Irrigation Science (2020) 38:577–591

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-020-00688-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Downside risk of aquifer depletion

Mani Rouhi Rad1   · A. Araya2 · Zachary T. Zambreski3

Received: 4 December 2019 / Accepted: 4 July 2020 / Published online: 15 July 2020
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Groundwater aquifers support agricultural production in many parts of the world. Rapidly declining aquifer levels can have
significant negative implications for the sustainability of irrigated agriculture. In this paper, we study the effects of declining
well capacities on the downside risk of irrigated agricultural production, defined as the standard deviation of profits that are
below the average profit. We simulate seasonal crop yield and profits for three different crops, namely, maize, wheat, and
grain sorghum and five different soil types for Finney County in Kansas which overlies the high plains aquifer under current
climatic conditions and under the projected climate change scenario with RCP4.5. We find that lower well capacities not
only result in lower average profits for all three crops, but they also result in an increase in downside risk. However, we also
find that there is significant heterogeneity in downside risk across different crops and soil types. Our results highlight the
importance of downside risk for the sustainability of irrigated production under declining aquifer levels and climate change.

Keywords  Downside risk · Production risk · Aquifer depletion · Climate change · High Plains Aquifer · Ogallala

Introduction In this paper, we examine the effects of declining well

Groundwater aquifers support agricultural production in
many parts of the world. Rapidly declining aquifer levels
can have significant implications for the sustainability of
irrigated agriculture in these regions. A major concern about
aquifer depletion is the increase in the risk of irrigated pro-
duction (Peterson et al. 2003; Foster et al. 2015). As aquifer
levels decline, well capacity (or well yield), which is the
rate that groundwater can be extracted from a well, declines
(Hecox et al. 2002; Brookfield 2016). Declining well capaci-
ties limit the ability of a producer to apply irrigation during
the critical stages of the growing season, increasing the risk
of lower crop yields.
* Mani Rouhi Rad
rrad@clemson.edu
1
Department of Agricultural Sciences, Clemson University,
Clemson, SC, USA
2
Department of Agronomy, and Feed the Future
Innovation Lab for Collaborative Research on Sustainable
Intensification, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS,
USA
3
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University,
Throckmorton Hall, Plant Sciences Center, Manhattan,
KS 66506, USA
capacities on the downside risk of irrigated agricultural
production. Downside risk is the extent of losses from an
uncertain outcome. When facing uncertain outcomes, sev-
eral studies argue that individuals often weight losses more
than the gains (Menezes et al. 1980; Bigman 1996). While
the downside risk of agricultural production has been con-
sidered within the literature (Antle 1987, 2010; Di Falco
and Chavas 2006; Di Falco and Veronesi 2014; Groom et al.
2008), no study, to our knowledge, has focused on the rela-
tionship between aquifer depletion and downside risk.
To study the downside risk of aquifer depletion, we
simulate seasonal crop production for three different crops
(maize, wheat, and grain sorghum) and five different soil
types for Finney County in Kansas which overlies the
High Plains Aquifer (HPA) for two 30-year periods using
the Decision Support System for Agro-technology Trans-
fer–Cropping System Model (DSSAT) crop growth model
(Hoogenboom et al. 2017). Finney County is one of the most
intensively irrigated agricultural regions overlying the HPA
and has experienced significant depletion in the past 50 years
(Rouhi Rad et al. 2020b). We explicitly consider irrigation
frequency, which is the number of days that each irrigation
event takes, as a variable that can affect crop yield. Then, by
linking well capacity to irrigation frequency, we develop the
distribution of yields for three crops produced on different

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

578
soil types for varying well capacities. We simulate crop
yields for a historical baseline scenario (1980–2009) and a
climate change scenario (2070–2099) using Representative
Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5.
We find that lower well capacities not only result in
lower average profitability for all three of the crops consid-
ered in this study, they also result in an increase in down-
side risk, i.e., we observe an increase in the frequency of
lower profits for lower well capacities compared to higher
well capacities. However, we also find that there is signifi-
cant heterogeneity in downside risk across different crops
and soil types. For example, while the downside risk of
growing maize is sensitive to declining well capacities
under the baseline climatic conditions, downside risk of
growing wheat is relatively less sensitive to changes in
well capacities.
Our results have major implications for irrigated produc-
tion under aquifer depletion. First, we find that under declin-
ing aquifer levels, irrigated production can become riskier.
Considering increasing downside production risk along with
risk averse producers can increase the benefits of aquifer
management. Furthermore, with lower well capacities and
drier climates, ceteris paribus, producing crops, such as
maize, that are more profitable under current well capaci-
ties and climatic conditions, become riskier relative to other
crops, such as wheat.
We contribute to the literature in two ways. First, water
management and economics literature has shown that a
decline in well capacities affect irrigation decisions and prof-
itability (Rouhi Rad et al. 2020a; Foster et al. 2014; Manning
and Suter 2019; Hrozencik et al. 2017). Studies also show
that risk aversion can affect irrigation decisions (Groom
et al. 2008; Foster et al. 2014). Other studies show the role of
groundwater in reducing the uncertainty of irrigated produc-
tion (Tsur and Graham-Tomasi 1991; Tsur 1990). However,
limited well capacities can also result in an increase in the
frequency of lower crop yields, i.e., downside production
risk. No previous study, to our knowledge, has considered
the effect of aquifer depletion on downside risk due to lower
well capacities.
Second, we consider the effect of both aquifer depletion
and climate change on production risk for different crop
types and soil types. While previous studies have considered
the interactions between aquifer levels and climate change
(Fishman 2012, 2018; Foster et al. 2015; Zaveri et al. 2016),
to our knowledge, no previous study has considered the
change in downside risk of aquifer depletion under climate
change. Moreover, our comparison of the downside risk for
different crops provides insight into the risk level of differ-
ent crop production systems under lower aquifer levels and
climate change.
13
Irrigation Science (2020) 38:577–591
Downside risk
Crop production is an uncertain process, and harvested crop
yields often depend on specific realizations of rainfall and
temperature in a given year. Thus, interannual yield vari-
ability can be large with the realized crop yield in some
years above the average historical yield and below the aver-
age yield in other years. Agricultural producers are shown
to be risk-averse (Antle 1987). Behavioral economics and
finance literatures also show that most individuals place a
greater value on losses than gains of uncertain outcomes
(Harlow 1991; Ang et al. 2006). Antle (1987) shows that
agricultural producers can also be downside risk averse in
their preferences. As a result, understanding the changes in
the downside risk of agricultural production with respect to
aquifer depletion is critical. Following the finance literature
(Estrada 2007), we use semivariance as a measure of the
downside risk. Semivariance is especially a good measure
of downside riskiness when the underlying distribution is
asymmetric (Estrada 2007). semivariance of profit, Σiy , for
crop i under well capacity y is defined as:
√
Σiy = E(xiyt − E(xiyt ))2 ∀xiyt ≤ E(xiyt ) (1)
where E is the expectation operator and Xiyt is the profit out-
come for crop i under well capacity y in year t. Semivariance
is the same as the standard deviation, except that it is defined
based on profits that are below the average profit for crop i
under well capacity y. Σiy shows the extent of the losses due
to unfavorable weather conditions.
Simulation
In this section, we describe the simulation process. In doing
so, we first describe the properties of the five different soil
types in our study region that we consider in this paper.
Next, we describe the methodology for simulating crop yield
and water use using DSSAT. We then describe our climate
projections.
Soil types and crops
We consider five different soil types. We provide shorter
IDs for these soils (in parentheses). The soils considered
in this study are Richfield silt loam (KS01), Valent fine
sand (KS02), Beeler silt loam (KS03), Manter fine sandy
loam (KS04), and Ulysses silt loam (KS05). These soil
types can be categorized into two main groups: silt loams
and fine sands. As a result, in the main analysis, we only
consider the Richfield silt loam (KS01) and Valent fine
sand soils (KS02). Together KS01 and KS02 cover more
Irrigation Science (2020) 38:577–591 579
Fig. 1  Time trend of planted area for the three crops considered in
this study
than 55% of the irrigated area within Finney County.
These two soils also cover the heterogeneity of soil types
within the county, i.e., silt loams and sandy soils. They
are important for both irrigated and dryland production
(Harner 1965). While the Richfield silt loam has high
water holding capacity, the Valent fine sand soils have
lower water holding capacities. Table 1 presents the physi-
cal characteristics of these soils.1
The three crops that are considered in this study are the
main crops produced in Finney county. Area planted for
maize, sorghum, and winter wheat cover around 44,515,
40,469, and 72,843 hectares (110,000, 100,000, and 180,000
acres respectively) which are about 16%, 15%, and 27% of
the area planted in the county (United States Department of
Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service Infor-
mation). Most of the corn area planted in Finney county is
irrigated (about 80%), while only around half of the area of
winter wheat planted is irrigated. Over the past four decades,
area of wheat planted in Finney county has decreased while
area of maize and sorghum planted have increased (Fig. 1).
Average temperature in Finney County over the past 30
years was 12.36 ◦ C while average annual precipitation was
509 mm. Average saturated thickness was around 140 m
in Finney County. On the other hand, the High Plains por-
tion of Kansas had an average temperature of 12.33 ◦ C and
average precipitation of 577 mm over the same period and
average saturated thickness was about 70 m.
Simulation process
The DSSAT model estimates soil water as a function of cli-
mate, soil, irrigation management, etc., based on the “tipping
bucket” soil water balance approach (Jones et al. 2003). In
1
  The results for the rest of the soils are presented in the “Appendix”.
this model, drainage is calculated by the soil water module
when soil water is above the drained upper limit (i.e., field
capacity) and runoff is estimated based on curve number
method (USDA 1972; Williams et al. 1984). Soil water char-
acteristics determined by layer for drainage upper limit and
lower limit and saturation water content of the soils are in
Table 1. The soil-plant-atmosphere sub module calculates
the soil evaporation and transpiration (Jones et al. 2003).
The CERES-Maize (Araya et al. 2017), CROPSIM-CERES
(Araya et  al. 2019), and CERES-Sorghum (Araya et  al.
2018) suite models in DSSAT were calibrated for maize,
winter wheat, and grain sorghum cultivars at Finney County,
respectively. For the simulation, maize was planted on May
10 at a planting density and depth of 7.6 plants/m2 and 5
cm, respectively. Urea nitrogen was applied at a rate of 250
kg/ha five days before planting. Winter wheat was planted
on October 10 at plant population of 250 plants/m2 and at a
depth of 3 cm. Urea nitrogen was applied at a rate of 14 kg/
ha and 86 kg/ha at time of planting and on April 15, respec-
tively. Grain sorghum was planted on May 25 with a plant-
ing density and depth of grain sorghum 18 plants/m2 and 5
cm, respectively. Urea nitrogen fertilizer of 150 kg/ha was
applied at once five days before planting date. The model
simulates the crop growth on a seasonal continuous mode
for the historical climatic conditions (1980–2009) and an
ensemble of end century climate (2070–2099) under RCP4.5
for Finney County, Kansas. The reference evapotranspiration
was estimated based on FAO-56 (Allen et al. 1998). In our
seasonal simulations of water use and crop yield, we con-
sider a range of irrigation frequencies (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14,
16, 18, 20, 22 and 24-days) and critical plant available soil
water (25%, 35%, 45%, 55%, 65% and 75%). The irrigation
frequencies considered here capture a wide range of well
capacities that are observed in our study area. Specifically,
these irrigation frequencies produce well capacities of more
than 6,540 m3/day (1200 gpm) or less than 545 m3/day (100
gpm) when irrigating a 52.6 ha (130 acres) field. Declining
irrigation frequencies are a result of declining well capaci-
ties. As well capacities decline, a producer’s ability to keep
the center pivot system rotating at the same speed while
applying the same amount of water per acre decreases. On
the other hand, critical plant available soil water ( PAWc ) is
a threshold where irrigation is triggered when available soil
water falls below this threshold. A typical PAWc often used
in practice is 50%. However, we consider a range of PAWc’s.
Higher PAWc ’s result in greater groundwater application and
higher crop yields, but also require greater well capacities
to maintain water levels above the PAWc during the critical
stages of a growing season.
The amount of irrigation per irrigation event is fixed at
25.4 mm (1 inch) and the irrigation efficiency is assumed to
be 0.85. The model applies irrigation when the plant avail-
able soil water irrigation trigger is met. Water use and crop
13

580 Irrigation Science (2020) 38:577–591

yield for each of the three crops is then simulated with dif-
ferent combinations of irrigation intervals/frequencies and
plant available soil water.
We assume that a producer irrigates 52.6 ha (130 acres),
which is the area of a typical quarter-circle center pivot sys-
tem in our study region, and does not adjust their irrigated
acres as a result of declining well capacities. This assump-
tion helps simplify the relationship between well capacity
and irrigation frequency. The relationship between well
capacity and irrigation frequency is determined by the fol-
lowing equation:
52.6 × 25.4 × 10
well capacity[m3 ∕day] = (2)
irrigation frequency [days]

where the numerator is the volume of groundwater pumped,

in m3 , per rotation of a center pivot system irrigating 52.6
ha (130 acres) if it applied 25.4 mm (1 in.) of water to each
hectare. The denominator shows the amount of time, in days,
it takes for the center pivot to complete a rotation.
We also assume prices of $0.157 per kg ($4 per bushel)
for maize, $0.157 per kg ($4 per bushel) for grain sorghum,
and $0.197 per kg ($5 per bushel) for wheat.2 Furthermore,
we assume costs, excluding costs of irrigation, of $1483 per
ha ($600 per acre) for maize, $890 per ha ($360 per acre)
for sorghum, and $704 per ha ($285 per acre) for wheat
based on the crop budgets from Kansas State University.
Finally, we assume a pumping cost of $0.027 per m3 ($2.8
per acre-inch).3

Climate projections

Global climate models (GCMs) are the fundamental tools

for evaluating future changes in climate (Bader et al. 2008).
However, in many climate change impact assessments, GCM
output cannot be used directly because the model resolution
of GCMs is too coarse and potential large-scale biases may
produce misleading results (Saha et al. 2012). The process
of resolving scale discrepancies between GCMs and the
resolution required for impact assessments is called down-
scaling (Maraun et al. 2010). Statistical downscaling is one
technique that improves local and regional-scale climate
information through the development of statistical links
between fine-scale weather features and large-scale climate
2
 These prices are based on recent crop prices post 2007 and are
rounded for simplicity. Biofuel policies in 2005 and 2007 have
affected the price of maize.
3
  Average pumping lift in Finney County in 2016, the last year with
saturated thickness data from Haacker et al. (2016), was about 36.58
m (120 ft). The cost of pumping with this pumping lift and the elec-
tricity price of $0.1 per kwh is $0.027 per m3 ($2.8 per acre-inch)
(https​://www.k-state​.edu/nres/capst​one/Sprin​g%20201​2_Ogall​ala.
pdf).
Fig. 2  Time trend of climatic variables in RCP4.5. The vertical
dashed line shows the beginning date of the analysis under climate
change
predictors, which are assumed to be accurately simulated by
the GCM (Eden and Widmann 2014). In this study, statis-
tically-downscaled GCM output was obtained from twenty
models that participated in the Coupled Model Intercom-
parison Project Phase 5 (Taylor et al. 2012). GCMs were
statistically downscaled to a resolution of approximately 4
km over the continental United States using the Multivariate
Adaptive Constructed Analogs methodology with histori-
cal observations from METDATA used for baseline train-
ing (Abatzoglou and Brown 2012; Abatzoglou 2013). This
downscaling technique is computationally efficient, more
accurate than simple interpolation approaches in historical
assessments, and preserves the first principles of meteorol-
ogy through a joint downscaling procedure (Abatzoglou and

13
Irrigation Science (2020) 38:577–591 581
Fig. 3  Production functions for maize, wheat, and sorghum for soil types KS01 and KS02 for years 1980–2009 under baseline climate
Brown 2012). Gridded daily maximum and minimum tem-
perature, precipitation, and solar radiation were aggregated
at the county-scale for input into DSSAT simulations for
baseline (1980–2009) and the end-of-century (2070–2099)
periods. Baseline observations were derived from MET-
DATA. For climate projections, the multi-model ensemble
mean was taken as the average over the twenty GCMs that
were statistically downscaled.
Because there is uncertainty in the future trajectory of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, modeling institutions
simulate multiple representative concentration pathways
(RCPs) to represent different socio-economic scenarios that
may occur (Van Vuuren et al. 2011). For the end-of-cen-
tury period in our study, RCP4.5 was selected, represent-
ing a stabilization scenario that assumes climate polices are
implemented across all sectors to lower GHG emissions.
In this scenario, carbon dioxide emissions peak between
2040 and 2050 and stabilize at 526 ppm by 2100 (Thomson
et al. 2011). This increase in GHG emissions results in the
radiative forcing by 2100 at the top of the atmosphere to
increase by 4.5 W/m2 compared to the preindustrial period.
Under RCP4.5 during the summer (June–August) in Finney
County, the twenty-member multi-model ensemble mean
trends for maximum and minimum temperatures between
2010 and 2099 are 0.30 ◦ C and 0.27 ◦ C per decade, respec-
tively (Fig. 2). For reference, by the end-of-century period
2070–2099, the multi-model mean maximum summer
temperature is 35.8  ◦ C compared to the baseline average
of 32.2 ◦ C. While all models demonstrate consistent warm-
ing trends with varying magnitudes, the variability between
models for precipitation is notable with many models pre-
dicting drying trends while others demonstrate wetting
trends. The multi-model ensemble mean for total summer
precipitation by the end-of-century period is 203 mm com-
pared to 191 mm during the baseline period.
Results
In this section, we discuss the results of the simulation pro-
cess. We first present the production function for all three
crops, i.e., maize, wheat, and grain sorghum for two differ-
ent soil types, namely KS01 and KS02. We then compare
the distribution of profits for these crops and soil types (the
remaining three soil types are presented in the “Appendix”).4
Finally, we show the well capacity at which a downside risk
averse producer switches from growing a riskier crop to a
less risky crop. The results that we present in this section are
all in terms of dollars per ha and dollars per acre.
Production function
The production functions for maize, wheat and sorghum are
presented in Fig. 3. All production functions are concave
in the amount of irrigation. However, production functions
for wheat seems to be more linear than that of maize and
grain sorghum. On the other hand, production functions for
grain sorghum are very similar to piecewise linear functions.
Furthermore, the soil type KS01 is more productive for crop
production across all three crops. This is mainly due to the
water holding capacity of this soil. For maize and grain sor-
ghum, higher well capacities reduce the gap in productiv-
ity among the soil types. This is related to the land quality
augmenting property of irrigation suggested by Caswell and
Zilberman (1986).
Downside risk under baseline climate
The distribution of profits under baseline climatic condi-
tions are presented in Fig. 4. This figure shows that the
4
  Soil type KS04 is similar in characteristics to KS02 and as result,
has similar distribution of profits.
13

582
Fig. 4  Distribution of profits for maize, wheat, and sorghum for soil types KS01 (a–c) and KS02 (d–f) for years 1980–2009 under baseline cli-
mate. The legends show well capacities in m3 ∕day . The respective well capacities in gallons per minute are 100, 200, 300, 600, and 1200 gpm
distribution of profits is sensitive to well capacity. As well
capacity decreases, the frequency of lower profits for all
three crops and for both soil types increases. However, there
is significant heterogeneity across crops and soil types. Profit
for maize, under high well capacities, e.g., 6540 m3/day
(1200 gpm), is highly skewed to the left for both soil types
(Fig. 4a, d). These figures show that for high well capacities,
under current climatic conditions, there is a small downside
risk for corn production. As well capacity decreases, we see
a gradual shift in the distribution of maize profits towards
lower profits. Under lower well capacities, e.g., 1090 m3/day
(200 gpm), the distribution of maize profit is considerably
flatter. For soil type KS02, the production is riskier than for
soil type KS01.
For soil type KS01, the average maize profit for the well
capacity of 6540 m3/day is about $939 per ha ($380 per
acre) while the standard deviation is $296.5 per ha ($120 per
acre). For well capacity of 1090 m3/day, the average maize
profit is $692 per ha ($280 per acre) and the standard devia-
tion is $395 per ha ($160 per acre). The semivariance for
maize for the well capacity of 6540 m3/day is around $358
per ha ($145 per acre). Semivariance is considerably larger
for the well capacity of 1090 m3/day at $482 per ha ($195
per acre). Similar results hold for the soil type KS02. These
results suggest that as well capacity decreases for maize,
13
Irrigation Science (2020) 38:577–591
profit on average decreases, while the profit uncertainty
increases. Importantly, the downside risk of maize produc-
tion increases with lower well capacities.
The change in the distribution of wheat profits (Fig. 4b,
e) is very different from that of the change in maize profits.
In the case of wheat, a decrease in well capacity results in a
shift in the distribution of production profits, but, interest-
ingly, the distribution does not become flatter. This result
suggests that, while wheat yield will be lower on average as
a result of lower well capacities, there is a smaller increase
in downside risk in wheat production than for maize produc-
tion. Similar to maize, soil type KS02 seems to be riskier for
wheat production.
For soil type KS01, the average wheat production profit
for well capacity of 6540 m3/day is about $791 per ha ($320
per acre) and the standard deviation is $297 per ha ($120 per
acre), while for 1090 m3/day, the average of wheat profits is
about $667 per ha ($270 per acre), and the standard devia-
tion is $297 per ha ($120 per acre). The semivariance for
wheat for the well capacity of 6540 m3/day is around $420
per ha ($170 per acre).
Interestingly, semivariance for the well capacity of 1090
m3/day is $395 per ha ($160 per acre) which is slightly
smaller than the semivariance of 6540 m3/day. This result is
due to the shift in the average of the wheat profit distribution.
Irrigation Science (2020) 38:577–591 583
Fig. 5  Tradeoff between mean
production profit and downside
risk for soil types KS01 and
KS02 under baseline climate
Given that average wheat profit is smaller and the shape of
the distribution did not change, downside risk is slightly
smaller. Similar results, in terms of patterns, were found
for soil type KS02. Thus, these results suggest that as well
capacity decreases for wheat, profit of wheat production on
average decreases. However, downside risk of wheat produc-
tion does not increase significantly.
Finally, for grain sorghum (Fig. 4c, f), the average profits
for well capacity of 6540 m3/day is about $383 per ha ($155
per acre), and the standard deviation is $240 per ha ($97 per
acre), while for 1090 m3/day, the average profit is about $259
per ha ($105 per acre), and the standard deviation is $284
per ha ($115 per acre). On the other hand, the semivariance
for grain sorghum for the well capacity of 6540 m3/day is
around $358 per ha ($145 per acre), while it is slightly lower
for the well capacity of 1090 m3/day at $334 per ha ($135 per
acre). Interestingly, while the standard deviation increases,
for 1090 m3/day, the downside risk is slightly lower. This
finding is because crop yields on average are lower, and the
distribution becomes symmetrically more uncertain around
the mean. Under these conditions, while the outcomes are
very uncertain, the upside risk and the downside risk have
almost equal weights.
For KS02, the average grain sorghum profit for well
capacity of 6540 m3/day is about $173 per ha ($70 per acre)
and the standard deviation is $321 per ha ($130 per acre),
while for 1090 m3/day (200 gpm), the average grain sorghum
profit is about $2.5 per ha ($1 per acre) and the standard
deviation is $321 per ha ($130 per acre). The semivariance
for grain sorghum profit for the well capacity of 6540 m3/
day is around $445 per ha ($180 per acre), while it is signifi-
cantly lower for the well capacity of 1090 m3/day at around
$321 per ha ($130 per acre).
For soil type KS01, a decline in well capacities results
in a decrease in average profit and an increase in downside
production risk (Fig. 4c). The effect of well capacity on
the distribution of grain sorghum profit is very similar to
the effect of well capacity on maize profits. However, for
soil type KS02, as well capacity decreases, the distribution
of sorghum profits has a more distinct shift towards lower
well capacities, and the distribution does not become flatter
(Fig. 4f). This noticeable difference in the effect of declin-
ing well capacity on the distribution of grain sorghum prof-
its demonstrates the importance of studying different soil
types when evaluating the risks of aquifer depletion on crop
production.
To summarize the results of this section, we analyze the
impact of declining well capacities on average profits and
riskiness and the heterogeneity of the relationship between
average profits and downside risk of production. To study
the changes in average profitability and riskiness of produc-
tion across all soil types and crop types, we estimate the
following regression:
yic = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 well capacity + 𝛽2 crop + 𝛽3 soil type + 𝜀ic
(3)
where yic is the outcome variable for crop i and well capac-
ity c. We consider three different response variables as yic :
mean, standard deviation, and semivariance of the distribu-
tion of crop production profit for each crop and each well
capacity.
The results are presented in Table 2. Conditional on
crop type and soil types, as well capacity decreases, mean
crop yield decreases (column 1), while both standard devi-
ation and semivariance increase (columns 2 and 3). These
results show that lower well capacities not only affect crop
yields on average but also increase the uncertainty and
downside risk of agricultural production. Coefficients in
Table 2 also emphasize that there is heterogeneity among
soil types in terms of average crop yield and production
risk.
As well capacity decreases, average profits decrease
for all crops and soil types. However, the relationship
between average profits and downside risk is not homoge-
neous (Fig. 5). For maize, a decrease in profits is corre-
lated an increase in downside-riskiness. On the other hand,
13

584
Fig. 6  Distribution of profits for maize, wheat, and sorghum for soil
types KS01 (a–c) and KS02 (d–f) for years 2070–2099 under climate
change RCP4.5. The legends show well capacities in m3 ∕day . The
a decrease in average profits for wheat and grain sorghum
is correlated with a decrease in downside risk for both soil
types. Figure 5 further shows the heterogeneity in riskiness
and profitability of producing different crops.
Downside risk under climate change
Under the RCP4.5 climate change scenario, profits are on
average lower and crop production is riskier, especially
under lower well capacities where profits are noticeably
skewed towards right (Fig. 6). For example, under soil types
KS01 and KS02, average maize profits for 1090 m3/day well
capacity are −$198 and −$605 per ha (−$80 and −$245 per
acre) which are negative and considerably lower than maize
profits under the baseline climatic conditions. The down-
side risk for soil types KS01 and KS02 for 1090 m3/day are
$346 and $210 per ha ($140 and $85 per acre) respectively.
In addition, the downside risk is lower under the climate
change scenario compared to the baseline scenario. This is
because maize yields are (with more certainty) lower under
the climate change scenario than under the current climatic
conditions. As expected, the production risk is lower with
higher well capacities.
13
Irrigation Science (2020) 38:577–591
respective well capacities in gallons per minute are 100, 200, 300,
600, and 1200 gpm
The negative values of maize profits under the RCP4.5
scenario suggest that under such a scenario, if maize prices
do not increase significantly, corn production would be unat-
tractive. However, lower average maize yields are expected
to either shift production elsewhere where maize production
is less risky and average yield and profits are higher or to
increase maize prices. Such an increase in maize prices took
place during the drought of 2012 across the corn belt where
prices rose to $0.31 per kg ($8 per bushel). As a result, it
is reasonable to consider the distribution of profits under
higher prices. Under $0.31 per kg ($8 per bushel) maize
production will remain profitable on average even with lower
well capacities (Fig. 7). As a result, considering both the
market response to these shifts in climate and well capacity
as well as producer risk preferences could be important for
studying the benefits of aquifer management.
Similar patterns exist in terms of profits and downside
risk for wheat and grain sorghum. However, it is also worth
noting that the shift towards lower crop yields under climate
change is less noticeable for wheat. Wheat is still profitable
to produce under the RCP4.5 and baseline prices. We can
compare the coefficient of variation (CV), which is the ratio
of the standard deviation to the average, for maize, wheat,
and grain sorghum under high and low well capacities for
Irrigation Science (2020) 38:577–591 585

Fig. 7  Distribution of profits for

maize for soil types KS01 (a)
and KS02 (b) for years 2070–
2099 under climate change
RCP4.5 with the maize price
of $8 per bushel. The legends
show well capacities in m3 ∕day .
The respective well capacities in
gallons per minute are 100, 200,
300, 600, and 1200 gpm

Table 1  Characteristics of Soil type Depth pH CEC TN LL DUL SWC BD SAT

different soil types in the study
area Richfield 15 6.5 19 0.12 0.20 0.41 0.49 1.25 3.30
silt loam 43 6.5 30 0.12 0.26 0.45 0.52 1.18 1.02
(KS01) 64 6.5 20 0.11 0.19 0.39 0.52 1.18 1.02
201 6.5 17 0.1 0.17 0.33 0.51 1.23 3.30
Valent 43 6.5 9 0.12 0.12 0.23 0.44 1.4 10.16
fine sand 152 6.5 7 0.12 0.11 0.21 0.43 1.45 10.60
(KS02)
Beeler 20 6.5 17 0.12 0.2 0.41 0.46 1.33 2.8
silt loam 61 6.5 16 0.12 0.20 0.39 0.47 1.33 2.65
(KS03) 142 6.5 16 0.11 0.18 0.35 0.47 1.33 2.80
210 6.5 17 0.1 0.19 0.34 0.50 1.25 2.62
Manter fine 43 6.5 9 0.12 0.12 0.23 0.44 1.40 10.16
sandy loam 152 6.5 7 0.12 0.11 0.21 0.43 1.45 10.60
(KS04)
Ulysses 20 6.5 22 0.12 0.20 0.40 0.45 1.37 3.30
silt loam 36 6.5 24 0.12 0.20 0.40 0.47 1.32 1.02
(KS05) 71 6.5 24 0.11 0.19 0.37 0.47 1.32 1.02
201 6.5 20 0.1 0.166 0.33 0.47 1.34 3.3

The units are as follows: depth (cm), CEC (cmol/kg), LL (mm/mm), DUL (mm/mm), SWC (mm/mm), BD
(g/cm3 ), SAT (cm/h)
CEC cation exchange capacity, LL lower limit (permanent wilting point), DUL upper limit (field capacity),
SWC soil water content at saturation, BD bulk density, SAT soil hydraulic conductivity

the future climate change scenario to understand the riski-
ness the production of each crop. For soil type KS01, the
CV for 6540 m3/day and 1090 m3/day are 2.33 and 1.57 for
maize, 0.18 and 0.19 for wheat, and 0.75 and 2.95 for grain
sorghum. These results further show that wheat is inherently
less risky to produce under climate change than maize.
Crop choice of a downside risk averse producer
As aquifer levels continue to decline across the High Plains
Aquifer (Haacker et al. 2016), we expect to see lower well
capacities. Simulation results in “Downside risk under
baseline climate” show that as well capacities decline, an
increase in production risk is expected for all three crops
and for both soil types. However, the increase in risk varies
across crops and soil types. Specifically, with declining well
capacities, there is a smaller increase in downside risk for
wheat compared to maize and grain sorghum. In this section,
we discuss the crop choice of a downside risk averse pro-
ducer. We consider the well capacities at which a downside
risk averse producer would switch from growing one crop
to another less risky crop.
We assume the producer is downside risk averse with an
exponential utility function who maximizes their expected

13

586 Irrigation Science (2020) 38:577–591

Table 2  Regression results Mean Standard deviation Semivariance

for the effect of well capacity
on mean, standard deviation, Well capacity 0.066 ∗∗∗
(0.006) −0.015 ∗∗∗
(0.003) −0.008∗∗ (0.003)
and downside risk of irrigated
Grain Sorghum −380.127∗∗∗ (22.764) −143.351∗∗∗ (10.384) −159.200∗∗∗ (12.659)
profits
Wheat 58.159 (22.764)
∗∗
−141.010 ∗∗∗
(10.384) −139.114∗∗∗ (12.659)
KS01 −190.896 ∗∗∗
(29.388) −23.941 (13.406)
∗
−9.948 (16.343)
KS02 −500.526∗∗∗ (29.388) −41.058∗∗∗ (13.406) −63.621∗∗∗ (16.343)
KS04 −500.526∗∗∗ (29.388) −41.058∗∗∗ (13.406) −63.621∗∗∗ (16.343)
KS05 −109.818 ∗∗∗
(29.388) −9.789 (13.406) −4.833 (16.343)
Constant 720.824∗∗∗ (26.254) 473.686∗∗∗ (11.977) 528.080∗∗∗ (14.600)
Observations 195 195 195
R2 0.850 0.615 0.546
Adjusted R2 0.845 0.601 0.529

* p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01

utility. Under these assumptions, the producer’s utility func-
tion can be written as:
( ) ( )
𝜇 −u�� 𝜇3 u���
E(u) = 𝜇1 − 2 + (4)
2 u� 3! u�
��
where 𝜇i is the ith moment of the profit distribution, −u u�
is
′′′
the coefficient of absolute risk aversion, and uu′ is the coef-
ficient of absolute downside risk aversion (Donoso 2014).
Under the exponential utility function assumption, i.e.,
u(c) = 1 − e−𝛼c , these two coefficients become:
−u
��
=𝛼
u�
��� (5)
u
= 𝛼2
u�
The standard deviation of simulated profits in the Finney
County ranges between $198 and $642 per ha ($80 and $260
per acre) with the median of $316 per ha ($128 per acre).
As a result, following Babcock et al. (1993), we assume
𝛼 = 0.005 , which is a very low absolute risk aversion coef-
ficient for the size of the gamble considered here indicating
that the producer is only slightly risk averse.
The results show that under the assumptions made,
under soil type KS01, as well capacities continue to
decline, the downside risk averse producer grows maize
until well capacity reaches 1090 m3/day (200 gpm). The
producer then switches to wheat for well capacities below
1090 m3/day. For soil type KS02, the producer plants
maize for well capacities above 1363 m3/day (250 gpm)
and plants wheat for well capacities below 1363 m3/day.
On the other hand, for a risk neutral producer, the switch-
ing point for KS01 is 954 m3/day (175 gpm) and for KS02
is 1090 m3/day. These results suggest that the downside
risk of production of each crop can affect crop choices as
aquifer levels decline. Specifically, downside risk may
result in crop switching at higher well capacities. How-
ever, the difference in the switching well capacity is small
in this case.
Discussion
Our results have several implications. First, empirical evi-
dence suggests that farmers are relatively downside risk
averse (Antle 2010; Di Falco and Chavas 2006). As a result,
to the extent that risk, specifically downside risk, is a driver
of crop choice decisions, we would expect changes in land
use patterns as aquifer levels decline. For example, across
the HPA, we may expect to see a marginal shift towards
wheat production within the southern portion of the aqui-
fer that has experienced rapid aquifer depletion and lower
well capacities. Alternatively, if fertilizer is a substitute for
water in reducing risk, we may expect to see greater ferti-
lizer application. We may also observe greater crop insur-
ance adoption, which itself may affect producers’ risk pref-
erences (Koundouri et al. 2009). However, we should also
note that other factors that are correlated with the depletion
of the aquifer and affect crop choice also change and have
changed over time. These factors include advancements in
crop varieties, irrigation efficiency, production practices,
such as no-till farming, all of which have reduced the risk
of agricultural production. These changes, along with agri-
cultural policies, may be the reason why there has not been
major declines in corn production in the region as a result
of aquifer depletion.
Second, under existing crop varieties, climate change
increases the downside risk of agricultural production.

13
Irrigation Science (2020) 38:577–591 587
However, management of groundwater aquifers can reduce
this downside risk. Our results suggest that aquifer man-
agement may be more valuable under drier future climatic
conditions and downside risk averse producers. We note
that to understand the benefits of aquifer management, it is
also important to consider the externalities of extraction on
neighboring producers. One producer’s groundwater extrac-
tion will reduce aquifer levels for their neighboring produc-
ers and increases their production risk. Future studies could
consider aquifer-level analysis of increased downside risk
due to aquifer depletion and the benefits of aquifer manage-
ment under drier climatic conditions.
Third, our results suggest that increased downside risk
from aquifer depletion could further increase the demand
for crop insurance. To the extent that federal crop insur-
ance policy subsidizes risk-taking behavior of agricultural
produces, the program can become costlier under a drier
climate or lower aquifer levels. However, we should note that
crop insurance premiums and payouts in the United States
depend on the production history of a given field (Mieno
et al. 2018). In a static setting, the downside risk averse deci-
sion may be to either switch to less risky crops or purchase
more insurance. In a dynamic setting, a producer’s plant-
ing and irrigation decisions, along with negative weather
shocks, affect their history of crop yield and may disincen-
tivize switching to less risky crops and production practices.
Future research can consider the tradeoff between reducing
yield and reducing the average historical crop yield within
a dynamic setting.
In groundwater-dependent agricultural regions in devel-
oping countries agricultural risk is often not insured. When
this risk is not insured, it can decrease the use of other inputs
(Donovan 2016), which can result in lower crop yields on
average (Emerick et al. 2016). Aquifer depletion can result
in lower average agricultural outputs in these regions which
could affect food security. It is worth noting that aquifer
depletion can, in general, increase the demand for drought
tolerant varieties in developed and developing countries that
reduce the downside risk of aquifer depletion.
Our study also has a few limitations. First, while the lit-
erature shows that agricultural producers respond to changes
in water availability (Drysdale and Hendricks 2018), water
prices (Pfeiffer and Lin 2014; Smith et al. 2017), and irriga-
tion technologies (Sampson and Perry 2019), our analysis
in this paper has not included any potential adaptation by
producers. As such, our analysis provides an upper bound
on the potential losses of profit due to climate change and
aquifer depletion. No adaptation assumption also means that
the total costs of every other production input including fer-
tilizer, seed, etc., will stay the same as the aquifer levels
decline. Whether the use of these inputs increase or decrease
depends on the risk increasing or risk decreasing nature of
these inputs and their substitutability or complementarity
with water. Future studies could consider potential adapta-
tion strategies by producers.
Also, as discussed, under extreme climatic conditions,
where crop yields become significantly lower, prices of the
crops may also increase. While studying such changes in
relative prices requires a more complex general equilib-
rium framework, our analysis does provide insight into the
relative distribution in profitability of different crops under
lower well capacities and drier climatic conditions. The main
takeaway from our analysis is the shift in the distribution of
profits towards riskier outcomes. The extent to which mar-
kets reduce or exacerbate the difference in profit-riskiness of
production of different crops could be the subject of future
studies which consider downside risks under a general equi-
librium framework.
Finally, in this study, we assumed a fixed pumping cost
for all well capacities. This is clearly a simplification for
two reasons. First, well capacity is correlated with satu-
rated thickness and as aquifer levels decline, well capacity
is expected to decrease. Second, aquifer levels are hetero-
geneous across the Finney county and the HPA. While the
heterogeneity in pumping costs will only result in shifts
in the distribution of profits and is not expected to change
the nature of our analysis and comparisons, one possible
implication of our assumption is the lack of external validity
of our results. Future studies could expand the analysis to
include a broader region to study the heterogeneity in shifts
in profit distribution.
Conclusion
We examined the effects of declining well capacities on the
downside risk of irrigated agricultural production for Finney
County in Kansas which overlies the High Plains Aquifer
under current climatic conditions and under the projected
climate change scenario with RCP4.5. Using simulation
methods, we showed that aquifer depletion is risk increas-
ing, i.e., lower aquifer levels can increase the downside risk
of irrigated agricultural production. Specifically, we showed
that lower well capacities not only result in lower average
profitability for maize, wheat, and grain sorghum, they also
result in an increase in downside risk, i.e., an increase in the
frequency of lower profits for lower well capacities. We also
found a significant heterogeneity in downside risk across dif-
ferent crops and soil types. For example, while the downside
risk of growing maize is sensitive to declining well capaci-
ties under the baseline climatic conditions, downside risk
of growing wheat is relatively less sensitive to changes in
well capacities under the same climatic conditions. We fur-
ther showed that climate change can further exacerbate the
downside risk, especially for lower capacity wells. Finally,
we showed that downside risk can affect the well capacity
13

588 Irrigation Science (2020) 38:577–591

that a downside risk averse producer switches to a less risky Appendix

crop as aquifer levels decline.
Baseline climate
Acknowledgements  The authors thank Jordan F. Suter for his feed-
back. This article is based upon work that is supported by the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, See Figs. 8, 9 and 10.
under award number 2016-68007-25066, “Sustaining agriculture
through adaptive management to preserve the Ogallala aquifer under Climate change
a changing climate.”
See Figs. 11, 12 and 13.
Compliance with ethical standards 

Conflicts of interest  On behalf of all authors, the corresponding au-

thor states that there is no conflict of interest.

Fig. 8  Distribution of profits for maize, wheat, and sorghum for soil type KS03 for years 1980–2009. The legends show well capacities in
m3 ∕day . The respective well capacities in gallons per minute are 100, 200, 300, 600, and 1200 gpm

Fig. 9  Distribution of profits for maize, wheat, and sorghum for soil type KS04 for years 1980–2009. The legends show well capacities in
m3 ∕day . The respective well capacities in gallons per minute are 100, 200, 300, 600, and 1200 gpm

13
Irrigation Science (2020) 38:577–591 589

Fig. 10  Distribution of profits for maize, wheat, and sorghum for soil type KS05 for years 1980-2009. The legends show well capacities in
m3 ∕day . The respective well capacities in gallons per minute are 100, 200, 300, 600, and 1200 gpm

Fig. 11  Distribution of profits for maize, wheat, and sorghum for soil type KS03 for years 2070–2099 under the RCP4.5 scenario. The legends
show well capacities in m3 ∕day . The respective well capacities in gallons per minute are 100, 200, 300, 600, and 1200 gpm

Fig. 12  Distribution of profits for maize, wheat, and sorghum for soil type KS04 for years 2070–2099 under the RCP4.5 scenario. The legends
show well capacities in m3 ∕day . The respective well capacities in gallons per minute are 100, 200, 300, 600, and 1200 gpm

13

590 Irrigation Science (2020) 38:577–591

Fig. 13  Distribution of profits for maize, wheat, and sorghum for soil type KS05 for years 2070–2099 under the RCP4.5 scenario. The legends
show well capacities in m3 ∕day . The respective well capacities in gallons per minute are 100, 200, 300, 600, and 1200 gpm

References Donoso G (2014) A decision framework for a farmer who is risk averse
in the arrow-pratt sense and downside risk averse. Econ Agraria y
Recursos Nat 14(1380–2016–115461):5–26
Abatzoglou JT (2013) Development of gridded surface meteorologi-
Donovan K (2016) Agricultural risk, intermediate inputs, and cross-
cal data for ecological applications and modelling. Int J Climatol
country productivity differences. Unpublished Working Paper,
33(1):121–131
University of Notre Dame
Abatzoglou JT, Brown TJ (2012) A comparison of statistical down-
Drysdale KM, Hendricks NP (2018) Adaptation to an irrigation water
scaling methods suited for wildfire applications. Int J Climatol
restriction imposed through local governance. J Environ Econ
32(5):772–780
Manag 91:150–165
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M et al (1998) Crop evapotran-
Eden JM, Widmann M (2014) Downscaling of gcm-simulated precipi-
spiration-guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO
tation using model output statistics. J Clim 27(1):312–324
irrigation and drainage paper 56, vol 300, no 9. FAO, Rome, p
Emerick K, de Janvry A, Sadoulet E, Dar MH (2016) Technological
D05109
innovations, downside risk, and the modernization of agriculture.
Ang A, Chen J, Xing Y (2006) Downside risk. Rev Financ Stud
Am Econ Rev 106(6):1537–61
19(4):1191–1239
Estrada J (2007) Mean-semivariance behavior: Downside risk and capi-
Antle JM (1987) Econometric estimation of producers’ risk attitudes.
tal asset pricing. Int Rev Econ Financ 16(2):169–185
Am J Agric Econ 69(3):509–522
Fishman R (2018) Groundwater depletion limits the scope for adap-
Antle JM (2010) Asymmetry, partial moments, and production risk.
tation to increased rainfall variability in India. Clim Change
Am J Agric Econ 92(5):1294–1309
147(1–2):195–209
Araya A, Kisekka I, Gowda P, Prasad P (2018) Grain sorghum produc-
Fishman RM (2012) Climate change, rainfall variability, and adapta-
tion functions under different irrigation capacities. Agric Water
tion through irrigation: evidence from Indian agriculture. Working
Manag 203:261–271
Paper, Columbia University, New York
Araya A, Kisekka I, Gowda PH, Prasad PV (2017) Evaluation of water-
Foster T, Brozović N, Butler A (2015) Why well yield matters for man-
limited cropping systems in a semi-arid climate using dssat-csm.
aging agricultural drought risk. Weather Clim Extremes 10:11–19
Agric Syst 150:86–98
Foster T, Brozovic N, Butler AP (2014) Modeling irrigation behavior in
Araya A, Prasad P, Gowda P, Afewerk A, Abadi B, Foster A (2019)
groundwater systems. Water Resour Res 50(8):6370–6389
Modeling irrigation and nitrogen management of wheat in north-
Groom B, Koundouri P, Nauges C, Thomas A (2008) The story of the
ern Ethiopia. Agric Water Manag 216:264–272
moment: risk averse cypriot farmers respond to drought manage-
Babcock BA, Kwan Choi E, Feinerman E (1993) Risk and probability
ment. Appl Econ 40(3):315–326
premiums for CARA utility functions. J Agric Res Econ 18:17–24
Haacker EM, Kendall AD, Hyndman DW (2016) Water level declines
Bader DC, Covey C, Gutowski WJ Jr, Held IM, Kunkel KE, Miller RL,
in the high plains aquifer: predevelopment to resource senescence.
Tokmakian RT, Zhang MH (2008) Climate models: an assess-
Groundwater 54(2):231–242
ment of strengths and limitations. Geological and Atmospheric
Harlow WV (1991) Asset allocation in a downside-risk framework.
Sciences Reports, vol 3. https​://lib.dr.iasta​te.edu/ge_at_repor​ts/3
Financ Anal J 47(5):28–40
Bigman D (1996) Safety-first criteria and their measures of risk. Am J
Harner RF, Angell RC, Lobmeyer ML, Jantz DR (1965) Soil survey
Agric Econ 78(1):225–235
of Finney County, Kansas. USDA series 1961, no 30. U.S. Gov.
Brookfield A (2016) Minimum saturated thickness calculator. Kansas
Print. Office, Washington, DC
Geological Survey Open-File Report, vol 3
Hecox G, Macfarlane P, Wilson B (2002) Calculation of yield for High
Caswell MF, Zilberman D (1986) The effects of well depth and land
Plains wells: Relationship between saturated thickness and well
quality on the choice of irrigation technology. Am J Agric Econ
yield. Kansas Geological Survey Open File Report, vol 24
68(4):798–811
Hoogenboom G, Porter C, Shelia V, Boote K, Singh U, White J, Hunt
Di Falco S, Chavas J-P (2006) Crop genetic diversity, farm productivity
L, Ogoshi R, Lizaso J, Koo J et al (2017) Decision support system
and the management of environmental risk in rainfed agriculture.
for agrotechnology transfer (DSSAT) version 4.7. DSSAT founda-
Eur Rev Agric Econ 33(3):289–314
tion, Gainesville, FL, USA
Di Falco S, Veronesi M (2014) Managing environmental risk in pres-
Hrozencik R, Manning D, Suter J, Goemans C, Bailey R (2017) The
ence of climate change: the role of adaptation in the nile basin of
heterogeneous impacts of groundwater management policies
ethiopia. Environ Resour Econ 57(4):553–577

13
Irrigation Science (2020) 38:577–591 591
in the Republican River Basin of Colorado. Water Resour Res
53(12):10757–10778
Jones JW, Hoogenboom G, Porter CH, Boote KJ, Batchelor WD, Hunt
L, Wilkens PW, Singh U, Gijsman AJ, Ritchie JT (2003) The dssat
cropping system model. Eur J Agron 18(3–4):235–265
Koundouri P, Laukkanen M, Myyrä S, Nauges C (2009) The effects of
eu agricultural policy changes on farmers’ risk attitudes. Eur Rev
Agric Econ 36(1):53–77
Manning DT, Suter JF (2019) Production externalities and the gains
from management in a spatially-explicit aquifer. J Agri Res Econ
44:194–211
Maraun D, Wetterhall F, Ireson A, Chandler R, Kendon E, Widmann
M, Brienen S, Rust H, Sauter T, Themeßl M et al (2010) Precipita-
tion downscaling under climate change: recent developments to
bridge the gap between dynamical models and the end user. Rev
Geophys 48(3)
Menezes C, Geiss C, Tressler J (1980) Increasing downside risk. Am
Econ Rev 70(5):921–932
Mieno T, Walters CG, Fulginiti LE (2018) Input use under crop insur-
ance: the role of actual production history. Am J Agric Econ
100(5):1469–1485
Peterson JM, Marsh TL, Williams JR et al (2003) Conserving the
ogallala aquifer: efficiency, equity, and moral motives. Choices
1:15–18
Pfeiffer L, Lin C-YC (2014) The effects of energy prices on agricultural
groundwater extraction from the high plains aquifer. Am J Agric
Econ 96(5):1349–1362
Rouhi Rad M, Brozović N, Foster T, Mieno T (2020a) Effects of
instantaneous groundwater availability on irrigated agriculture
and implications for aquifer management. Resour Energy Econ
59:101129
Rouhi Rad M, Haacker EM, Sharda V, Nozari S, Xiang Z, Araya A,
Uddameri V, Suter JF, Gowda P (2020b) Mod\$\$at: a hydro-eco-
nomic modeling framework for aquifer management in irrigated
agricultural regions. Agric Water Manag 238:106194
Saha S, Moorthi S, Wu X, Wang J, Nadiga S, Tripp P, Behringer D,
Hou YT, Chuang UY, Iredell M, Ek M (2012) NCEP climate
forecast system version 2 (cfsv2) monthly products. Research Data
Archive at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
Sampson GS, Perry ED (2019) Peer effects in the diffusion of water-
saving agricultural technologies. Agric Econ 50(6):693–706
Smith SM, Andersson K, Cody KC, Cox M, Ficklin D (2017) Respond-
ing to a groundwater crisis: The effects of self-imposed economic
incentives. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ 4(4):985–1023
Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of cmip5 and
the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93(4):485–498
Thomson AM, Calvin KV, Smith SJ, Kyle GP, Volke A, Patel P,
Delgado-Arias S, Bond-Lamberty B, Wise MA, Clarke LE et al
(2011) Rcp4. 5: a pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by
2100. Clim Change 109(1–2):77
Tsur Y (1990) The stabilization role of groundwater when surface
water supplies are uncertain: the implications for groundwater
development. Water Resour Res 26(5):811–818
Tsur Y, Graham-Tomasi T (1991) The buffer value of groundwater
with stochastic surface water supplies. J Environ Econ Manag
21(3):201–224
USDA SCS (1985) National Engineering Handbook: Hydrology, Sect
4, chap 4–10. US Department of Agricolture, Soil Conservation
Service, Washington, DC, USA
Van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, Riahi K, Thomson A, Hib-
bard K, Hurtt GC, Kram T, Krey V, Lamarque J-F et al (2011)
The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim
Change 109(1–2):5
Williams J, Jones C, Dyke PT (1984) A modeling approach to deter-
mining the relationship between erosion and soil productivity.
Trans ASAE 27(1):129–0144
Zaveri E, Grogan DS, Fisher-Vanden K, Frolking S, Lammers RB,
Wrenn DH, Prusevich A, Nicholas RE (2016) Invisible water, vis-
ible impact: groundwater use and indian agriculture under climate
change. Environ Res Lett 11(8):084005
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13