The Mississippi Alluvial Plain Aquifers: An Engine for 

Economic Activity

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Fact Sheet 2019–3003

February 2019

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

science supports groundwater resource 

management in the Mississippi Alluvial 

Plain (MAP) region. The USGS Science 

and Decisions Center is working with the 

Water Availability and Use Science Program (WAUSP) to integrate economics 

into a sophisticated model of groundwater in the region. The model will quantify 

the status of the groundwater system 

and help researchers, stakeholders, and 

decision-makers understand and manage 

groundwater resources. Including economics in the model will let users consider the influence of groundwater levels 

on regional economics and the effects 

of economic factors on the demand for 

groundwater.

Agriculture is a major source of 

economic activity in the Mississippi 

Alluvial Plain (MAP) region. The 

MAP region consists of parts of Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, 

Kentucky, Illinois, and Missouri (fig. 1). 

Irrigated acreage in the region accounted 

for 14 percent of total U.S. agriculture 

in 2015 (Dieter and others, 2018). Major 

crops grown in the region include corn, 

cotton, rice, and soybeans. Catfish is an 

important aquaculture commodity.

Agriculture in the region relies on 

groundwater for irrigation. Approximately 65 percent of farmland in the 

region relies on groundwater from the 

Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer 

(MRVAA) for irrigation and aquaculture 

(Kebede and others, 2014).1 Irrigated 

acreage in the region is on the rise; 

from 2007 to 2012, irrigated acreage in 

Arkansas and Mississippi increased by 

about 7.7 and 20.7 percent, respectively 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture-National 

1

This groundwater withdrawal information 

is based on 2010 data from the Yazoo Mississippi Delta Joint Water Management District 

(http://www.ymd.org).

Agricultural Statistics Service [USDA–

NASS], 2013). Seventy percent of corn, 

cotton, and soybean acres are irrigated, 

and rice is exclusively grown under flood 

irrigation systems (USDA–NASS, 2013). 

The MRVAA ranked second in groundwater use among aquifers in the Nation, 

accounting for 16 percent of the national, 

total groundwater withdrawals for irrigation in 2000 (Maupin and Barber, 2005); 

in 2015, groundwater use for irrigation 

was about 23 percent of the national total 

(Dieter and others, 2018).

Groundwater levels in the region 

are declining. For example, from 1940 

to 1980, groundwater-level declines 

due to large withdrawals ranged from 

60 to 90 feet in the Grand Prairie and 

Cache River areas of Arkansas, and by 

1982, declines ranged from 10 to 20 feet 

in northwestern Mississippi (Renken, 

1998). Recent reports show a continuing trend of groundwater depletion. 

Schrader (2008) reported groundwaterlevel declines of as much as 50 feet in 

the MRVAA in parts of eastern Arkansas 

Corn irrigation in Mississippi. Photograph by the U.S. Geological Survey.

between 1927 and 2007. Clark and others 

(2011) reported that an approximately 

216-square-mile (138,240-acre) area of 

the MRVAA showed declines of more 

than 100 feet from the predevelopment 

conditions to 2007. While groundwater 

levels decline, cumulative groundwater 

pumping from the MRVAA continues 

to rise (Clark and others, 2011). As 

groundwater withdrawal rates continue to 

outpace recharge, declining water levels 

in the aquifer coupled with rising energy 

prices will increase the pumping cost of 

regional irrigation.

Economic Impacts of Agriculture 

in the Region. The USGS evaluated the 

economic impacts of corn, cotton, soybeans, rice, and catfish production, hereafter referred to as “major commodities,” 

for a 5-year period, 2013–17,2

 in the 

MAP region. Revenues from these major 

2

Only the 2017 economic impacts are presented 

in this fact sheet. All 2013–17 impacts are available 

as a USGS data release (Alhassan and others, 2019) 

at https://doi.org/10.5066/P9RW8Y2A.
Gulf of Mexico

Atlantic Ocean

CANADA

AL GA

SC

NC

VA WV

KY

TN

MS

LA

AR

MO

IA

MN

WI

ME

MD

DE

NJ

RI

CT

MA

VT

NH

MI

IL IN OH

PA

NY

TX

OK

KS

NE

SD

ND

FL

Base from Esri digital data, 2018, copyright 2018 Esri and its licensors

County boundaries from 2016 U.S. Census Bureau TIGER dataset

Mississippi River streamline from U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset

MAP boundary from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Level III Ecoregions dataset

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection, North American Datum of 1983

GULF OF MEXICO

LOUISIANA

ARKANSAS

MISSISSIPPI

MISSOURI

ALABAMA

TENNESSEE

KENTUCKY

ILLINOIS

TEXAS

Total revenue—

In millions of dollars

EXPLANATION

 0–25

 26–50

 51–100

 101–150

 151–257

Mississippi Alluvial

 Plain boundary

Mississippi River

94° 93° 92° 91° 90° 89° 88°

37°

36°

35°

34°

33°

32°

31°

30°

29°

0 50 100 150 200 KILOMETERS

0 50 100 MILES

Figure 1. Map of total crop revenue by county for 2017 in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain region. Data from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service show that the most productive counties, by revenue, 

are in Arkansas and Mississippi.
commodities were calculated by county 

in the seven States within the MAP 

region. These are the “direct” economic 

impacts. Also assessed were indirect and 

induced effects, such as the provision of 

goods and services to the crop and catfish 

sectors by other businesses (indirect) and 

the spending of labor income by workers in other industries that are indirectly 

impacted by the production sectors of 

the major commodities (induced). Each 

activity or sale generates additional jobs, 

salaries, and other benefits in the region, 

known commonly as multiplier impacts. 

The multiplier impact captures how production of a major crop or catfish benefits 

the larger regional economy. The total 

economic impact is the product of the 

direct effect and a multiplier.3

We used county-level annual outputs 

of the major crops for 2013 through 

2017 (USDA–NASS, 2018). Output 

prices were obtained from USDA–NASS 

(2018), Mississippi State University 

(2018), and the University of Arkansas (2018). State-level inventories of 

food-sized catfish and prices were also 

obtained from USDA–NASS (2018, 

available only for Arkansas, Louisiana, 

and Mississippi). Data for some crops or 

for catfish were unavailable for some of 

the counties and States. The multipliers 

were obtained from the 2016 IMPLAN 

(Impact Analysis for Planning) Statelevel datasets (IMPLAN, 2016).

The economic impacts presented 

here should be interpreted as the minimum for the agricultural industry in the 

MAP region since they do not include 

livestock, small grains, pasture, vegetables, or other agricultural commodities. 

Table 1 lists total revenues for 2017, by 

commodity type and State, in millions of 

dollars. Based on the available data, total 

revenues from production of the major 

commodities in 2017 are $2.46 billion 

in Arkansas and $1.80 billion in Mississippi. These revenues correspond to 84 

and 71 percent of the 2017 agricultural 

gross domestic products (GDPs) of 

Arkansas and Mississippi.

Table 1. State-level revenues from production of the major commodities (millions of 

dollars), Mississippi Alluvial Plain region, 2017.

[AR, Arkansas; IL, Illinois; KY, Kentucky; LA, Louisiana; MAP, Mississippi Alluvial Plain; MO, Missouri; 

MS, Mississippi; TN, Tennessee; —, no data]

Commodity AR IL KY LA MO MS TN MAP 

region

Corn $315 $11 $73 $302 $176 $267 $68 $1,212

Cotton $349 — — $103 — $321 $55 $829

Rice $935 — — $88 — $72 — $1,096

Soybeans $838 $32 $75 $591 $560 $953 $168 $3,217

Catfish $21 — — — — $189 — $210

Total $2,458 $44 $147 $1,084 $736 $1,803 $292 $6,564

Table 2. State-level total economic impacts of the major commodities (millions of dollars), 

Mississippi Alluvial Plain region, 2017.

[AR, Arkansas; IL, Illinois; KY, Kentucky; LA, Louisiana; MAP, Mississippi Alluvial Plain; MO, Missouri; 

MS, Mississippi; TN, Tennessee; —, no data]

Commodity AR IL KY LA MO MS TN MAP 

region

Corn $588 $20 $125 $618 $328 $494 $127 $2,301

Cotton $653 — — $194 — $585 $103 $1,535

Rice $1,749 — — $180 — $133 — $2,063

Soybeans $1,475 $56 $125 $1,087 $980 $1,639 $300 $5,662

Catfish $35 — — — — $278 — $314

Total $4,501 $77 $250 $2,080 $1,308 $3,130 $530 $11,875

3

We used Type II multipliers. Type II multipliers 

are final-demand multipliers and capture the indirect 

(interindustry) and induced (household-spending) 

impacts (Ambargis and Mead, 2012).

Table 2 lists the total economic 

impacts, which include direct revenues 

as well as regional indirect and induced 

impacts. Arkansas and Mississippi 

represent most of the total economic 

impacts of the major commodities in the 

MAP region. In Arkansas, the total is 

$4.50 billion, and in Mississippi the total 

is $3.13 billion.

The total revenues and economic 

impacts of the MAP region by crop type 

are shown in figure 2. The total revenue 

for the MAP region is $6.56 billion, and 

the total economic impact is $11.88 billion. Soybean crops contribute the most 

in terms of direct and total economic 

impacts in the region (attributable to both 

acreage and price). Corn and rice provide 

the next largest share, followed by cotton and catfish. Many other crops in the 

region provide additional revenue and 

contributions to the regional economy.

Because of the reliance on groundwater for irrigation in the MAP region, 

understanding the availability, use, and 

sustainability of the MRVAA is critical. 

The USGS is providing sophisticated 

analysis and modeling to increase knowledge of the MRVAA and the system water 

budgets at various levels of water use. 

Incorporating economic analyses provides additional information, including 

how changes in groundwater levels affect 

the cost of crop production in the region 

and how economic factors may influence 

water demand. Decision-makers and 

other stakeholders can use such information as they consider tradeoffs associated 

with different management actions.
$1,090 

$706 

$968

$2,445 

$103 

$1,212 

$829 

$1,096 

$3,217 

$210 

($313) 

($2,302) 

($1,535) 

($2,064)

($5,662) 

Corn Cotton Rice Soybeans Catfish

EXPLANATION

[Total economic impacts in parentheses]

Figure 2. Total revenues (inner circle), indirect and induced economic impacts 

(outer circle), and total economic impacts (sum of inner and outer circles) of the major 

commodities (millions of dollars), Mississippi Alluvial Plain region, 2017.

References Cited

Alhassan, M., Lawrence, C.B., Richardson, S.M., 

and Pindilli, E.J., 2019, The Mississippi Alluvial Plain Aquifer—An engine for economic 

activity—Data: U.S. Geological Survey data 

release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9RW8Y2A.

Ambargis, Z.O., and Mead, C.I., 2012, RIMS 

II—An essential tool for regional developers 

and planners: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, variously paged.

Clark, B.R., Hart, R.M., and Gurdak, J.J., 2011, 

Groundwater availability of the Mississippi 

embayment: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1785, 62 p. By Mustapha Alhassan, Collin Lawrence, Steven Richardson, and Emily Pindilli

Dieter, C.A., Maupin, M.A., Caldwell, R.R., Harris, M.A., Ivahnenko, T.I., Lovelace, J.K., Barber, N.L., and Linsey, K.S., 2018, Estimated 

use of water in the United States in 2015: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1441, 65 p. 

[Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/

cir1441. Supersedes USGS Open-File Report 

2017–1131.].

IMPLAN, 2016, State-level datasets: Huntersville, 

N.C., IMPLAN Group LLC, IMPLAN System 

(data and software).

Kebede, H., Fisher, D.K., Sui, R., and Reddy, 

K.N., 2014, Irrigation methods and scheduling in the delta region of Mississippi—Current status and strategies to improve irrigation 

efficiency: American Journal of Plant Sciences, 

v. 5, no. 20, p. 2917–2928.

Maupin, M.A., and Barber, N.L., 2005, Estimated 

withdrawals from principal aquifers in the 

United States, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1279, 46 p.

Mississippi State University, 2018, Budgets: 

Mississippi State University Department of 

Agricultural Economics datasets, accessed 

November 9, 2018, at https://agecon.msstate.

edu/whatwedo/budgets.php.

Renken, R.A., 1998, Ground water atlas of 

the United States—Segment 5, Arkansas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi: U.S. Geological 

Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730–F, 

accessed July 31, 2018, at https://pubs.usgs.

gov/ha/730f/report.pdf.

Schrader, T.P., 2008, Water levels and selected 

water-quality conditions in the Mississippi 

River Valley Alluvial Aquifer in eastern Arkansas, 2006: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2008–5092, 73 p.

University of Arkansas, 2018, Arkansas field crop 

enterprise budgets: University of Arkansas, 

Division of Agriculture, Research & Extension database, accessed November 9, 2018, at 

https://www.uaex.edu/farm-ranch/economicsmarketing/farm-planning/budgets/crop-budgets.aspx.

U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service [USDA–NASS], 2018, 

Data and statistics: U.S. Department of Agriculture databases, accessed November 9, 2018, 

at https://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/index.php.

U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service [USDA–NASS], 2014, 

Farm and ranch irrigation survey (2013)—Volume 3, special studies, part 1: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 2012 Census of Agriculture, 

AC–12–SS–1, 214 p. plus appendixes, accessed 

July 31, 2018, at https://www.agcensus.usda.

gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/

Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/fris13.pdf.

The USGS Science and Decisions Center is an interdisciplinary organization

advancing the use of science in natural resource decision making. For more 

information, please contact:

Science and Decisions Center

U.S. Geological Survey

913 National Center

Reston, VA 20192

Email: gs_emeh_sdc@usgs.gov

Home page: https://www2.usgs.gov/sdc/

ISSN 2327-6932 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20193003