U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in cooperation with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and 

the Suwannee River Water Management District

Agricultural Irrigated Land-Use Inventory for the Counties in 

the Suwannee River Water Management District in Florida, 

2015 

By Richard L. Marella, Joann F. Dixon, and Darbi R. Berry

Abstract 

A detailed inventory of irrigated crop acreage is not 

available at the level of resolution needed to accurately estimate agricultural water use or to project future water demands 

in many Florida counties. A detailed digital map and summary 

of irrigated acreage during the 2015 growing season was 

developed for 13 of the 15 counties that compose the Suwannee 

River Water Management District. The irrigated areas were 

delineated using land-use data, orthoimagery, and information 

obtained from the water management district consumptive 

water-use permits that were then field verified between May and 

November of 2015. Selected attribute data were collected for 

the irrigated areas, including crop type, primary water source, 

and type of irrigation system. Results indicate that an estimated 

113,134 acres were either irrigated or had potential for irrigation 

in all or part of the 13 counties within the Suwannee River 

Water Management District during 2015. This estimate includes 

108,870 acres of field-verified, irrigated crops and 4,264 acres of 

irrigated land observed as (1) idle (with an irrigation system visible but no crop present at the time of the field-verification visit), 

(2) acres that could not be verified during field visits, or (3) acres 

that were located on publicly owned research lands.

Of the total field-verified crops, 83,721 acres were field 

crops; 20,962 acres were vegetable crops (sometimes referred to 

as row crops); 3,089 acres were in tree nurseries, ornamentals, 

and sod production; and 1,098 acres were fruit crops. Specific 

irrigated crops included 32,468 acres of corn (primarily for 

silage); 28,170 acres of peanuts; and 10,331 acres of hay. About 

40 percent of the vegetable acreage (8,340 acres) was double 

cropped (planted with both a spring and a fall crop on the same 

field). Beans, carrots, and watermelons were the most commonly 

grown vegetable crops in these 13 counties in 2015. 

Sprinkler irrigation systems including center pivots, portable 

or traveling guns, and permanent or solid overhead fixtures 

accounted for nearly 91 percent (102,874 acres) of the total 

irrigated acreage in the Suwannee River Water Management 

District, whereas microirrigation systems including drip irrigation accounted for 9 percent (10,260 acres) of the irrigated 

acreage. A total of 1,466 center pivots were observed during 

field verification in 2015 and accounted for 93,093 irrigated 

acres (which represents 82 percent of the total irrigated acreage). 

Most center pivots were in use at the time of the field verification, although about 3 percent appeared idle. No flood irrigation 

systems were observed during field verification in 2015. Overall, 

groundwater was used to irrigate nearly all of the field-verified 

acreage (99.8 percent). Dairy wastewater effluent was used on 

many fields during 2015; however, a quantitative estimate of 

acreage using effluent could not be determined.

Irrigated cropland totaled 26,927 acres in Suwannee 

County; 16,511 acres in Madison County; 14,862 acres in 

Hamilton County; and 14,155 acres in Gilchrist County; these 

four counties accounted for nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the 

acres irrigated within the Suwannee River Water Management 

District during 2015. Corn (primarily for silage) and peanuts 

were the primary irrigated crops, accounting for 48, 70, and 

71 percent, respectively, of the total irrigated acreage in Suwannee, Madison, and Gilchrist Counties; vegetables accounted 

for 52 percent of the total irrigated acres in Hamilton County. 

Other counties with substantial irrigated acreage included 

Levy (10,122 acres), Alachua (9,547 acres), and Lafayette 

(8,110 acres); these three counties, combined with Suwannee, 

Madison, Hamilton, and Gilchrist Counties, accounted for 

88 percent of the irrigated acreage in the Suwannee River Water 

Management District.

The irrigated acreage that was field verified in 2015 for the 

13 counties in the Suwannee River Water Management District 

(113,134 acres) is about 6 percent higher than the estimated 

acreage published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(107,217 acres) for 2012; however, this 2012 value represents 

acreage for the entire portion of all 13 counties, not just the 

Suwannee River Water Management District portion. Differences between the 2015 field-verified acreage totals and those 

published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for 2012 may 

Open-File Report 2016–1111
2 Agricultural Irrigated Land-Use Inventory in the Suwannee River Water Management District in Florida, 2015

occur because (1) irrigated acreage for some specific crops 

increased or decreased substantially during the 3-year interval 

due to commodity prices or economic changes, (2) calculated 

field-verified irrigated acreage may be an overestimate because 

irrigation was assumed if an irrigation system was present and 

therefore the acreage was counted as irrigated, when in fact 

that may not have been the case as some farmers may not have 

used their irrigation systems during this growing period even 

if they had a crop in the field, or (3) the amount of irrigated 

acreages published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for 

selected crops may be underestimated in some cases.

Introduction

Water withdrawals for agricultural irrigation generally are 

estimated in counties throughout Florida because most irrigators do not meter or report their usage, or the metered information obtained does not provide a cumulative total. The most 

common procedure used to estimate water withdrawals for 

agricultural irrigation in Florida is to multiply the reported or 

published number of acres of each crop irrigated by a cropspecific net irrigation requirement, also known as an application rate (Marella, 2014). The acreage irrigated and the 

application rates are estimated by each of five water management districts (WMD) for the counties within their boundaries. 

Many assumptions must be made to estimate water withdrawals using irrigated acreage data and application rates. 

Some of the problems associated with obtaining and using 

reported or published irrigated acreage data include

•	 variations in definitions, data-collection procedures, 

and reporting levels between agencies that compile 

such data, and differences in years published; 

•	 inadequate documentation of accuracy and detail; 

•	 missing data due to incomplete compilations or privacy 

restrictions or disclosures;

•	 inability to differentiate between irrigated and nonirrigated crop data at the county level; 

•	 lack of information about irrigation method and water 

source; and 

•	 lack of spatial data describing the location of irrigated 

crop lands.

Accurate and detailed estimates of irrigated acreage are 

not available at the level needed to improve current wateruse estimates or to project future demands. The results of 

this study will increase the accuracy of water-use estimates 

and provide a more detailed summary of the irrigated crops 

within the 13 counties of the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) than the values published in the 

past for these counties. Information on crop type, irrigation 

system, and water source enables water managers and planners to better estimate current and future water needs. An 

accurate assessment of the spatial distribution of irrigated 

lands will allow better identification of water use at the local 

and regional level, and facilitate more reliable assignment of 

withdrawals for use in predictive hydrologic models.

Background 

In 1998, the five Florida WMDs each prepared a detailed 

regional water supply plan for areas or counties within their 

jurisdiction to determine whether existing sources of water 

were adequate for current and future water needs (Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection, 2013). Water needs 

include water for public supply, domestic/small public supply, 

commercial/industrial/institutional self-supplied, power 

generation, agricultural irrigation, and recreational irrigation 

(mainly golf courses). The primary objective of these water 

supply plans was to project future water demands and develop 

alternative water supplies to help meet these projected 

demands. 

In 2013, the Florida Legislature mandated that future 

water demand projections for the agricultural irrigation part of 

WMD water supply plans be provided by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) for 

consideration by the WMDs (Marella and Dixon, 2015). The 

water supply plans typically project 20 years into the future 

and are updated by the WMDs on a 5-year cycle. Generally, all 

water supply plans are approved and adopted as policy guides 

by the governing board of each WMD. 

Water withdrawals for agricultural irrigation refer to 

water used for crop irrigation and for non-irrigation uses 

associated with agricultural and farming operations (Marella, 

2014). Crop irrigation includes the application of water on 

lands to assist in cultivation of crops or to prevent crop damage caused by harsh weather. Non-irrigation uses include 

withdrawals for livestock watering, washing of dairy and farm 

equipment, augmentation of ponds used for fish farming, and 

other farm uses (Marella, 2014). 

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to present the results of a 

cooperative study between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

FDACS, and the SRWMD designed to provide a detailed 

digital map and summary of field-verified irrigated acreage 

within all or part of 13 of the 15 counties located within the 

SRWMD boundary for the 2015 calendar year. These 13 counties include Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, 

Hamilton, Jefferson, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Suwannee, 

Taylor, and Union (fig. 1). The small areas of Baker and Putnam Counties located within the SRWMD were not included 

in this study. Four of the 13 counties inventoried (Alachua, 

Bradford, Jefferson, and Levy) are only partially within the 
Introduction 3

Santa Fe River

Suwannee River

 Withlacoochee River

90

90

27

98

27

ALT.

27

98

LEON

WAKULLA

JEFFERSON

MADISON

TAYLOR

HAMILTON

SUWANNEE

COLUMBIA

LAFAYETTE

GILCHRIST

DIXIE

LEVY

UNION

BAKER

NASSAU

BRADFORD

ALACHUA

MARION

CITRUS

SUMTERCLAY PUTNAM DUVAL

10

75

Mayo

Perry

Madison

Bronson

Live Oak

Lake City

Monticello

Cross City

Gainesville

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

83°30' 83°00' 82°30' 82°00'

30°30'

29°30'

0 5 10 15 20 MILES

0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS

Base from ESRI and U.S. Geological Survey digital data 1:2,000,000 scale, 2003.

GEORGIA

84°00'

31°00'

30°00'

29°00' GULF OF MEXICO

Location of 

Suwannee River 

Basin in Florida 

and Georgia in green, 

the coastal drainage 

in gray, and study area 

outlined in red

GEORGIA

FLORIDA

SJRWMD SJRWMD

NWFWMD

SRWMD

SRWMD

SWFWMD SRWMD

SRWMD 

NWFWMD

SJRWMD 

SWFWMD

Water management district boundary 

Suwannee River Water Management District 

Northwest Florida Water Management District 

St. Johns River Water Management District 

Southwest Florida Water Management District

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Suwannee River Water Management District and surrounding counties in Florida, including selected features 

and place names.
4 Agricultural Irrigated Land-Use Inventory in the Suwannee River Water Management District in Florida, 2015

SRWMD boundary. For Jefferson and Levy Counties, field 

verification was completed for the entire county as part of 

this project, whereas field verification for the part of Alachua 

County not located within the SRWMD was completed by 

the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) 

during this same time period. It was assumed that there were 

no irrigated areas in the small part of Bradford County within 

the SJRWMD in 2015. Results are available for each of these 

entire counties, but the data summarized and presented in this 

report represent the area within the SRWMD only. 

The irrigated acreage was mapped, digitized, and field 

verified for the crops grown during the 2015 spring, summer, 

fall, and winter growing seasons in these 13 counties. Attribute 

data were collected for each irrigated field including crop 

type, irrigation system type, and primary water source. The 

field verification was completed between May and November 

of 2015, although a small amount of follow-up field verification was necessary during December. The 7-month period 

between May and November enabled crop identification for 

nearly all of the fields in these 13 counties. For those fields 

planted prior to the actual field verification (January–April), 

evidence of their planting and harvesting was still visibly 

present in May and June because nearly all of these fields 

were planted with vegetables. Spring vegetables in this area 

of Florida are usually planted in late February or early March 

to avoid the potential of freeze damage. The majority of 

irrigated acreage in these 13 counties was planted with field 

crops such as corn, peanuts, and hay, and these crops are primarily grown and harvested between May and October. All 

other crops, such as orchards (citrus, blueberries, and grapes), 

ornamentals (container nurseries and tree farms), and sod, 

were also field verified between May and November, even 

though most of these crops are grown year round. 

This study focused on verifying irrigated acreage by 

crop type and field location and did not address any waterapplication rates or make any estimates of water use. The 

maps and acreage totals presented in this report provide 

estimates of irrigated acreage for 2015, additional data on 

irrigations systems, and spatially accurate locations of irrigation systems located within the 13 counties that compose the 

SRWMD. The data compiled in this study can be used by the 

USGS National Water-Use Information Program to develop 

more accurate estimates of irrigated acreage and to better distribute irrigated acreage estimates across hydrologic basins. 

County Population, Land Use, and Water 

Withdrawals

The Suwannee River Basin is located in north-central 

Florida and is bordered by the SJRWMD to the east, the 

Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) to 

the south, the Northwest Florida Water Management District 

(NWFWMD) to the west, and the State of Georgia to the north 

(fig. 1). The entire Suwannee River Basin (including coastal 

drainage areas) encompasses 13,800 square miles in Florida 

and Georgia combined (Seaber and others, 1984) (fig. 1). 

The SRWMD governs and oversees the Florida portion of 

this basin (Purdum, 1994) which includes about 7,640 square 

miles (nearly 4.9 million acres) in 15 counties (Fernald and 

Purdum, 1998). The estimated population of all or part of 

these 15 counties in 2015 was 318,700 (Jessica Bell, SRWMD, 

written commun., February 10, 2016). Most of the SRWMD 

is rural, with a few larger cities that include the northwestern 

part of Gainesville and all of Lake City, Live Oak, and Madison (fig. 1). The population of the SRWMD in Florida (fig. 2) 

has increased from 192,800 in 1980 (Fernald and Patton, 

1984) to 251,000 in 1995 (Marella, 1999) to nearly 313,760 in 

2010 and is projected to reach 332,900 by 2020 (Jessica Bell, 

SRWMD, written commun., April, 28, 2016). 

EXPLANATION

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Year

2000 2005 2010

Population

2015 2020

Historical population 

Projected population

Figure 2. Historical and projected population of 

the Suwannee River Water Management District in 

Florida, 1975–2020 (from Fernald and Patton, 1984; 

Marella, 1999, 2004, and 2009; and Jessica Bell, 

Suwannee River Water Management District, 

written commun., April 28, 2016). 
Introduction 5

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), total cropland for all of the 13 counties totaled 

427,288 acres in 2012, of which 328,974 acres (77 percent) 

were harvested (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014). 

Because four of these counties (Alachua, Bradford, Jefferson, 

and Levy) are split between other WMDs, it is difficult 

to determine the actual acreage (cropland, harvested, and 

irrigated) within these counties in each WMD; therefore, the 

information presented from the USDA represents acreage 

totals for the entire 13 counties and may overestimate these 

district totals in these four counties. Of this total harvested 

cropland, about 107,217 acres (33 percent) were irrigated 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014). A large part of the 

land in agricultural production within the SRWMD is located 

along or near the Suwannee River as it flows through the 

district from north to south (fig. 1). In addition to crop acreage, a large amount of acreage in these 13 counties remains in 

silviculture production or is in wetlands (Fernald and Purdum, 

1998). 

Groundwater has been the predominant water source 

for all uses other than power generation in the SRWMD 

since 1985 (fig. 3A). Since 1980, nearly all of the surfacewater withdrawals within the SRWMD have been for oncethrough power generation. In 2010, groundwater withdrawals 

totaled nearly 220 million gallons per day (Mgal/d), of which 

51 percent were for agricultural irrigation uses and 32 percent 

for commercial-industrial self-supplied uses (Marella, 2014). 

The remaining groundwater was withdrawn for domestic selfsupplied (9 percent), public supply (7 percent), and recreationlandscape irrigation and power generation (1 percent). 

Surface-water withdrawals totaled 110 Mgal/d in the SRWMD 

for 2010, and nearly all (98 percent) of the surface water withdrawn was used for once-through power generation (Marella, 

2014). All of the groundwater withdrawn in the SRWMD was 

obtained from the Floridan aquifer system, and 98.5 percent 

of the surface water withdrawn was from the Suwannee River 

(Marella, 2014). Total water withdrawals did not change much 

within the district between 1980 and 2010, with the exception of a significant dip in 1985. Water withdrawals over that 

30-year period ranged from a high of 335 Mgal/d in 1990 and 

1995 to a low of 264 Mgal/d in 1985 (fig. 3A). The low 1985 

value was a direct result of an extended down time during 

that period at one of the powerplants within the district when 

cooling water was not withdrawn. Overall, water withdrawals 

during this 30-year period between 1980 and 2010 increased 

for agricultural irrigation and decreased for commercialindustrial self-supplied and power generation (fig. 3B). 

0

100

200

300

400

500

1980 1985 1990 1995

Freshwater withdrawals

2000 2005 2010

Water withdrawals, in million gallons per day

Total withdrawals

EXPLANATION

Surface water 

Groundwater

A

0

100

200

Public supply Domestic 

self-supplied

Water withdrawals, in million gallons per day

Commercial/industrial 

self-supplied

Agricultural 

self-supplied

Power generation

B

1980 

1985 

1990 

1995 

2000 

2005 

2010 

EXPLANATION

Years

Figure 3. Water withdrawals in the Suwannee River Water Management District in Florida, 1980–2010; 

A, by source; B, by category (from Marella, 2004, 2009, and 2014).
6 Agricultural Irrigated Land-Use Inventory in the Suwannee River Water Management District in Florida, 2015

Methods of Investigation

A preliminary map showing agricultural land and acreage 

by crop type was developed using existing land-use data 

collected during 2013–14 or obtained from various outside 

sources. Obvious and potential irrigation fields on the preliminary map were added using more recent orthoimages from 

2014 and 2015 and digitized to produce an adjusted map that 

was used for field verification. This adjusted map became the 

working field map that was used during field verification. Field 

verification was conducted between May and November of 

2015, at which time all fields with potential irrigation shown 

on the working map were observed from public roads at least 

once during this period. Once the field verification was completed and changes were made on the adjusted map (and corresponding shape files), a final field-verified map was produced. 

All data and results presented in this report are compiled from 

the final field-verified map. 

Map Development and Data Sources 

The preliminary maps for all 13 counties were developed 

from data obtained from the geographic information system 

(GIS) layers digitized by FDACS as part of the Florida Statewide Agricultural Irrigation Demand (FSAID) geodatabase 

(Daniel Dourte, the Balmoral Group, written commun., March 

3, 2015, and October 14, 2015). The FSAID maps provided 

a spatial representation of the location of potential irrigated 

fields. These fields were then digitized using the most recent 

orthoimages, and an adjusted field map was created. Fields 

with irrigation equipment visible from the orthoimages were 

added to the adjusted field map. Orthoimages are a composite 

of high resolution aerial images (obtained from either an 

aircraft or a satellite) that combine the visual attributes of an 

aerial photograph with the spatial accuracy and reliability of a 

planimetric map (http://nationalmap.gov/ortho.html). Orthoimages obtained from the USGS Earth Resources Observation 

and Science (EROS) Center (https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/high_res_

ortho) primarily represent images from 2012 and 2013 for 

the counties within the SRWMD. Google Earth images from 

January and February of 2013, 2014, and 2015 were also used 

during digitizing. Another source used for reference was the 

World Imagery base map from Esri ArcGIS online (http://

www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=10df2279f9684e4a9f6

a7f08febac2a9). Questions or concerns about several of the 

digitized field shapes or locations on the adjusted map were 

answered during field verification or resolved during conversations with local experts.

Also added to the adjusted map was a point layer of the 

current agricultural irrigation consumptive water-use permits 

(CUP) for the SRWMD, along with a shape file with each 

permit property boundary (Glenn Horvath, SRWMD, written commun., May 11, 2015). The locations of CUPs (wells 

or surface-water intakes) in addition to the permit property 

boundaries, helped identify fields that were new or may not 

have been visible on the FSAID maps or orthoimages. For 

the parts of Jefferson and Levy Counties not in the SRWMD, 

the FSAID maps and orthoimages were also used, along 

with CUP locations obtained from the NWFWMD (Ken 

Friedman, NWFWMD, written commun., July 28, 2015) and 

the SWFWMD shapefile library (http://www.swfwmd.state.

fl.us/data/gis/layer_library/category/regulatory). Groundwater 

was assigned as the default water source for fields where a 

water source could not be verified through a CUP or a visual 

observation. These assumptions and other limitations were 

documented in the attribute files.

 Center pivot irrigation is the most common system used 

throughout the SRWMD. Details of how irrigated acreage is 

determined for center pivot irrigation are presented herein 

because the process differs from other systems in use. This 

type of irrigation system rotates around a center point (usually 

where the source water pipe enters the structure) and carries 

water laterally across multiple spans 10 to 15 feet above 

the ground that spray water onto the field through multiple 

sprinkler heads (Izuno and Haman, 1987) (fig. 4A). On many 

center pivots, a large irrigation sprinkler head (often referred 

to as an end gun) irrigates an area beyond the area that is 

directly under the center pivot structure (fig. 4B). For the 

purpose of this study, the areas digitized for each center pivot 

only include the area under the center pivot structure and do 

not include the area irrigated by the end gun (as often this area 

is not entirely planted). The area under the center pivot was 

digitized by using GIS tools to trace a line the length of the 

center pivot structure (as seen from the orthoimages) and to 

draw a circle based on the length of the structure. These center 

pivot areas were then compared to the orthoimages or aerials 

and modified to fit the shape of the field that the center pivot 

covered because in many cases the center pivot did not make 

a complete circle. Also, some areas under many center pivots 

did not have the capacity to grow a crop (in most cases they 

were either wet or underwater), and these areas were digitized 

separately and excluded from the acreage totals if they were 

large enough to be seen on the orthoimages. Overall, the 

deliberate exclusion of the non-planted areas and the areas 

sprayed by the end guns (as not all areas under the end gun are 

planted) provides a more accurate representation of the actual 

irrigated crop acreage under each center pivot than would 

otherwise be obtained. If a portable or traveling gun or drip 

irrigation system was observed, the entire field was digitized 

and labeled as irrigated. 

Field Verification, Limitations, and Crop 

Delineation 

During field verification of the irrigated areas on the 

adjusted map, specific attributes were recorded for each field. 

Attributes included crop type, irrigation system (micro, which 

includes drip systems, and sprinkler, which includes center 

pivots, portable or traveling guns, and permanent or solid 

overhead fixtures) (Izuno and Haman, 1987; Marella, 2014), 
Methods of Investigation 7

A

B

Figure 4. A, A center pivot irrigation system with end gun irrigating corn in Suwannee County, Florida, May 2015; B, A center 

pivot irrigation system with end gun irrigating corn and a non-planted area in Gilchrist County, Florida, June 2015.
8 Agricultural Irrigated Land-Use Inventory in the Suwannee River Water Management District in Florida, 2015

and water source (groundwater, surface water, or wastewater 

effluent from dairies). The field verification was conducted 

in Madison, Hamilton, and Suwannee Counties beginning in 

early May 2015 and concluded in early December, whereas 

field verification in the remaining counties began in early June 

and ended in November. Some of the early field verification in 

Madison, Hamilton, and Suwannee Counties was conducted by 

Wesley Thomas from the SRWMD; all other remaining field 

verification was conducted by USGS staff. Early field verification was scheduled to ensure that fields from spring vegetable 

production in 2015 could be verified and not missed. Throughout the Suwannee River Basin, most spring vegetables were 

either harvested or in the process of being harvested by April 

or May. Those fields that had been harvested weeks prior to 

our visit were documented as a spring vegetable crop because 

evidence of irrigation was still visibly present (field plastics, 

drip lines, portable hoses were still visible in the fields, or 

unpicked crops were still present in or along the field edges) 

and included as part of the total irrigated acres. These fields 

were all labeled as spring vegetables, and the specific crop was 

noted in the attribute file if it was known. Most of these fields 

with a spring vegetable were revisited again in October and 

November (some in early December) to determine if a fall or 

winter crop was present. If a crop was present during this visit, 

it was labeled as a fall vegetable field, and the specific crop was 

noted in the attribute file if it could be identified. Any field that 

had a crop present during both the spring and fall was labeled 

as double cropped, and the acreages were accounted for twice. 

Vegetables observed during field verification in the SRWMD 

commonly included beans, carrots, cucumbers, peppers, 

tomatoes, and watermelons. In July 2015, field verification in 

all other counties began and continued into November; this 

accounted for most all other crops, nurseries, and grasses. 

In addition to the SRWMD and USGS joint fieldverification effort, the SRWMD provided specific crop data for 

fields under a voluntary irrigation metering program. Throughout this metering program, during which the district staff 

obtains flow meter or electric running time from 368 irrigation 

sites, the current crop from each field was also recorded during 

their monthly visit. These data were provided to the USGS 

twice, once for the period between January and July of 2015 

(Megan Wetherington, SRWMD, written commun., August 4, 

2015) and once for the period between August and November 

of 2015 (Glenn Horvath, SRWMD, written commun., December 17, 2015). This metering program provided crop and 

acreage data for each field monthly, and each digitized field 

was assigned the appropriate crop and growing season (spring, 

summer, and fall). 

Each field shown on the adjusted map with an irrigation 

system or a withdrawal permit was observed from a nearby 

road at least once during the study period, and the crop type 

was identified if one was planted. Some fields were plowed 

and vacant while others were idle with grass cover; however, 

most fields were active with field corn, peanuts, or hay in 

various stages of growth between July and October 2015. 

During the summer months, some fields could not be seen 

clearly enough to properly identify a crop without accessing 

private property (at no time was private property entered 

during field verification). These unverified fields represented 

less than 5 percent of the total fields and were labeled as 

inaccessible; however, with assistance from the SRWMD and 

FDACS, some of these fields were subsequently identified 

and labeled. A few fields were revisited in November (some in 

early December) 2015 when most vegetation was dormant or 

no longer present to obscure observations. In some cases, the 

existence of center pivots could be confirmed, and evidence 

of a crop type could still be seen on many of these fields. 

Ultimately, about 54 fields could not be visibly verified at any 

time between May and November 2015. Some of these fields 

that had an irrigation system that could be seen, but the crop 

could not be clearly identified, were labeled as having the 

same crop as neighboring fields if they were within the same 

permit boundary. All other fields remained unverified, and no 

crop was assigned. 

For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that if an 

irrigation system was observed, the system would be in use for 

the current crop at some time during its growing period. This 

assumption was necessary because irrigation systems were 

observed in operation in many but not all of the fields that 

were visited between May and November 2015. The irrigation 

totals calculated for this report may be overestimated because 

of this assumption. In addition, a small percentage of fields 

in the 13 counties either used a portable irrigation system (for 

example, a portable or traveling gun) or had center pivots that 

were moved from field to field. If so, unless the portable or 

traveling gun was visibly in use or still connected to a pump, 

the acres would not be counted as irrigated, and if a center pivot 

was moved from one field to another during the same growing 

season, only the field where the center pivot was present on the 

day of the visit would be counted as irrigated.

Because of the large number of dairy and livestock 

operations within the SRWMD and surrounding areas, many 

types of grass growing operations were present. For this study, 

grasses were divided into three types (hay, pasture, and forage) 

and were included under field crops. Hay includes grass 

grown for the purpose of cutting and bailing and usually had 

evidence of bailed or stored hay along field edges; in some 

cases, livestock was present. Pasture is defined as grass that 

was usually maintained (mowed and relatively weed free), 

had the presence of livestock on the fields in some cases, and 

had no evidence of bailed or stored hay nearby. Forage grass 

was most often un-maintained (usually not mowed, often with 

weeds, or had multiple bare areas present) or was recently 

planted as a cover crop after a field or vegetable crop was 

harvested. Many of these forage grass fields had livestock 

present, and in some cases the pivot was spraying water as a 

means of cooling livestock (fig. 5). Most of the hay, pasture, or 

forage fields with an irrigation system present were counted as 

irrigated unless there was obvious evidence that the irrigation 

system was not in operation (for example, disconnected center 

pivot spans, obstructions within the center pivot areas such as 

ditches or fences, or no sign of movement because weeds or 

plants had over grown the center pivot structure). 
Results 9

Upon completion of the field verification, a draft map was

produced. This draft map was reviewed by the SRWMD to 

help identify any missing fields, and a final verified map was 

produced for publication (appendix 1). After changes were 

made and questions resolved, the results of the field-verified 

data were compiled and summarized to produce this report. 

Results

The results of data compilation and field verification 

indicate that during the growing season of 2015 (spring, summer, fall, and winter), an estimated 113,134 acres were irrigated within all or part of the 13 counties within the SRWMD. 

This estimate includes 108,870 acres of field-verified, irrigated

crops and 4,264 acres of irrigated land (1) observed as idle 

(with an irrigation system visible but no crop present at the 

time of the field verification visit), (2) acres that could not 

be verified during field visits, or (3) acres that were located 

on publicly owned research lands and not truly in production 

(table 1). Of the total field-verified crops, 83,721 acres were 

field crops; 20,962 acres were vegetable crops (sometimes 

referred to as row crops); 3,089 acres were in tree farms, 

ornamentals, and sod production; and 1,098 acres were in fruit 

crops (table 1). Specific irrigated crops included 32,468 acres 

of corn (primarily for silage); 28,170 acres of peanuts (fig. 6); 

and 10,331 acres of hay (table 1). About 40 percent of the vegetable acreage (8,340 acres) was double cropped (planted with 

both a spring and fall crop on the same field). A few of these 

double-cropped fields had a vegetable planted in the spring 

and a field crop (corn or peanuts) planted during the summer 

or fall. This acreage was also included under the appropriate 

field crop if it was observed as irrigated. Beans, carrots, 

potatoes, and watermelons were the most commonly occurring

vegetable crops in the study.

Sprinkler irrigation systems, which include center pivots, 

portable or traveling guns, and permanent or solid overhead 

fixtures, accounted for 91 percent (102,874 acres) of the total 

acreage irrigated in the SRWMD, whereas microirrigation 

systems, which include drip, accounted for 9 percent 

(10,260 acres) of the irrigated acreage. A total of 1,466 center 

pivots were observed within the SRWMD during field verification in 2015 and accounted for 93,093 acres, which represents 

82 percent of all irrigated acres. Most center pivots were in use 

in some capacity during field verification, although 3 percent 

appeared idle. Corn, peanuts, hay, and most other field crops 

were irrigated with a center pivot system (fig. 7). Other sprinkler irrigation systems observed include permanent or solid 

overhead fixtures, or a portable or traveling gun. No flood irrigation systems were observed during field verification in 2015. 

Vegetable irrigation used both center pivots and drip systems 

(figs. 7 and 8), with the majority of acreage (65 percent) 

irrigated by a center pivot or traveling gun, and 35 percent was 

irrigated by a drip irrigation system. Nurseries (tree farms and 

ornamentals) used either a micro (drip) system or a sprinkler 

(permanent or solid fixture). 

Overall, groundwater was used to irrigate 102,895 acres 

(99.8 percent) of the field-verified acreage as only 239 acres 

(4 center pivots) were observed using surface water. Wastewater effluent (primarily from dairies) was used on several 

fields within the SRWMD during 2015; however, an estimate 

of acreage using effluent could not be determined because 

groundwater and effluent can often be used interchangeably on 

many fields. 

Seven counties (Alachua, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, 

Levy, Madison, and Suwannee) accounted for 88 percent of 

the SRWMD irrigated acreage (fig. 9). Irrigated cropland 

totaled 26,927 acres in Suwannee County; 16,511 acres in 

Madison County; 14,862 acres in Hamilton County; and 

14,155 in Gilchrist County. These four counties accounted for 

nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the acres irrigated within the 

SRWMD during 2015 (table 1). Corn (primarily for silage) 

and peanuts were the primary irrigated crops in Suwannee, 

Madison, and Gilchrist Counties, accounting for 48, 70, and 

Figure 5. A center pivot irrigation system being used to cool 

livestock in Gilchrist County, Florida, June 2015.

Figure 6. Peanuts being harvested in Suwannee County, Florida, 

September 2015.
10 Agricultural Irrigated Land-Use Inventory in the Suwannee River Water Management District in Florida, 2015 ater Management District, Florida, 2015. Inventoried irrigated acreage summarized by crop and county in the Suwannee River W , Orlando; –, no data] Table 1. [Data were compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Caribbean-Florida Water Science Center Crop type Alachua1 Bradford Columbia Dixie Gilchrist Hamilton Jefferson1 Lafayette Levy1 Madison Suwannee Taylor Union Totals Vegetables-row crops Spring vegetables 725 167 – 24 1,336 2,319

– 477 1,226 1,428 3,365 – 143 11,210 

 Fall vegetables – – 123 – – 499

– 30

– 247 513 – – 1,412 

 Vegetables double crop2 82 – 64 – – 4,892

– 52 – 906 2,344 – – 8,340 

Fruit crops 701 17 

– 13 9 90 5 – – – 80 

– 183 1,098 

Field crops Corn 1,669 – 422 1,942 6,776 1,993 486 2,162 3,461 5,819 7,723 

– 15 32,468 

 Cotton – – – – – 460 141 154

– 207 – – – 962 

 Peanuts 1,575 

– 780 3,380 3,364 1,868 182 2,496 3,665 5,693 5,152 

– 15 28,170 

 Sorghum 107 – – – – 26 – 145 – – 57 – – 335  Soybeans 551 226 515 

– 149 775 257 349 96 345 462 – – 3,725 

 Hay 2,294 375 231 30 1,115 523

– 1,273 480 226 3,580 

– 204 10,331 

 Pasture 474 383 

– 132 324 245

– 116 119 – 655 – – 2,448 

 Other field crops3 339 30 83 – 654 879

– 553 780 450 1,378 – 136 5,282 

Ornamentals-nursery-sod Ornamentals4 254 – – – 25 27 525 46 – 75 294 

– 1,246 

 Tree nursery 410 – – – 90 5 – 46 269 – 332 – – 1,152 

 Sod 61 – – 156 – – 337 – – – 29 

– 108 691 

Idle5 305 187 238 

– 313 31 238 211

– 942 717 – – 3,182 

Other6 – – – – – 30 – – – – 125 – – 155 

CNV7 – – – – – 200 – – 26 173 121 403 4 927 

2015 Total acres irrigated 9,547 1,385 2,456 5,677 14,155 14,862 2,171 8,110 10,122 16,511 26,927 403 808 113,134 

Irrigation system type

Micro8 1,446 184 64 – 1,190 2,227 333 520 1,495 555 1,943 

– 303 10,260

Sprinkler9 8,101 1,201 2,392 5,677 12,965 12,635 1,838 7,590 8,627 15,956 24,984 403 505 102,874 

Acreage values shown reflect the total within the district only. 

This acreage is referred to as double cropped, and the actual 

ater Management District. 1County is only partially within the Suwannee River W

Acreage includes vegetables that were planted in the spring and fall on the same field. 

2

Acreage includes tobacco, wheat (for grain), oats (for grain), proso millet, rice, rye (for grain), dry southern peas (cowpeas), grass and grass seeds, 

3

Acreage includes floriculture and bedding crops reported as “acres in the open” but does not include “square footage under glass or protection.” 

4

Acreage includes idle land with no specific crop (a grass cover was most often observed) or vacant with an irrigation system present. 

5

Includes acres with an irrigation system located at a governmental or university research facility with a variety of planted crops. 

, the presence of an irrigation sy erify, the existence of an irrigated crop could not be verified at the time of observation; however

, jet, and bubbler systems.

 - Could Not V

67CNV

Microirrigation includes drip, spray

8

Sprinkler irrigation includes portable and traveling guns, solid or permanent overhead fixtures, center pivots, and periodic moving systems.

9

physical acreage would be one-half of the totals shown. 

hay, forage, and silage crops. 

stem was observed. 
Results 11

Vegetables; 

18%

Hay; 9%

All other field crops 

and pasture; 11%

Ornamentals, 

tree nursery, 

and sod; 3%

All idle, other, and 

unverified acreage; 4%

Fruit crops; 1%

Peanuts; 25%

Field corn; 

29%

Microirrigation–Including drip 

Sprinkler irrigation–Including center pivot 

EXPLANATION

Figure 7. The distribution of inventoried irrigated crops by 

irrigation system type in the Suwannee River Water Management 

District, Florida, 2015.

71 percent of the total, respectively; vegetables accounted for 

52 percent of the total irrigated acreage in Hamilton County 

(fig. 9). Other counties with substantial irrigated acres include 

Levy (10,122 acres), Alachua (9,547 acres), and Lafayette 

(8,110 acres). 

It is difficult to compare the field-verified results 

compiled in this study to estimates made in previous years 

by the SRWMD and the USGS because methods and sources 

of data differed during the past 40 years. A comparison of 

previous compilations indicates a wide range in results (fig. 10 

and table 2) and therefore emphasizes the value of doing 

a field-verified inventory such as this study. Most of these 

earlier crop compilations, completed jointly by the USGS and 

the SRWMD for water-use estimates, were a composite of 

information obtained from district CUP files, published data 

from the USDA or the Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, 

or estimates made by local County Extension Agents. 

In addition, it is difficult to compare the USGS 

estimates tabulated for 2015 with county estimates published by the USDA for 2012 because of differences in 

reporting years and methods used to compile or tabulate 

data. Overall, the irrigated acreage estimated by the USGS 

for the 13 counties that were inventoried in the SRWMD 

is about 6 percent higher than the 2012 estimated acreage 

published by the USDA (107,217 acres) (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, 2014); however, because the USDA does 

not subdivide county values into WMD areas, this value 

represents the entire acreage for all 13 counties and may 

be high (individual county acreage totals published by the 

USDA are presented in appendix 2 and include inventoried 

acreage for those areas in the split counties outside the WMD). 

The 2015 inventoried acreage was very similar to the 2012 

values published by the USDA for Gilchrist and Suwannee 

Counties; however, for Dixie, Hamilton, and Madison 

Figure 8. A center pivot irrigation system irrigating fall vegetables in Hamilton County, Florida, December 2014.
12 Agricultural Irrigated Land-Use Inventory in the Suwannee River Water Management District in Florida, 2015

Counties the 2015 inventoried acreage values were much 

higher than those published for 2012, and in Columbia and 

Lafayette Counties the 2015 inventoried acreage values were 

much lower than those published in 2012 (fig. 11). Alachua, 

Bradford, Jefferson, and Levy Counties were not compared 

because the 2015 inventoried acreage totals only represent 

the SRWMD part of the counties, whereas the USDA acreage 

values represent the totals for the entire county.

Differences between the 2015 field-verified acreage totals 

and those published by the USDA for 2012 may occur because 

(1) irrigated acreage for some specific crops increased or 

decreased substantially during the 3-year interval due to 

commodity prices or economic changes, (2) irrigated acreage 

calculated by the USGS for 2015 may be an overestimate 

because irrigation was assumed if an irrigation system was 

present and therefore the acreage was counted as irrigated, 

when in fact some farmers may not have used their irrigation 

systems during this growing period even if they had a crop 

in the field, or (3) the amount of irrigated acreage published 

by the USDA for selected crops may be an underestimate 

in some cases as a result of how they obtain information. In 

addition, according to the SRWMD, a noticeable increase in 

well construction permits issued for agriculture wells occurred 

in several of the 13 counties within the district between 2010 

and 2015 (Glenn Horvath, SRWMD, written commun., August 

2015).

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Acres

Alachua

Field crops–Including cotton, sorghum, soybeans, hay, pasture, and others 

Corn 

Peanuts 

Vegetables 

All other crops–Including ornamentals, tree nurseries, sod, and all fruit crops

EXPLANATION

County

Bradford

Columbia

Dixie

Gilchrist

Hamilton

Jefferson

Lafayette

Levy

Madison

Suwannee

Taylor

Union

Figure 9. The distribution of inventoried irrigated crops by county in the Suwannee River 

Water Management District, Florida, 2015.
Results 13

0

80,000

40,000

120,000

60,000

20,000

100,000

Acres, in thousands

Estimated or inventoried 

SRWMD/U.S. Geological Survey 

values, based on the portion of 

13 counties within the 

water management district 

Reported USDA values, 

based on the totals 

of all 13 counties

197519801985199019952000200520102015197419781982198719921997200220072012

(Counties include Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, 

Jefferson, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Suwannee, Taylor, and Union)

Figure 10. Estimated, inventoried, and reported acreage for 

the counties in the Suwannee River Water Management District 

(SRWMD), Florida, 1974–2015 (from Leach 1978 and 1983; Marella, 

2004, 2009, and 2014; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977 and 

1984; and U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], 1989, 1994, 1999, 

2004, 2009, and 2014).

0

20

40

10

30

Columbia 

County

Dixie 

County

Acres, in thousands

Gilchrist 

County

Hamilton 

County

Lafayette 

County

Madison

County

Suwannee 

County

1974

1978

1982

1987

1992

1997

2002

2007

2012

EXPLANATION

Years

2015 (Field verified by USGS)

Figure 11. Irrigated acreage reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and inventoried by the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) for selected counties in the Suwannee River Water Management District, Florida, 1974–2015 (from 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977 and 1984, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1989, 1994, 1999, 2004, 2009, and 2014).
14 Agricultural Irrigated Land-Use Inventory in the Suwannee River Water Management District in Florida, 2015 ey by crop and irrigation system Reported irrigated acreage by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and inventoried irrigated acreage by the U.S. Geological Surv Table 2. type in the Suwannee River Water Management District, Florida, 1974–2015 (from U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977 and 1984, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1989, Agriculture; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; , Orlando. USDA, U.S. Department of 1994, 1999, 2004, 2009, and 2014). [Data were compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Caribbean-Florida Water Science Center N/A, data not available; –, no data] Reported acreage by the USDA, Census of Agriculturea USGS field-verified irrigated acreageb, c Crop type 1974 1978 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2015 Micro Sprinkler Flood Row crops (vegetables)1 Spring2 Fall3 Double crop4 Fruit crops Berries5 Fruits (all) and nuts6 Field crops Corn Cotton Peanuts Sorghum Soybeans Hay Pasture7 Other field crops8 Ornamentals/grasses Ornamentals9 Tree nursery10 Sod9 All other Idle11 Other12 CNV13 N/A N/A N/A 13,036 17,857 15,836 15,035 15,417 15,820 20,962 11,210 5,962 5,248 

–

1,412 322 1,090 

–

8,340 1,052 7,288 

–

N/A N/A N/A 1,657 2,622 1,946 1,436 1,516 2,870 1,098

1,098 876 222 

–

0 – – –

N/A N/A N/A 14,620 17,473 17,435 26,859 31,038 57,792 83,721

32,468 – 32,468 –

962 – 962 –

28,170

– 28,170 

–

335

– 335 

–

3,725

– 3,725 

–

10,331 10,331 

2,448

– 2,448 

–

5,282

– 5,282 

–

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,089

1,246 939 307 

–

1,152 1,040 112 

–

691 – 691 –

4,2643,182 69 3,113 

–

155 155 927 927 

–

Irrigated land

Number of farms

24,188 47,760 54,598 46,445 55,350 62,444 76,291 81,148 107,217 113,134 10,260 102,874 0

Percent 9 91 – 557 812 801 812 944 838 950 1,003 1,146

Harvested cropland

Number of farms

307,927 376,284 321,630 208,833 201,934 224,693 211,851 242,891 326,270

4,067 4,386 3,647 3,189 3,044 2,848 2,618 3,032 3,544

Total cropland

Number of farms

693,672 802,310 674,448 567,004 528,172 493,720 427,423 406,748 422,886

5,247 5,738 5,183 4,733 4,427 4,275 4,152 4,465 4,420
Results 15

 . 

ey by crop and irrigation system Reported irrigated acreage by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and inventoried irrigated acreage by the U.S. Geological Surv

ater Management District, Florida, 1974–2015 (from U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977 and 1984, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1989, 

Agriculture; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; 

1977, 1984, and the 

Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, 

nter pivots, and periodic moving 

Agriculture (U.S. Department of Commerce, 

, Orlando. USDA, U.S. Department of 

 heading represent the acreage totals for entire counties of 

ater Science Center

The values shown under the USDA

, and Union. 

, and fall growing seasons of 2015. 

able 2.

type in the Suwannee River W1994, 1999, 2004, 2009, and 2014).—Continued

[Data were compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Caribbean-Florida W

aylor

Agriculture, 1989, 1994, 1999, 2004, 2009, and 2014). 

, Madison, Suwannee, T ferson, Lafayette, Levy

, jet, and bubbler systems; sprinkler irrigation includes portable and traveling guns, solid or permanent overhead fixtures, ce

N/A, data not available; –, no data]

Data for 1974, 1978, 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, and 2012 for Florida were obtained from the Census of 

U.S. Department of Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Jef

The values reported by the USGS represent observed acreage for the spring, summer

Microirrigation includes drip, spray

systems; flood irrigation (including seepage systems) includes open-field ditch (furrows), semi-closed conveyance, subsurface conduit, crown flood, and continuous flood (Izuno and Haman, 1987, 

, green, and , peas (black-eyed, crowder , collards, garlic, herbs, kale, mustard greens, okra, onions, parsley

Agriculture [USDA, 2014]). 

Agriculture [USDA, 2014]). 2012 Census of 

, celery

southern), potatoes, pumpkins, spinach, sweet corn, turnip greens, radishes, and watercress (as listed in tables 28 and 29, USDA 2012 Census of 

 February and May) for a spring or summer harvest (primarily between April and July). 

August and November) for a fall or winter harvest (primarily between November and February). 

Agriculture [USDA, 2014]). 2012 Census of 

, forage, and silage crops (listed as forage in 

This is referred to as double cropped, and actual physical e field (see above for time frames). 

rries, raspberries, and strawberries (as listed in table 33, USDA

goes, papayas, passion fruit, peaches, pears, pecans, persimmons, plums, and all citrus fruit 

 in table 10, USDA

 rye (for grain), dry southern peas (cowpeas), grass and grass seeds, hay

, the presence of an irrigation systems was observed. 

 2012 Census of Agriculture [USDA, 2014]). Sod is also listed in table 34 but is listed here separately

 2012 Census of 

e

 table 34, USDA

r

 observed) or vacant with an irrigation system present. 

, the existence of an irrigated crop could not be verified at the time of observation; however

and Marella, 2014).

Acreage may include beans (lima, pole, and snap), broccoli, carrots, cauliflowe 1

Acreage includes vegetables that were planted in the spring (primarily between 2Acreage includes vegetables that were planted in the fall (primarily between Acreage includes vegetables that were planted in the spring and fall on the sam

Agriculture [USDA, 2014]).

Agriculture [USDA, 2014]). 

abc 3 4

T

acreage would be one-half of the totals shown. 

Acreage includes blackberries, dewberries, blueberries (tame and wild), loganb 5Acreage includes apples, avocados, bananas, cherries, figs, grapes, guavas, man

 2012 Census of (as listed in table 31, USDA

Acreage includes tobacco, wheat (for grain), oats (for grain), proso millet, rice,

 2012 Census of 

 8

table 26, USDA

Acreage includes all outdoor container nursery crops and tree farms (as listed in

Acreage includes floriculture and bedding crops reported as "acres in the open" but does not include "square footage under glass or protection" (as listed in table 34, USDA

 6

Acreage includes pasture and other land listed under "Irrigated Land" (as listed

 910

Agriculture [USDA, 2014]). 

1Acreage includes idle land with no specific crop (a grass cover was most often

Includes acres with an irrigation system located at a governmental or university research facility with a variety of planted crops. 

erify

112

CNV–Could Not V

 713
16 Agricultural Irrigated Land-Use Inventory in the Suwannee River Water Management District in Florida, 2015 

Further Information

Additional information about current and future 

water demands for agricultural irrigation in the SRWMD 

can be obtained by contacting the SRWMD (http://

www.srwmd.state.fl.us) or the FDACS (http://www.

freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/AgriculturalWater-Policy/Agricultural-Water-Supply-Planning). The 

final field-verified map (appendix 1), the individual county 

acreage totals published by the USDA (appendix 2), along 

with the digital layers and attribute files described in this 

report, are available for download from the USGS ScienceBase-Catalog Web site https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/

item/56bcb099e4b08d617f6682d4.

Selected References

Fernald, E.A., and Patton, D.J., eds., 1984, Water resource 

atlas of Florida: Tallahassee, Fla., Florida State University, 

Institute of Science and Public Affairs, 291 p.

Fernald, E.A., and Purdum, E.D., eds., 1998, Water resource 

atlas of Florida: Tallahassee, Fla., Florida State University, 

Institute of Science and Public Affairs, 312 p.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2013, 

Annual status report on regional water supply planning: 

Tallahassee, Fla., Office of Water Policy, 16 p., accessed 

December 1, 2014, at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/

waterpolicy/rwsp.htm.

Izuno, F.T., and Haman, D.Z., 1987, Basic irrigation terminology: Gainesville, Fla., University of Florida, Institute of 

Food and Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Engineering 

Fact Sheet AE–66, 4 p.

Leach, S.D., 1978, Source, use, and disposition of water in 

Florida, 1975: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 78–17, 90 p.

Leach, S.D., 1983, Source, use, and disposition of water in 

Florida, 1980: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 82–4090, 337 p.

Marella, R.L., 1999, Water withdrawals, use, discharge, and 

trends in Florida, 1995: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 99–4002, 90 p.

Marella, R.L., 2004, Water withdrawals, use, discharge, and 

trends in Florida, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2004–5151, 136 p.

Marella, R.L., 2009, Water withdrawals, use, and trends 

in Florida, 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2009–5125, 49 p.

Marella, R.L., 2014, Water withdrawals, use, and trends 

in Florida, 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2015–5088, 59 p. 

Marella, R.L., and Dixon, J.F., 2015, Agricultural irrigated 

land-use inventory for Jackson, Calhoun, and Gadsden 

Counties in Florida, and Houston County in Alabama, 2014: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015–1170, 14 p.

Marella, R.L., Dixon, J.F., and Berry, D.R., 2016, GIS data 

and tables pertaining to the agricultural irrigated land-use 

inventory for the counties in the Suwannee River Water 

Management District, 2015—Scientific data associated with 

the USGS Open-File Report 2016–1111: U.S. Geological 

Survey data release, http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F7NK3C4V.

Purdum, E.D., 1994, Florida county atlas and municipal fact 

book: Tallahassee, Fla., Florida State University, Institute of 

Science and Public Affairs, 146 p.

Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L., 1984, State 

hydrologic unit maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 84–708, 22 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1989, 1987 Census of 

agriculture—Florida state and county data: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

Geographic Area Series, part 9 [AC 07–A–9], v. 1, 445 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994, 1992 Census of 

agriculture—Florida state and county data: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

Geographic Area Series, part 9 [AC 07–A–9], v. 1, 439 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1999, 1997 Census of 

agriculture—Florida state and county data: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

Geographic Area Series, part 9 [AC 07–A–9], v. 1, 444 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004, 2002 Census of 

agriculture—Florida state and county data: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

Geographic Area Series, part 9 [AC 07–A–9], v. 1, 485 p.
Acknowledgments 17

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2007 Census of 

agriculture—Florida state and county data: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

Geographic Area Series, part 9 [AC 07–A–9], v. 1, 558 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014, 2012 Census of 

agriculture—Florida state and county data: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

Geographic Area Series, part 9 [AC 07–A–9], v. 1, 549 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977, 1974 Census of 

agriculture—Florida state and county data: U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, v. 1, part 9, 700 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1984, 1982 Census of 

agriculture—Florida state and county data: U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Bureau of the Census [AC82–A–9], v. 1, 

part 9, 400 p.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office of 

Agricultural Water Policy, for participation and cooperation in 

this agricultural irrigation land use project for the 13 Counties 

in the SRWMD, including W. Ray Scott and Corinne Hermle 

who provided program support and technical assistance. 

Appreciation is extended to Glenn Horvath, Meagan Wetherington, and Wesley Thomas at the Suwannee River Water 

Management District for their technical support and insight 

on agriculture practices in the district. Special appreciation 

is extended to Stacie Greco, Alachua County Environmental 

Protection Department, and Conrado De Leon, University 

of Florida, for their time assisting with field verification in 

Alachua, Dixie, Gilchrist, and Levy Counties by helping 

delineate fields and identifying crops during field trips.

The authors also extend appreciation to William Hughes, 

Jenifer Shrouds, and Marilyn Santiago of the USGS for 

helping prepare this report for publication. 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about 

the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and 

publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and 

does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, 

it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to 

reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation: 

Marella, R.L., Dixon, J.F., and Berry, D.R., 2016, Agricultural irrigated 

land-use inventory for the counties in the Suwannee River Water 

Management District in Florida, 2015: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2016–1111, 18 p., 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161111.

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Director 

Open-File Report 2016–1111

For additional information about this report, contact:

Richard L. Marella 

U.S. Geological Survey, Caribbean-Florida Water Science Center

12703 Research Parkway

Orlando, FL 32826 

rmarella@usgs.gov

Or visit the Caribbean-Florida Water Science Center Web site at 

http://fl.water.usgs.gov

Publishing support provided by the 

Lafayette Publishing Service Center
18 Agricultural Irrigated Land-Use Inventory in the Suwannee River Water Management District in Florida, 2015 

Hay field after harvesting in Suwannee County, Fla., 2015. 

Photo by R. Marella