The high cost of irrigation was the primary reason Alabama farmers chose not to embrace irrigation. Installation expenses were the most commonly cited barrier, especially among large farm operators and those already familiar with irrigation systems. For many farmers without irrigation, the upfront investment was unaffordable, while even farmers with existing systems viewed additional costs as a significant constraint.

In Alabama, farmers expressed hesitation to adopt irrigation due to the lack of nearby farms successfully using irrigation.  This was a contrast to other states, such as Georgia, where irrigation spread more rapidly due to stronger financial incentives, reduced risk through early adopters, and lending practices that encouraged irrigation.

The survey showed that while farmers had profitability concerns, cost-sharing programs and tax incentives increased the economic appeal of investing in irrigation.

The Molnar survey results demonstrated that there was a lot of uncertainty among farmers about the economic advantages of irrigation. Almost half of the survey respondents indicated that they felt the returns from adding irrigation infrastructure would not cover installation costs.  Additionally, they felt that irrigation operating costs were too risky.

Long term economic analyses over multi-decade periods using modeling tools and cumulative profit tools are helpful to demonstrate that there are clear financial benefits to irrigation.  Making long-term and cumulative profit tools—along with information on cost-share programs and tax incentives—readily available through the Alabama Extension services could help farmers better understand the economic benefits of irrigation and support more informed decision-making.

Locating and accessing water for irrigation in Alabama is a concern for farmers, and almost half of the survey respondents cited that the lack of a reliable water source was a barrier for adopting irrigation.  This was especially common for medium to large size operations.

Some of Alabama’s most productive agricultural land lacks readily accessible water supplies.  In some areas ample groundwater reserves for sustainable irrigation are located in deep aquifers that would require expensive drilling. In addition, limited riparian rights to lakes and rivers have restricted farmers’ ability to use the state’s abundant surface water resources for irrigation.

A significant amount of Alabama farmland is operated as rented lands. Nearly 30 percent of survey respondents cited this as a barrier to irrigation, with large farm operators most likely to identify this concern. Absentee landowners are often not as interested in improving farm operations, and farmers are often reluctant to invest in irrigation on land they do not own.  Additionally, some landowners have enrolled their farmland in conservation programs, further reducing their incentive to irrigate.

Some farmers have addressed this issue by negotiating longer-term leases or shared investment in wells or infrastructure, or agreements that allow irrigation equipment to be relocated if a lease ends.

As Alabama’s row crop agriculture declined, less young farmers were staying in the farming business.  In addition, making long-term investments in irrigation infrastructure was not always a priority to older farmers who were trying to preserve their farms in the short-term.

The lack of three-phase power is an issue not directly addressed in the survey, but it should be discussed.  Adequate electric power is needed to run the electric motors and pumps on a center pivot irrigation system.  In many rural areas electrical service is often limited to single phase power, while most commercial motors require three-phase power.