODULE MILESTONES

1

Figure 4 shows considerable variability between different methods of calculating water use

efficiency. It highlights the need to understand the method used to calculate indicators and

subsequent affects on results. Otherwise comparison against inappropriate target values and other

indicators may cause misleading conclusions. For example, if water management agencies use 85%

efficiency as a target for evaluating water use efficiency, 64% of trial site are greater than 85% using

Crop Water Use Efficiency (CWUE), but only 35% are using Field Application Efficiency (FAE).

Average CWUE is approximately 30% greater than average FAE.

1.4 1400FAE

'1.2 . .----- 120

1.1

ú 1 100 = 'C Tü 0.9 c-_ _____ 85%11m 0.8 80 E

_m

IÓ Qt

I 0.6 60 ma m

IO 0.5 3To óLL 0.4 40 V

0.3

0.2 20 ,0.1

O i Dy aa r ab of v f u o c t s e g ag p ae b j z d k w I a m h ad

Figure 4: Difference between field application efficiency and crop water use efficiency

In this example, CWUE is based on annual irrigation applied (determined from meter readings)

relative to crop evapotranspiration (calculated from average long term Epan and crop factors). This

fails to determine deep percolation that occurs during individual irrigation events. The FAE

calculates deep percolation for each irrigation event and deducts it from irrigation applied. The

result is divided by the irrigation applied. Changes in soil water content in the crop root zone are

simulated using cumulative daily crop evapotranspiration (ETc) plus individual irrigation and rainfall

events.

tFigure 5 displays gross value of grapes per hectare. The returns per hectare relative to annual

irrigation applied are extremely variable. However, the graph indicates high irrigation application

rates are not essential nor a key determinate in achieving above average returns. Trial sites

b,d,i,m,w,z and aa are examples where above average returns were achieved with below average '


irrigation application per year. Except for one, these sites achieved gross returns greater than

$1000 /ha with less than 800mm /yr of irrigation. This supports the view that profitable returns are

dependant on many factors other than total irrigation depth applied. Optimising individual

irrigation events, varietal selection, canopy and general agronomic management, marketing and

contract strategies are some examples.

1800

1700

1600

1500

1400

1300

1200EE 1100

ó 1000900

=800

To

= 700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Imm +-5/Ha

m d w I a e p ae z aa b g o c s ab f u r v

Grower siteY

18000

17000

16000

15000

14000

13000

12000

11000

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

Figure 5: Dollars per hectare

Figure 6 reveals changes in field application efficiency (FAE) between 2001 /02 and 2002/03.

Considerable improvement in FAE occurred at 5 sites. Irrigators adopted soil water monitoring with

diviners at two of these trial sites. A third started considering soil water monitoring results from the

project into his irrigation management decisions and generally monitored things in more detail. The

fourth irrigator became aware of the need to monitor Spring irrigations carefully due to the previous

seasons data revealing large drainage events during the previous Spring. One site showed a large

decline in FAE (y). The decline seems to be due to imprecise irrigation record keeping, which did

not accurately track irrigation valve units against water meter readings.


1.00

0.90

r-. 0.80EC

O FAE 01l02

1

FAE 02/03

0.70

Tu0.60

u

W 0.50o

0.40Ó.a.

< 0.30v7.)

0.20

0.10

0.00

e c o af v aa f du t s g b y ae z a w I p j h m k ad

Figure 6: Changes in Field Application Efficiency from 2001 -02 to 02 -03 irrigation seasons

2.4. Integrate the Farm Level Water Management Module and Irrigation Inventory Module

Integrating the Irrigation Inventory Module and Farm Level Water Management has been achieved by

developing a methodology to transfer key information between the two software tools. Import and

export functions between the prototype software tools minimises duplication of data entry and

enhances usefulness as well as reporting capacity of each tool. Considerable effort has been

invested in developing consistent codes and data validation lookup tables.

The data capture screens, storage tables and code have been written for the Farm Level Water

Management Module irrigation recording and evaluation system (IRES) prototype software and is

currently being tested. The data capture screens and methodology were presented to and approved

by the Project Steering Committee.


Data Sources

UserSpecifiedProperty

Data

Regional IIT

DistrictIrrigationData base

FieldSurvey

UsersIrrigation

EventRecords

J

I k +0,1 m n

. . . rs __. 1

ie.:

IRES Interface

WPM.* Ì a;s__-:

Best practice ..^water managementfor Rìverland irrigators

t riv ri L..cc v401 t m7,iÿ.4tt ihuf.p.r'}t: ..-. ........... ... .... ..,.iingiüi¡-..

IRES Database

Database TablesEg Crops, Rootstocks, Emitter types, Irrigation events,

Patch and Valve data, Rainfall.

Data Export

Regional IIT

DistrictIrrigationDatabase

ReportGenerator

Figure 7: Data pathways for the irrigation reporting and evaluation system prototype software

2.5. Agreed Presentation Plan to Industry and Stakeholders

A presentation plan for the communication outcomes of the project was compiled. This plan

includes compiling presentations targeted to specific audiences and generating .pdf files of the

reports, manuals and standards produced throughout the project. Demonstrations of the IIT, WUE

Module and FLWMM will be put together to provide standards demonstration of the tools in action.

Sample outputs and analyses of the data collected using these tools will be included in the final

presentation toolkit as well as a project fact sheet. The complete presentation plan can be viewed

in Appendix 1.

INTEGRATION OF THE FARM LEVEL WATER MANAGEMENT MODULE AND IRRIGATION INVENTORY MODULE APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 1: PRESENTATION PLAN TO INDUSTRY AND STAKEHOLDERS

CD

1. Identify a single point of contact for WUE M&R package

One stop shop may be backed up by initial SLA for support and /or Train the

Trainer program

2. Presentations targeted to specific audiences

Separate slide shows

a) General concepts of entire package for policy type audience

(possible voiceover)

Limitation of scale for regulatory approach

Regulatory approach vs targeted assistance programs

Cost /benefit analysis (vs alternative methods)

Linkages to basin -wide reporting systems

b) GIS tools explained in detail with links to IRES briefly explained

for GIS professionals and Irrigation professionals working in

cooperation with GIS bods.

Data management advantages

Multi -use database

In built coding standards

Ongoing data management

Update programs (central point of contact)

c) IRES (FLWMM) explained in detail with links to District Irrigation

DB and IIT /WUEM explained briefly for Irrigation professionals

and GIS professionals working in cooperation with Irrigation

bods.

Day to day adaptive management of drainage past

the rootzone

Accuracy and variety of indices

Incentive programs for managing salinity impacts

Res

INTEGRATION OF THE FARM LEVEL WATER MANAGEMENT MODULE AND IRRIGATION INVENTORY MODULE APPENDIX 1

CD

d) Nuts and bolts presentation of entire package should also be

made available for presentations to community groups, industry

group reps and environmental /irrigation managers working for

state agencies or catchment boards. (possible voiceover)

3. Pdfs of all reports and documentation

Milestone Reports

Tool Manuals

Required Table Import formats

Crop Survey Handbook

Crop Standard

Crop Standard LUTs for ANZLUC and ALUM Classifications

4. Grower Testimonials and Demos

Testimonials from irrigators at both ends of the performancemanagement spectrum to highlight improvements and integrationinto business

Video footage of irrigators and sites in action with variouscomponents of the toolkit

5. Canned Demo Of Tools In Action

IIT & DIDb structure (possible voiceover)

WUE module (textual accompaniment)

IRES (FLWMM) (possible voiceover)

6. Sample Outputs and Analyses

Mock ups of:

Maps

Charts (DIDb & IRES)

Property Plans

7. Glossy 4 -page fact sheet/pamphlet

WUE M &R package outlined in similar style to CSIRO for Planning SA

project factsheets

Res

INTEGRATION OF THE FARM LEVEL WATER MANAGEMENT MODULE AND IRRIGATION INVENTORY MODULE APPENDIX t

8. Presentation Timeframes and Audiences

Promotional CDs to be sent to:

all Irrigation Authorities, CMAs ft Community Groups with horticulture across the basin

all State Agencies involved with NRM

Federal Agencies such as MS

National stakeholders such as Horticulture Australia, wine producers and other hort.commodity groups

Targeted presentations to potential adoptees

12003 Investors Forum Adelaide Dec 10 2003

IM conference Adelaide Early 2004; WUE M&R package

ICID 2nd Asian Regional Conference Moama Early 2004; WUE MFtR package

DPI Victoria /GM Water Tatura Mid 2004; GIS £t Irrigation

DPI Victoria /Sunraysia Water Authorities Irymple Mid 2004; Irrigation & GIS

NSW Ag /Murrumbidgee Irrigation /Hort Council Griffith Mid 2004; WUE MER package

SA Ag Bureau Contact Kevin P for Riverland group. SA Murray Irrigators (Mike Vegter)

SRW /FMIT Sunraysia Irrigation Lindsey Leake (sec), winegrape growers, dried fruits,table grape groups, citrus growers (PM)

WMI /NSW ag (JG) WMI DLWC LWMPs Howard Jones (chair LWMP), Mark King (chairCMA), ME & Bill Tatnell.

Documents

Integration of the Farm Level - Department for Environment