ABSTRACT
Casting irrigation in the context of land conservation as Frederick does is an interesting idea. How useful it is, I am not sure. It provides one possible framework for understanding the magnitude of irrigation’s contribution to U.S. agriculture. This is worthwhile. However, from a policy perspective it represents a scenario or eventuality that is most unlikely. What is provided is an estimate of additional cropland acreage that would be required to produce the same level of agricultural output as in 1977 but with zero irrigation. Surely zero irrigation is an unlikely prospect. However, if this is granted, then the relevance of attaining the 1977 output level becomes troublesome. Under zero irrigation, the appropriate level of U.S. agricultural output and its composition would change, perhaps dramatically. Finally, given the assumptions of zero irrigation and no change in desired output, the most cost-effective means for making up the output shortfall is not likely to involve the addition of 31 million new cropland acres. New import-export configurations, reserve stocks for critical agricultural commodities, and induced innovation in dryland technology on existing cropland acres are among the perhaps more likely and efficient solutions (outcomes).
