This blog is the second in a four-part series that delves into the recent program evaluation of California’s Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) Programs. In this installment, we focus on the State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program (SWEEP), highlighting some of the program-specific findings and recommendations.

In the first part of this series, we explored the overall findings and recommendations of a recent independent program evaluation of California’s Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) Programs led by Dr. Nicholas Babin of Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo. The evaluation showed that the Climate Smart Agriculture programs are effectively helping growers adopt and expand climate-smart farming practices. Growers are also gaining new skills and sharing their experiences with others.  

SWEEP Overview: 

SWEEP provides cost-share grants to growers to install more water- and energy-efficient irrigation systems, including solar-powered irrigation pumps, subsurface drip irrigation, and soil moisture monitoring systems. Since its inception in 2014, SWEEP has awarded over $123 million to California farmers and ranchers, according to their data as of May 2022.

SWEEP Specific Key Findings:

Motivations for Participation: 

Not surprisingly, improving water efficiency (46%) and improving energy efficiency (38%) were most frequently cited as the primary motivations for participating in SWEEP. 

Improving crop yields or quality was cited as the primary motivation by only 13% of respondents, perhaps reflecting the “increased crop per drop” co-benefit of many SWEEP projects.

High Persistence Rates with Some Variation by Technology: 

To evaluate the extent to which SWEEP recipients plan to continue using the irrigation technologies they received a grant for (aka their “persistence rate”), the program evaluation asked recipients “Do you intend to use this practice in the next 12 months?” 

Persistence rates for different irrigation technologies ranged from 67% to 84%. 

Micro irrigation (84%) had the highest persistence rate, while web-based irrigation management platforms (67%) had the lowest. 

The lower rate for web-based irrigation management platforms did not surprise us. We had heard anecdotal data from irrigation experts and farmers about those companies going out of business or farmers determining that renewing the subscriptions was not worth the cost.

The persistence rates for variable frequency drive (VFD) pumps (79%) and solar (81%) were lower than we had expected, given those are fixed infrastructure. CDFA noted this peculiarity as well in their cover letter to the report and stated that they “want to understand why a significant proportion of producers discontinue use or if there is a possibility that the survey instrument did not capture valid reasons for temporary disuse of equipment, such as availability of surface water or short term fallowing.” We share CDFA’s interest in further understanding these data points. There’s a possibility that the way the question was asked may have obscured some valid reasons for temporarily discontinuing use, such as fallowing fields.

Expanded Adoption Beyond Funding: 

Excitingly, approximately 30% of grant recipients chose to voluntarily expand the use of the technologies that were funded through their SWEEP grants, suggesting there may be significant ongoing and additional benefits from one-time SWEEP investments that are not recorded through traditional grant reporting requirements.

Opportunity for More Distribution Uniformity Testing and Irrigation Scheduling Training:

One interesting finding is that only 50% of respondents had tested the distribution uniformity (DU) of their irrigation system in the previous two years. The evaluation also found that a significant number of growers indicated they would have benefited from additional technical assistance to effectively utilize their soil moisture sensors.

Irrigation experts, including those involved in a SWEEP advisory group, have emphasized the importance of DU testing and training on the use of soil moisture sensors and irrigation scheduling in order to maximize the benefits of SWEEP-funded technologies. Thankfully, CDFA’s new Water Efficiency Technical Assistance Program (WETA), which the agency created in 2021 in response to a number of the advisory group’s recommendations, directly addresses this opportunity by supporting DU testing and multilingual irrigation training.

CDFA’s Ongoing Improvement: 

The program evaluation included a few recommendations related to SWEEP, almost all of which CDFA has taken steps to address. These recommendations include:

• Incentivize more technical support for DU testing and operation of soil moisture sensors. As noted above, CDFA created the Water Efficiency Technical Assistance Program (WETA) in 2021 to address this need. However, the program will need renewed funding from the legislature in future budget years to continue.
• Allow more flexibility in budget change processes. CDFA has already taken steps to address this by only requiring paperwork on budget changes beyond a certain dollar threshold.
• Increase the amount of advanced funding available to grantees. Current regulations limit the total proportion of project funds that may be disbursed in advance to SWEEP grantees, which can create a cash flow challenge for growers. CDFA has been collaboratively engaged in discussions with CalCAN and the legislature about a bill (AB 2734, Connolly) to address this issue. However, we have determined that further conversations with the Department of Finance and CDFA may be needed, given other larecent legislation (AB 590, Hart) affecting advanced payments across multiple agencies. 
• Consider project size caps for soil moisture sensors. CalCAN agrees this is worth considering, given the relatively high cost and lower persistence rates of some types of soil moisture sensors. Yet, we think it will be important to further consult with irrigation experts and SWEEP stakeholders to understand the pros, cons, and details of a potential cap. CDFA explored and instituted a cap for the percentage of a project budget that could go towards solar panels in the fall of 2023, so there is a precedent for setting a cap on a specific technology within the program.

Read more about the data collected on SWEEP or the other programs evaluated in the complete report which includes further details, data, and CDFA’s cover letter.

Conclusion

Stay tuned for more updates and in-depth analysis of the report evaluation as we continue this blog series next week! Interested in learning more about how SWEEP can benefit your farm, have insights into water efficiency practices or received a SWEEP grant and want to share your story with us? Contact contact Colton Fagundes, our Associate Policy Director, who leads our water policy work.

For examples of previously funded SWEEP projects, check out the “Conserving Water & Energy” section of CalCAN’s Farmer Voices page.