Existing Problem: No Current Irrigation Scheduling Method

Tensiometer Method The majority of irrigation systems do not use a consistent irrigation scheduling method. Typically, irrigation is the last "crop need" met following nutrients and pest control. Many crops are not receiving as much water as the crop actually needs, or irrigation may be started late. Often crop yields are lowered before the onset of wilting symptoms. In some cases, the crops are being over-irrigated to reduce the potential for drought-related stress (high value crops in particular). Effective timing of water maximizes return on investments in seed, fertilizers, land and other inputs.

Water Conserving Practice: Irrigation Scheduling with a Class A Evaporation Pan

¹Potential No. of Irrigation Systems Affected	11,700
²Estimated Water Savings (%)	0 (-10 - +10)
Average Year Water Savings (million gal.)	0
³Dry Year Water Savings (million gal.)	0
Est. Cost of Full Implementation on Avg. System ($, 1998)	$1,500
Statewide Costs for Full Implementation ($, 1998)	$17,550,000
Cost / Unit of Water Saved in Average Year ($, 1998 / million gal.)	0

Estimated water savings are between -10 and 10 percent. Improved irrigation scheduling on many crops may actually indicate more water is needed by the crop. On the average, the estimated water savings are about 0%.

An estimated 11,700 systems could benefit from an irrigation scheduling method. The average cost for implementation is about $1500 which includes a pan and a hook gauge (for accurately reading the water level).

Although this recommendation does not achieve water savings, the benefits of more efficient water application can be directly tied to improved and/or more consistent crop yields. In addition, the potential for improved water and chemical management can benefit water quality, reduce potential runoff, and reduce potential leaching of nutrients and chemicals.

Source: Evans, R.O., K.A. Harrison, J.E. Hook, C.V. Privette, W.I. Segars, W.B. Smith, D.L. Thomas, and A.W. Tyson. 1998. Irrigation conservation practices appropriate for the Southeastern United States. D.L. Thomas (ed.) Geologic Survey Project Report No. 32. Georgia Geologic Survey, Georgia Department Of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, GA 30334. 43p.