Holistically valuing public investments in agricultural water conservation

Multiple Inlet Rice Irrigation (MIRI) reduces water use and production costs for Arkansas rice producers. While the water savings from MIRI have been analyzed experimentally, the overall holistic benefits of MIRI rice have yet to be quantified compared to cascade flooded rice. As such, this study evaluates the economic and environmental benefits of MIRI resulting from publicly funded research, in this case the Rice Checkoff, to continue improvements in agricultural sustainability. MIRI acreage associated with public funding from the Rice Checkoff for 2002–2018 were identified by county using producer surveys. Based on MIRI acreage, we estimate cost savings, the future value of water conserved, and reductions in environmental impacts comparing cascade and MIRI rice irrigation. Cost savings range from a low of $138,230 in 2002 to a high of $825,535 in 2008, with a total of $8,655,687 for all years. We estimated the total in situ value of conserved water from MIRI adoption associated with the Rice Checkoff to be $11,133,069. If future funding decisions for MIRI were only made based on cost savings it would underestimate the average total yearly benefits by 128%. Additionally, a Life Cycle Assessment was used to compare single score ecosystem impacts for cascade versus MIRI flooded rice based on 1 kg of rice produced. The single score, calculated as the externalized environmental cost for producing one kg of rice using cascade versus MIRI-flooded rice was estimated at $0.4066 and $0.3814, respectively; a reduction of $0.0252 per kg of MIRI-produced rice. Finally, a benefit-cost ratio of 79:1 was calculated after accounting for savings, in situ value, and reduced environmental impacts provided by MIRI adoption due to the Rice Checkoff. This study provides stakeholders a holistic picture of the economic impacts and environmental benefits provided by water conservation funded projects such as MIRI in Arkansas.