IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea25/361068.html

Estimating Producers’ Groundwater Pumping Costs in the San Joaquin Valley

Author

Listed:
  • Hurley, Sean P.

Abstract

This paper presents a stylized model for the interaction of a water agency regulating a producer’s usage of water. The model motivates the importance of regulators understanding the producer’s groundwater pumping costs when making policy decisions. A model is developed for estimating the groundwater pumping costs in the San Joaquin Valley of California. This model is based on data from California’s Well Completion Report database. The groundwater cost model assumes that wells use electric well pumps and that producers are charged based on a time-of-use fee schedule. To estimate groundwater pumping costs, 12 scenarios are investigated to simulate different types of crops. Based on these scenarios, Stanislaus County has the lowest average groundwater pumping costs at $71 per acre-foot for an operation that only pumps water at maximum capacity in the non-peak winter season. The highest groundwater pumping cost is associated with Kings County at $578 per acre-foot. This estimate is based on a producer only pumping water at maximum capacity during peak summer months. An estimate was made of the per kWh charge for water under the 12 different scenarios. The cheapest electricity rate occurred in Madera County with a cost of $0.2544 per kWh. This cost is associated with a well pump being operated at maximum capacity during daylight hours for a winter crop. The most expensive electricity was $0.8522 per kWh for Kern County for a summer crop where the water is pumped only during peak electricity pricing.

Suggested Citation

  • Hurley, Sean P., 2025. "Estimating Producers’ Groundwater Pumping Costs in the San Joaquin Valley," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 361068, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea25:361068
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.361068
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/361068/files/75293_94179_105300_AAEA2025GroundwaterEstimation_Article3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.361068?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margriet F. Caswell & David Zilberman, 1986. "The Effects of Well Depth and Land Quality on the Choice of Irrigation Technology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(4), pages 798-811.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chatterjee, Diti & Dinar, Ariel & González-Rivera, Gloria, 2019. "Impact of Agricultural Extension on Irrigated Agriculture Production and Water Use in California," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2019.
    2. Boyer, Christopher N. & Larson, James A. & Roberts, Roland K. & McClure, Angela T. & Tyler, Donald D., 2014. "The impact of field size and energy cost on the profitability of supplemental corn irrigation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 61-69.
    3. Alain Ayong Le Kama & Agnès Tomini, 2012. "Water Conservation versus Soil Salinity Control," Working Papers hal-04141151, HAL.
    4. Khanna, Madhu & Zilberman, David, 1997. "Incentives, precision technology and environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 25-43, October.
    5. Fishman, Ram & Giné, Xavier & Jacoby, Hanan G., 2023. "Efficient irrigation and water conservation: Evidence from South India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    6. Louis Sears & Joseph Caparelli & Clouse Lee & Devon Pan & Gillian Strandberg & Linh Vuu & C. -Y. Cynthia Lin Lawell, 2018. "Jevons’ Paradox and Efficient Irrigation Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-12, May.
    7. Zhang, Biao & Fu, Zetian & Wang, Jieqiong & Zhang, Lingxian, 2019. "Farmers’ adoption of water-saving irrigation technology alleviates water scarcity in metropolis suburbs: A case study of Beijing, China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 349-357.
    8. Nicolas E. Quintana Ashwell & Jeffrey M. Peterson, 2016. "The Impact of Irrigation Capital Subsidies on Common-Pool Groundwater Use and Depletion: Results for Western Kansas," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(03), pages 1-22, September.
    9. Khanna, Madhu, 2021. "Digital Transformation for a Sustainable Agriculture: Opportunities and Challenges," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315052, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Uri Shani & Yacov Tsur & Amos Zemel & David Zilberman, 2009. "Irrigation production functions with water‐capital substitution," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(1), pages 55-66, January.
    11. de Fraiture, Charlotte & Perry, C. J., 2007. "Why is agricultural water demand unresponsive at low price ranges?," IWMI Books, Reports H040602, International Water Management Institute.
    12. Linda Steinhübel & Johannes Wegmann & Oliver Mußhoff, 2020. "Digging deep and running dry—the adoption of borewell technology in the face of climate change and urbanization," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(5), pages 685-706, September.
    13. Joseph Cooper & Giovanni Signorello, 2008. "Farmer Premiums for the Voluntary Adoption of Conservation Plans," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 1-14.
    14. Luwen Cui & Weiwei Wang, 2023. "Factors Affecting the Adoption of Digital Technology by Farmers in China: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-14, October.
    15. Farhed Shah & David Zilberman & Erik Lichtenberg, 1995. "Optimal combination of pollution prevention and abatement policies: The case of agricultural drainage," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(1), pages 29-49, January.
    16. Blend Frangu & Jennie Sheerin Popp & Michael Thomsen & Arben Musliu, 2018. "Evaluating Greenhouse Tomato and Pepper Input Efficiency Use in Kosovo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, August.
    17. Bruce Larson & George Frisvold, 1996. "Uncertainty over future environmental taxes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(4), pages 461-471, December.
    18. Goodhue, Rachael E., 1997. "Production Control and Production Contracts: Why Do Integrators Control Inputs?," 1997 Annual Meeting, July 13-16, 1997, Reno\ Sparks, Nevada 35908, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    19. Xie, Yang & Zilberman, David, 2014. "The Economics of Water Project Capacities and Conservation Technologies," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 169820, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Negri, Donald H. & Brooks, Douglas H., "undated". "The Determinants Of Irrigation Technology Choice," 1988 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Knoxville, Tennessee 270403, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea25:361068. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.