WATER USE EFFICIENCY AN OVERVIEW AND

ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE
EJ SCHMIDT
South African Sugar Association Experiment Station, P/Bag X02, Mount Edgecombe, 4300

Abstract
The current focus on water use efficiency is
driven by a number of issues in our legal,
economic and physical environment, including
new water legislation, increased competition for
scarce resources, greater focus on environment
impacts and escalating water and pumping costs.
Water use efficiency (WUE) means different
things to different people and to be able to
benchmark meaningfully a common undertanding of what is meant by the term water use
efficiency is required and comparable
measurements need to be made.
This paper provides an overview of the many
agronomic and engineering aspects that affect
water use efficiency and provides options for its
improvement. Examples illustrating how
maximizing water use efficiency will not always
maximize yield and profitability are also
provided.
Introduction
A number of external factors are focusing our
attention on water use efficiency. From a legal
perspective the National Water Act of 1998 has
acted as the main catalyst for all water use
sectors to re-evaluate how they use their water.
This is particularly so for agriculture which uses
in excess of 50% of the national consumption
and provides a typically low return on each unit
of water used. Evolving from the Water Act each
major water sector will be required to develop
water conservation and demand management
strategies to improve efficiencies. Irrigators will
also come under closer scrutiny through the
proposed water license system, administered at
local level by Water User Associations and
Catchment Management Agencies.
The National Water Act has also borne a new
Water Pricing Policy, which will result in
escalating water costs to recover all catchment
management
charges
and
infrastructure
operational and development costs. Trading of
water licenses, proposed in the Act, will result in

a migration from low efficiency to high

efficiency water use.
The shortage of water resources found in many
of our catchments is also requiring greater
efficiency in usage. Previous policies to
construct storage and infrastructure to address
shortages has been replaced by one of improving
efficiencies, with infrastructure development, at
full user cost, only as a last resort. A shortage of
water for agricultural use has been exacerbated
by increased recognition of the water needs for
basic human consumption, the environment as
well as our international neighbours.
The focus on water use efficiency will
nevertheless be gradual in some catchments and
will be felt soonest and most severely in other
catchments of acute competition and over
allocation.
Improving water use efficiency in the Sugar
Industry requires a better understanding of what
is meant by the term Water Use Efficiency
(WUE) and the factors that will influence it.
Furthermore it is important to recognize that
water is only one factor of production, as are
capital, labour, management and land.
Maximizing water use efficiency will not always
maximize yield and grower profitability.
Water Use Efficiency and the factors which
influence it
A number of useful review papers on water use
efficiency have been published in recent years
(Smith, 2000; Yang, 1997; Howell, 1997). A
framework for defining WUE is given in Figure
1, which is based largely on the above references
although terminology has been based on the
work of Smith (2000). Different terminology and
definitions are evident in even these review
papers.
Efficiency is generally associated with a
transformation of an input into an output.
Efficiency = Output / Input
The basis for ones often influence defining water
use efficiency background be it in agronomy or

engineering. Thus an agronomist would focus

more on water productivity by the crop and the
utilization of water in the root zone for
transpiration and conversion to a marketable
product. Crop physiological and crop-soilclimate processes will influence this. The
engineer on the other hand would focus more on
the efficiency of delivery of water from the
source to the soil. These issues are expanded on
below and in Figure 1.
Engineering focus
Box 5 (Figure 1) illustrates the concept of
Irrigation Efficiency defined as the amount of
water from the main water source, which can be
effectively supplied to the root zone. The unit of
water supply would typically be in millimeters
(mm), kilolitres (kl) or megalitres (Ml). The
irrigation efficiency is affected by a number of
levels of distribution and associated losses,
namely from the main supply source to the farm
edge (Conveyance Efficiency Box 1) from the
farm edge to the field edge (Farm Efficiency
Box 2) and from the field edge to the root zone
(Field Efficiency Box 3).
To
improve
Conveyance
Efficiency
consideration needs to be given to water losses
in the river, dam and bulk canal and pipe
distribution systems, particularly in terms of
seepage and evaporation losses. Also important
is the wastage of water due to poor distribution
timing, inflexible supply schedules and wasted
flows bypassing abstraction works.
To improve Farm Irrigation Efficiency
consideration needs to be given to the design,
management and operation of farm distribution
networks including canals, storage dams and
pipelines. Greatest losses are likely due to
seepage from unlined canals and dams and burst
or leaking pipes.
The Field Irrigation Efficiency (often referred
to as application efficiency) is influenced by
many factors including the irrigation and emitter
system used (eg furrow, overhead, trickle) the
system operating condition (eg pressure),
maintenance, wear and tear, soil characteristics
(in particular infiltration and depth/texture
variations across the field), land slope and
uniformity of grading as well as irrigation
scheduling, representing the amount and timing
of water applied relative to soil water storage.
Equally important is the Rainfall Efficiency
(Box 4) representing the amount of rainfall that

is effectively supplied to the root zone. This is

important in the context of both dryland
sugarcane as well as irrigated sugarcane since
the effective component of rainfall plus the
effective component of irrigation will be
available to the crop in the root zone. Rainfall
efficiency is dependant on relative losses
through runoff or percolation below the root
zone and will be influenced by rainfall intensity,
soil and slope characteristics, surface trash
retention and the presence of conservation
practices (minimum tillage, strip cropping,
contour terraces, contour ploughing) and soil
moisture at the start of the storm.
Clarity is required when talking about water use
efficiency as to whether the effective or total
component of rainfall has been included in the
assessment and how effective rainfall has been
determined.
Agronomic focus
Box 6 (Figure 1) illustrates the concept of Crop
Water Use Efficiency defined as the fraction of
water stored in the root zone that is transpired by
the crop. A portion of the soil moisture storage
will be evaporated from the soil surface. One
would wish to maximize the crop transpiration
component. This can be done by reducing wetted
surface area (subsurface drip irrigation)
increasing shading (trash cover, narrow row
spacing and rapid canopy development) and
minimizing weed cover. Owing to difficulties in
measuring just transpiration, both transpiration
and evaporation (evapotranspiration) are often
used in determining crop water use efficiency.
Box 8 (Figure 1) illustrates the concept of Crop
Water Productivity defined as the conversion of
crop transpiration (or evapotranspiration) to crop
production or yield. The photosynthetic
processes of the crop govern this. Also included
in this index could be the ratio of recoverable
sugar to crop biomass. Generally the literature
talks of a linear relationship between yield and
evapotranspiration. The widely referenced work
of Thompson (1976) indicated production of 9,6
ton cane for each 100mm of evapotranspiration.
Yang (1997) reviews the crop water productivity
of sugarcane and shows a wide variation in the
texts referenced, which can be attributed largely
to different interpretations of the term water
use.
The genetic factors of the crop will largely
dictate
Crop
Water
Productivity
and

improvements could be sought through

improved varieties and biotechnology. The crops
reaction to stress in differing growth periods will
also be important. The selection of variety,
timing of planting and harvest relative to periods
of envisaged water stress, water application
strategies around growth stage and drying off
programmes will be important in improving
Crop Water productivity. It should be noted that
in many texts the term Crop Water Productivity
is referred to as the Water Use Efficiency.
Combined Agronomic and Engineering Focus
Combining the indices described above one can
see from Box 7 (Figure 1) that overall Water
Use Efficiency represents the fraction of the
total water made available by both rainfall and
irrigation that is used by the crop for
transpiration (or evapotranspiration). This
represents a combination of the rainfall and
irrigation efficiencies and the crop water use
efficiency. It thus integrates all pathways of
water supply, each with their own efficiencies
with crop transpiration patterns.
Water Productivity (Box 9) can also be defined
as the yield produced per unit of water supply,
combining all the efficiencies defined in Boxes 1
to 8 inclusive. The term Water Productivity is
often referred in the literature as Irrigation Water
Use Efficiency.

An Economic Perspective on Water Use

Efficiency
Achieving a high Water Productivity (yield per
unit of water supply) is often seen as the ultimate
goal in irrigation planning and management and
is used as a benchmark when comparing the
performance of different irrigation systems or
schedules. A more appropriate index to the
farmer could be the Economic Return per unit
water supply (Box 10 Figure 1), which
represents the profit attained from the sale of the
crop per unit of water supplied. Profit attained
will take into account the selling price as well as
all fixed and variable costs attached to growing
the crop and providing water to it.
A strategy to maximize Water Productivity will
not always maximize Economic Return per unit
of water as is illustrated on Table 1 below. Table
1 compares various indices of crop production,
water use efficiency and economic return for
two irrigation systems, a dragline system putting
down 25mm per week and a drip system putting
down 4mm per day. Results are given for two
scenarios of capital investment for drip
irrigation, namely high investment (R20000/ha)
and low investment (R12000/ha). Investment in
drip irrigation was an assumed R8000/ha.
The results are based on the use of the Canesim
crop model and the Irriecon irrigation economics
model, both developed at SASEX. The results
are presented merely to illustrate trends and are
based on many assumptions in terms of inputs to
the models (eg. soil type, irrigation scheduling,
irrigation system fixed and variable costs etc).

Table 1: Comparing water use efficiency, crop production and economic return for two
irrigation systems.

Rainfall (mm)
Effective Rainfall (mm)
Rainfall Efficiency (Box 4 Figure 1)
Gross Irrigation
Nett Irrigation
Irrigation Efficiency (Box 5 Figure 1)
Evapotranspiration
Yield
Crop Water Productivity (Box 8 Figure 1)
Water Use Efficiency (Box 7 Figure 1)
Water Productivity (Box 9 Figure 1)
Yield per Ml Gross Irrigation
Yield per Ml Gross Irrigation + Eff rainfall
Margin
Economic Return (Box 10 Figure 1)

Dragline
(25mm/week)
719mm
287mm
40%
1185mm
830mm
70%
1117mm
93tc/ha/yr
8,3tc/Ml
59%
4,8tc/Ml
7,8tc/Ml
6,3tc/Ml
R3947/ha/yr
R207/Ml

Drip (4mm/day)
Low Investment
719mm
431mm
60%
800mm
720mm
90%
1151mm
98tc/ha/yr
8,5tc/Ml
75%
6,4tc/Ml
12,2tc/Ml
7,9tc/Ml
R4736/ha/yr
R311/Ml

Drip (4mm/day)
Hi Investment
719mm
431mm
60%
800mm
720mm
90%
1151mm
98tc/ha/yr
8,5tc/Ml
75%
6,4tc/Ml
12,2tc/Ml
7,9tc/Ml
R3123/ha/yr
R205/Ml

The power of these models is in ones ability to

test the impact of changes in inputs on results in
order to develop a scenario that is appropriate to
a particular farmers situation. The following
trends can be noted from Table 1 when
comparing dragline and low investment drip
scenarios.

Higher Rainfall Efficiencies were achieved

with drip since a small proportion of the
field was wetted and scheduling a small
amount of water daily allowed a deficit for
rainfall.

Gross Irrigation pumped was lower with drip

due to a higher Irrigation Efficiency and
lower Nett Irrigation.

The crop evapotranspiration and yield was

marginally higher under drip with Crop
Water Productivity (Box 8 Figure 1)
virtually the same.

The Water Use Efficiency (Box 7) and

Water Productivity (Box 9) are significantly
higher for drip irrigation.

Yield per Ml (1000kl or 1000m3) gross

irrigation or Yield per Ml gross irrigation
plus effective rainfall are also higher under
drip.

Despite the above efficiencies favouring

drip, the Margin (defined as income less
fixed and variable operating costs) may not
be higher under drip. Based on a high capital
investment scenario for drip the Margin is

only R 3123/ha/yr compared with the

overhead systems Margin of R3947/ha/yr.
The Economic Return (Box 10) is however
similar for the two systems owing to lower
water usage under drip.

Decreasing the installation cost of the drip

system will change the Margin and a low
investment scenario results in a higher
Margin and Economic return for drip
compared with dragline.

The results are dependant on input

assumptions (for example interest rate was
assumed 17% in this example). The cost of
water and pumping costs will be an
important factor to consider. Increasing the
cost of water will clearly sway the economic
return towards the lower water use drip
systems.

Similar trends can be drawn when comparing

strategies to save water using different irrigation
schedules. Table 2 below compares a dragline
system putting on in one case 25mm per week
(water intensive) and the other 30mm every 2
weeks (water saving).
From Table 2 it can be seen that a water saving
irrigation strategy will result in a higher Rainfall
Efficiency and less irrigation water being
applied, but will give lower yields. While the
Water Productivity will be higher with the water
saving strategy the Margin will be lower,
primarily due to lower crop yields. Again
changing assumptions will change the trends.

Table 2: Comparing water use efficiency, crop production and economic return for two
strategies of water scheduling.

Rainfall (mm)
Effective Rainfall (mm)
Rainfall Efficiency (Box 4 Figure 1)
Gross Irrigation
Nett Irrigation
Irrigation Efficiency (Box 5 - Figure 1)
Evapotranspiration
Yield
Crop Water Productivity (Box 8 Figure 1)
Water Use Efficiency (Box 7 Figure 1)
Water Productivity (Box 9 Figure 1)
Yield per Ml Gross Irrigation
Yield per Ml Gross Irrigation + Eff rainfall
Margin
Rate of Economic Return (Box 10 Figure 1)

Dragline
(25mm/week)
719mm
287mm
40%
1185mm
830mm
70%
1117mm
93tc/ha/yr
8,3tc/Ml
59%
4,8tc/Ml
7,8tc/Ml
6,3tc/Ml
R3947/ha/yr
R207/Ml

Dragline
(30mm/2weeks)
719mm
335mm
46%
964mm
675mm
70%
1010mm
84tc/ha/yr
8,3tc/Ml
60%
5,0tc/Ml
8,7tc/Ml
6,5tc/Ml
R3281/ha/yr
R195/Ml

For example an increase in the price of water or

pumping costs will start to favour the water
saving strategy when looking at margin and
economic return.
Conclusion and Discussion
This paper has presented a framework for
interpreting the concept of water use efficiency
in sugarcane production. Benchmarking water
use efficiency requires a clearer definition of
what is meant and what has to be measured, if
meaningful comparisons are to be made. A range
of factors, which influence water use efficiency,
have been presented. These factors should be the
focus of the farmer or irrigator when seeking to
improve efficiencies. A list of possible options to
improve water use efficiency is given in Table 3.
Examples have been given in this paper to
illustrate that good water use efficiencies do not
necessarily provide high profits. Pricing
structures will influence the extent to which high
water use efficiency will be rewarded with
improved profits. High charges associated with
applying water to the field (pumping and water
costs) will tend to focus attention on efficient
water application. High fixed costs (capital
invested in the irrigation system) will tend to
focus attention on maximizing yield regardless
of water consumed.

At the end of the day a farmer will manage his

operations to maximize production from a
number of assets being managed. Land and
capital are a farmers major assets and farming
decisions will generally be taken to maximize
gross margin per hectare and per Rand invested
as opposed to per kilolitre of water used.
A significant factor driving the quest for higher
water use efficiency is the opportunity to
increase the area irrigated for each kilolitre per
hectare saved. Thus the area farmed can be
maximized with the available water allocation.
References
Howell T (1997). Water Use Efficiency and Efficient
Irrigation. ISSCT Irrigation Workshop. Cairns,
Australia.
Smith M (2000). Optimizing Crop Production and
Crop water management Under Reduced Water
Supply. 6th International Micro-irrigation
Congress. SA National Council for Irrigation and
Drainage. Cape Town, South Africa.
Thompson G (1976). The Production of biomass by
sugarcane. Proc S Afr Sug Technol Ass 52: 180187.
Yang S (1997). The Water use Efficiency of a
Sugarcane Crop A Review.

Table 3: Options for Improving Water Use Efficiency

1. Irrigation Distribution System

Upgrading and modernization of supply
system.
Canal rehabilitation and lining.
Pipeline repair and replacement.
Water metering.
Information and decision support to improve
water distribution.
Water distribution management to improve
reliability and timing.
Improved on farm irrigation layout and
structures.
2. Field Irrigation
Correct system selection for conditions
(appropriate technology).
System design to take cognizance of soil,
crop and climate conditions.
Field measurement, repair and replacement
programmed in place.
Adequate surface and subsurface drainage to
remove excess water.
Salinity management.
Surface Irrigation Land leveling, field
layouts, furrow shape and length, flow
management (surge/cut off/return flow
systems).
Pressurized Sprinkler Systems matching
emitter pressure, diameter and discharge with
soil and crop.
Drip Systems as for sprinkler plus
filtration, blockage prevention (flushing,
chlorination, acid treatment, root control),
control of pest damage to pipes.
3. Rainfall Management
Increase effective rainfall (trashing, contour
planting, scarifying, stage of crop growth).

4. Crop Irrigation Management

Scheduled water applications accounting for
season, stage of crop, soil water content (soil
moisture monitoring, soil water balance
techniques).
Row spacing and weed control (reduce
evaporation losses).
Maximize root volume.
Best water placement (sub-surface, reduced
wetted area) and wetting frequency.
Improved cultural practices (tillage depth,
minimum tillage, ripping if appropriate).
5. Crop Water Productivity
Variety selection for drought tolerance and
biotechnology.
Optimal inputs to maximize production.
Selection of best crop cycle giving
cognizance to climate and water constraints.
Avoid water shortage at critical growth
stages.
Maximize sucrose conversion.
6. Management and Administration
Formation of formal water user associations
to improve management, decisions and
accountability.
Water charge structures.
Provision of training and extension
(especially on farm irrigation management).
Study groups.

Figure 1: Framework for Defining Water use Efficiency (after Smith, 2000)
Root zone store(mm)
1

Farm edge (mm)

Water source (mm)

RAINFALL
EFFICIENCY

CONVEYANCE
EFFICIENCY

Field edge (mm)

Farm edge (mm)

Rainfall (mm)

FARM
EFFICIENCY

Root zone store (mm)

Water source (mm)
IRRIGATION
EFFICIENCY

Transpiration (mm)
Total water supply (mm)

WATER USE
EFFICIENCY
9

Root zone store (mm)

Field edge (mm)

FIELD
EFFICIENCY

Yield (tc)
Water supply (mm)

WATER
PRODUCTIVITY
6

Transpiration (mm)
Root Zone Store (mm)

CROP WATER
EFFICIENCY

Yield (tc)
8

Transpiration (mm)

CROP WATER
PRODUCTIVITY

10

Profit (R)
Water supply (mm)
ECONOMIC
RETURN