Urban Irrigation Challenges and Conservation

Urbanization has created landscapes occupied by diverse plant communities created for the enjoyment of society and the end user (Hope et al., 2003). There is a high demand for aesthetically pleasing urban landscapes. The expectations of the end user as well as the person paying for the installation and maintenance often determine the success of an urban landscape (Kjelgren et al. 2000). The loss of landscape elements, such as trees, shrubs, lawns etc. due to poor water management and drought could severely depress property values (St. Hilaire et al., 2008). Because of a lack of understanding about differences in plant communities as well as seasonal water demands, urban landscapes are often over-irrigated or under-irrigated.


Introduction
Urbanization has created landscapes occupied by diverse plant communities created for the enjoyment of society and the end user (Hope et al., 2003). There is a high demand for aesthetically pleasing urban landscapes. The expectations of the end user as well as the person paying for the installation and maintenance often determine the success of an urban landscape . The loss of landscape elements, such as trees, shrubs, lawns etc. due to poor water management and drought could severely depress property values (St. Hilaire et al., 2008). Because of a lack of understanding about differences in plant communities as well as seasonal water demands, urban landscapes are often over-irrigated or under-irrigated.
Communities around the world face different water supply and demand issues based on climate-related differences in water use. For example, Ferguson (1987) reported that 40 to 70% of residential water use in the United States was for landscapes but urban water use in the Ebro basin in Spain was only 7% which was mainly in cases of drought (Salvador et al. 2011).
Because water is a critical component for establishing and maintaining landscape plants in the urban environment, imposing mandatory water restrictions without guidelines on improving water conservation can be detrimental. Because of their high visibility, urban landscapes are one of the first areas that water districts and government agencies regulate for water use (Devitt et al., 1995). Many factors such as soil type (Barnett, 1986), plant cultivar (Paine et al, 1992) and planting season (Welsh et al., 1991) can impact irrigation management strategies for establishment and plant growth. Important questions that need to be addressed to improve urban irrigation management are: 1) what is the composition of the landscape plant community, 2) how much water is needed to satisfy plant demand (baseline needs), and 3) how to uniformly deliver water to the landscape (De Pascale et al. 2011).

Challenges in the urban landscape
It is well documented that patterns of urban growth are closely connected to water use (Western Resource Advocates, 2010). For example, outdoor water use in the southwest ranged from 57.5 to 72.3% and accounted for over half of all residential water use (Western Resource Advocates, 2010). Many municipalities throughout the United States have started to regulate the amount of water that can be applied to landscape plants due to rapid urban population growth, droughts, and wasteful practices (Salamone, 2002;Thayer, 1982).
The challenge is to adequately irrigate urban landscapes and conserve water. When plants become stressed due to a lack of water, growth and development are decreased. Symptoms of water stress include wilting, yellowing or browning of leaves, leaf drop (abscission), decreased leaf size, decreased leaf number, and reduced photosynthesis (Fig 1) (Taiz and Zeiger, 2006). Water consumption by urban landscapes will vary with climate (rainfall, solar radiation, relative humidity) as well with landscape cover, plant water loss patterns, and irrigation system application rates and uniformity. For example, parks and recreational areas typically have large areas covered with turfgrass while typical residential areas have mixtures of turf, woody ornamentals, herbaceous perennials, and annuals (Fig 2) (Limaye, 1996). Unlike agronomic crops that are valued based on yield, ornamental landscapes are a mixture of plant materials that are valued for their appearance. According to Kjelgren et al (2000) the amount of water applied to the landscape can be divided into three levels of usage: 1) water needed to meet baseline physiological needs, 2) water needed to compensate for irrigation system non-uniformity to ensure all plants receive baseline levels, and 3) water applied in excess of plant needs that could be conserved. The first is a residential home with a mixture of turfgrass, trees, shrubs and other ornamentals while the second is an athletic field composed mainly of turfgrass. (Photos by K Moore)

Plant evapotranspiration
Depending on the location of the urban landscape, a variety of plant materials may be used to meet the aesthetic demands. Some plants are capable of acquiring more water or have high water-use efficiencies and will resist drought better (Taiz and Zeiger, 2006). For example, some plants possess C 4 and CAM modes of photosynthesis that allow them to survive in more arid climates (Taiz and Zeiger, 2006). Other plant adaptations that help regulate the demand for water include varying leaf size, leaf orientation, leaf coatings (waxes and hairs), and varying total leaf area (Taiz and Zeiger, 2006).
Evapotranspiration is a major component of the landscape water budget. Two processes are at work simultaneously. Evaporation of water or the conversion of liquid water to water vapor occurs from the soil. At the same time, water is lost from plant leaves to the atmosphere via the process of transpiration through leaf stomata. Evapotranspiration has been defined as the evaporation of water from a soil surface and transpiration of water from plant material (Allen et al. 2011;FAO, 2010). Several factors drive ET including solar radiation, temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed (ASCE-EWRI, 2005).
There are several methods for determining evapotranspiration rates. Actual evapotranspiration (AE, AET, and ETa) is measured by isolating the plant root zone and controlling the amount of water applied. Equipment such as lysimeters, pressure chambers, and tensiometers accurately record the amount of water lost from the soil and plant (Moore, 2008). Because of the expense of the equipment as well as the time commitment, most horticulturists rely on estimates made by computing potential ET rates (PET or ETp) and/or reference ET rates (ETo) that use weather data and mathematical equations rather than measuring AET (Moore, 2008). Reference ET is defined as the ET from a hypothetical reference crop with the characteristics of an actively growing, well-watered, dense green cool season grass of uniform height (ASCE-EWRI, 2005). Studies have shown that there is a strong relationship between actual ET and potential ET/reference ET.
Generalizations have been made about water use based on historical ET values for an area. This data can be used to schedule irrigation events as well as serve as a reference of water demand throughout the year. For example, the historical ET value in March in Fort Lauderdale Florida is approximately 0.13 inches. In general, ET rates tend to follow changes in humidity, wind speed, temperature, and solar radiation with minimum ET rates occurring in the cooler months and higher ET rates occurring in warmer months with higher solar radiation levels (Table 1) (Moore, 2008). Kjelgren et al. (2000) estimated landscape water use for cities in the United States by subtracting average winter water use from water use in April-September and then dividing by the total yearly water use. Cities varied from 9% of total in Atlanta to 48% in Salt Lake City .
Unfortunately, standard ET definitions tend to be more relevant for turf but not trees, shrubs and other ornamentals in the landscape (St Hilaire et al., 2008). A more appropriate definition for water needs of non-turf species would be the percentage of ET required to maintain their appearance and intended function (Pittenger et al. 2001;Shaw and Pittinger, 2004). Furthermore, many non-turf species can maintain acceptable appearance at some level of moisture deficit . For example, Montague et al. (2007) reported that shoot dry weight of Lagerstroemia indica 'Victor' (crape myrtle), Spiraea x vanhouttei (spiraea), and Photinia x fraseri (photinia) was greater for plants irrigated with high (100% reference ETO) and medium (75% reference ETO) irrigation than with low irrigation (50% reference ETO). However, they also reported that using organic mulch and irrigating plants at 50% reference ETO produced acceptable growth and appearance.
Scientists have been working to develop plant factors (PF) that they multiply with ET to define the minimum irrigation a plant needs to maintain acceptable appearance and www.intechopen.com function rather than optimum growth and yield (Pittenger et al, 2001;Shaw and Pittenger, 2004;Staats and Klett, 1995;Devitt et al, 1994;Montague et al., 2004). However, there are limitations to using PF and further work is needed. For example, a widely referenced publication containing a list of PF ranges for landscape species is based on non-research data (Costello and Jones, 2000).

Month and year
Avg. Temp

Irrigation uniformity
In other agriculture systems that require irrigation, irrigation efficiency is measured as the effectiveness of an irrigation system to deliver water to plants and the effectiveness of irrigation in increasing plant production (Haman et al. 2005). Irrigation efficiency is the ability to deliver water with a minimum of effort, waste, and expense and is an important component of irrigation scheduling and water budgets (De Pascale et al., 2011). For example, sprinkler systems used in container production tend to have irrigation efficiencies ranging from 15 to 50%, while micro irrigation systems (trickle and micro-spray) have average efficiencies ranging from 70 to 90% (Haman et al., 2005;Howell, 2003).
Unfortunately, there are a variety of irrigation systems used in urban landscapes that vary in application rate and uniformity. Application rates measure the rate of water applied to the soil in inches or mm per hour. For example, rotary sprinklers tend to have application rates of 0.25 to 0.50 inches per hour while spray heads tend to have application rates of 1 to 2 inches per hour (Bodle, 2003). Run-off and waste occur when application rates exceed the absorption capacity of the soil (Bodle, 2003).
Irrigation uniformity in the landscape is defined as the application of water to the landscape as evenly as possible (St. Hilaire et al., 2008;Kjelgren et al. 2000). Unfortunately, the amount www.intechopen.com of water applied in most urban landscapes is usually above baseline needs due to nonuniformity of application (Fig 3). For example, the application of more water to dry spots will result in over-irrigation in other parts of the landscape. The goal is to reduce the difference between minimum and maximum wetted areas (Zoldoske et al. 1994). Collecting irrigation water in catch cans randomly placed in the irrigated area after running the system for a pre-determined length of time is a good method for determining application rates as well as uniformity. It is best to place open containers evenly in the radius of the throw of the sprinklers. A minimum catch-can reading of 3 mm in the driest catch can is suggested.
Application rate is determined by the average water levels in the catch cans as inches per hour or mm per hour. This is an indication of the water output for the irrigation system. A catch can test also can be used to determine uniformity (ASAE S398.1; American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 1985). There are three common ways of calculating water application uniformity: coefficient of uniformity (CU), distribution uniformity (DU), and scheduling coefficients (SC) (Burt et al., 1997). According to Zoldoske et al. (1994), the use of CU is the most referenced measure in agricultural irrigation. However, CU does not distinguish between over and under irrigated areas. Therefore, DU is more commonly used for landscape irrigation (St Hilaire et al., 2008). DU is calculated as the average depth of water in the driest 25% of cans divided by the average for all cans (St. Hilaire et al., 2008;Kjelgren et al. 2000). For example, a sprinkler system that applies the same depth of water over the entire coverage area would have a DU of 100% but if part of the areas receives half the average amount, then the DU would be 50% and twice the amount of water would be applied to the wetter areas (Goldhamer and Synder, 1989). The DU also will vary with the type of sprinkler head as well as field spacing. For example, Kjelgren et al. (2000) reported that the DU of impact/gear sprinklers for large turf areas was 90% while spray heads in small turf areas had a DU of 75%.

Irrigation and plant establishment
Most plants will require irrigation following planting into the landscape. There are varied recommendations on how much water and how often plants need to be watered during the establishment period in the urban landscape. Plants can become stressed when not properly irrigated during establishment. Adequate water is necessary to establish plants because they do not have sufficient root systems to compensate for the losses resulting from evapotranspiration (Barnett, 1986;Montague et al., 2000). If irrigation is inadequate, root growth will be reduced (Balok and St. Hilaire, 2002;Witherspoon and Lumis, 1986) which will likely result in reduced vegetative (Shackel et al., 1997;Gilman and Beeson, 1996) and reproductive growth (Shackel et al., 1997). Drought symptoms will occur in plants not receiving sufficient irrigation including declining plant health and quality (Pittenger et al., 2001) and eventually plant death (Eakes et al., 1990).
Plants can die or grow poorly without irrigation immediately following planting (Geisler and Ferree, 1984). For example, research conducted at the University of Florida reported that Psychotria nervosa (wild coffee), Murraya paniculata 'Lakeview' (orange jasmine), and Acalypha wilkesiana (copperleaf) plants irrigated every 2 days with 3 L of water grew better than shrubs watered every 4 or 8 days with 3 L of water ). However, after 52 weeks in the ground, rain fall events appeared to be sufficient to keep these shrubs alive and growing eliminating any initial effects from irrigation frequency.

Irrigation frequency
Irrigation frequency has been repeatedly reported to influence growth of trees and shrubs.
A number of studies have reported that increased irrigation frequency corresponded to an increase in growth during establishment (Stabler and Martin, 2000;Marshall and Gilman, 1998;Barnett, 1986). For example, red maple (Acer rubrum ) trees that were irrigated more frequently for 24 weeks had greater trunk diameter, height, and more root mass than trees watered less frequently for 24 weeks (Marshall and Gilman, 1998). Daily irrigation of Ilex cornuta 'Burford Nana' during establishment significantly increased shoot number, shoot: root ratios, and the percentage of roots originating from the top half of the root ball while less frequent irrigation promoted deeper rooting, but decreased shoot growth . Harris and Gilman (1993) found greater regenerated root dry weight and root volume when Ilex x attenuata 'East Palatka' (holly) shrubs were watered more frequently. Gilman and Beeson (1996) also reported that trunk growth rate of 'East Palatka' holly slowed when irrigation frequency was reduced from daily to every 2 days. Knox and Zimet (1988) reported an increase in plant size and dry weight (Myrica and Photinia) when irrigation frequency increased but only for shrubs actively growing during the period of the study. www.intechopen.com

Irrigation volume
Irrigation volume appears to less critical to landscape establishment than irrigation frequency. Welsh et al. (1991) reported no significant changes in growth of Photinia x fraseri as a response to increased irrigation volume. Similarly, Gilman et al. (1998) reported that irrigation volume did not affect trunk diameter, crown spread, or height of live oak (Quercus virginiana) but trees that were irrigated infrequently grew more slowly than those irrigated more frequently. Paine et al. (1992) investigated the differences in growth of woody landscape plants that received the same total volume of water delivered at different irrigation frequencies. They reported that the irrigation treatments did not significantly affect plant size of Rhamus or Photinia plants but Ceanothus plants that were watered daily had less change in size than plants watered every 3rd or 7th day.

Planting season
Planting season has also been reported to influence woody plant establishment. For example, Harris and Bassuk (1994) reported that early spring/late fall transplant improved survival of Quercus coccinea (scarlet oak) and Corylus colurna compared to late spring/early fall transplant. A number of studies reported increased canopy growth (Harris et al., 1996;Dickinson and Whitcomb, 1981) and increased root growth (Hanson et al., 2004;Harris et al., 2002;Harris et al., 1996) in fall planted woody species compared with spring planted trees and shrubs. Fall planted trees and shrubs initiated roots earlier (Harris et al., 2002) and extended roots farther (Hanson et al., 2004;Harris et al., 1996) than woody plants established in other seasons. In addition, planting season may interact with irrigation frequency to affect establishment. Welsh et al. (1991) reported reduced canopy growth at increased irrigation frequencies when Photinia x fraseri was planted in the winter, but not when shrubs were established in the summer. Harris et al. (2002) reported that sugar maple (Acer saccharum 'Green Mountain') and northern red oak (Quercus rubra ) transplanted in the fall had more root growth than later fall or spring transplanted trees. They speculated that early root growth benefited the trees by providing amble roots to meet the higher water demand in the spring due to the developing canopies.

Water conservation
According to Gollehon and Quinby, (2006) 90% of total water use in the United States comes from renewable surface and ground water supplies. However, because of uneven distribution of water resources in the United States, droughts in different parts of the country might exacerbate supplies. When discussing water conservation it is important to distinguish between short term and long term conservation strategies  Short-term conservation becomes important during drought periods when there is insufficient water to supply landscape irrigation with the understanding that normal consumption may resume after the emergency passes (Fig 4). However, long-term conservation occurs when supplies no longer support existing demands as well as future www.intechopen.com demands or when the cost of delivering water becomes prohibited . There are several tools available for conserving water in the urban landscape such as lowwater use landscapes, precision irrigation, and alternative water sources. Fig. 4. This is an example of a short term conservation strategy as reflected by the sign over the road in Tamarac, Florida reading "Extreme drought, reduce your water use, no excuse." (Photo by K. Moore)

Water efficient landscapes
Proper selection of plant material that is considered 'water-efficient' is one technique for conserving water. It is well documented that a uniform sprinkler-irrigated landscape of herbaceous perennials and woody plants potentially uses less water than a turf landscape . Trees, shrubs and perennials tend to respond to drought better than turfgrass because non-turf species tend to root more deeply and can maintain acceptable appearance under conditions of minor water stress. It also is possible to effectively use lowvolume irrigation (drip or micro) on non-turf species that apply water to the root zone and reduce water loss from evaporation and runoff (Fig 5) (Dawson, 1993;Green and Clotheir, 1995;. Mayer et al, (1999) reported that drip irrigation used 16% more water than homes that did not irrigate while homes with in-ground systems used 35% more water than homes with no irrigation.  compared residential water use in three different urban landscape situations in Central Florida. Treatment one consisted of an existing in-ground irrigation system and typical Florida landscape (75% turf, with common trees and shrubs used in the urban landscape) that was irrigated by the homeowner. Treatment two had a similar www.intechopen.com irrigation system and landscape design as treatment one but the time clock was adjusted seasonally to replace 60% of the historical ET. Treatment 3 was designed for optimal efficiency including minimized turfgrass (31%) that was irrigated on a separate zone from ornamentals (native plants) that were irrigated with micro-irrigation. They reported that treatment 1 used 149 mm/month while 2 used 105 mm/month and 3 used 74mm/month  One of the biggest barriers to installing water-efficient landscapes is public perception about appearance or aesthetics (Hurd et al., 2006). According to a survey by Lockett et al. (2002), only 9% of respondents in Lubbock, TX felt water-conserving landscapes were aesthetically pleasing while 61% felt the opposite. Unfortunately, most individuals imagine water efficient landscapes as gravel landscapes interspersed with some drought tolerant plants (St Hilaire et al, 2008).

Precision irrigation
Over-irrigation is wasteful and can cause run-off, flooding, and may carry away nutrients or other chemicals that could damage or pollute water resources. There are several useful tools available to improve irrigation application including rain sensors, soil moisture sensors, and evapotranspiration controllers (McCready and Dukes, 2011). For example, McCready et al. (2009) reported that water use was reduced by 7 to 30% using rain sensors, 0 to 74% using soil moisture sensors, and 25 to 62% using ET based sensors when compared to a typical time based irrigation set to irrigate 2 days a week.
Rain sensors or rain shut-off controllers will stop scheduled irrigation events when a specific amount of rainfall has occurred (Dukes and Haman, 2010). Benefits of using rain sensors include 1) water conservation, 2) reduced utility bills, 3) reduced wear on irrigation systems, 4) reduced disease damage, and 5) reduced pollution potential of surface and groundwater (Dukes and Haman, 2010). Carenas-Lailhacar et al. (2008) reported that treatments using rain sensors applied 34% less water than treatments without rain sensors while maintaining good turf quality.  also reported that homes in Pinellas County Florida in 2006-2007 with rain sensors applied 19% less water than homes without rain sensors.
Another effective tool is the use of soil moisture sensors that recognize soil moisture levels to control irrigation events. Qualls et al. (2001) reported that the use of soil moisture sensors to control irrigation resulted in 193 mm less water used than the theoretical requirement. The most commonly used residential soil moisture sensors are bypass systems that have soil moisture threshold adjustments from dry to wet and will bypass a timed irrigation event if the soil moisture content is above the threshold. The threshold is adjustable but these types of sensors typically do not adjust the length of time of irrigation events, only whether the irrigation event occurs (Dukes, 2009). Cardenas-Lailhacar et al. (2008) reported water savings of 69 to 92% using three different SMS controllers. Other soil moisture sensors available are classified as on-demand controllers that begin irrigation at pre-determined low soil moisture thresholds and end irrigation at the high threshold. The difference between these controllers is that on-demand controllers begin and end irrigation events while bypass controllers regulate whether schedule irrigation events on a time clock will occur.
Evapotranspiration controllers irrigate based on the calculated ET needs of the plant or landscape. Ideally they replace the water lost due to ET. There are several different types of ET controllers including standalone controllers, signal based controllers, and historical based controllers (Davis and Dukes, 2010). Stand alone controllers measure climatic variables (temperature and solar radiation) on site and then determine a cumulative daily ET value. Signal based controllers receive ET data from a wireless connection while historical ET controllers rely on historical ET information for the area (Davis and Dukes, 2010). Three ET controllers evaluated in southwest Florida by Davis et al. (2009) reported an averaged water savings of 43% over time-based irrigation without a rain sensor. Davis and Dukes (2010) reported that properly programmed ET controllers are more effective than manual irrigation scheduling because they can adjust to real-time weather and minimize over-watering.
In addition to using ET controllers, historical ET data can be used to manually control standard irrigation systems. For example, we know that in Fort Lauderdale Florida in March www.intechopen.com we tend to historically lose 0.13 inches of water a day, due to ET. If the application rate of an irrigation system is 2.10 inches per hour, it is possible to determine how long to run the irrigation system. In this example, the system would need to run for 3.7 minutes a day to replace the 0.13 inches of water lost per day.
0.13 inches/day X 1 hour/2.10 inches X 60 minutes/1 hour = 3.7 minutes/day Because of different products available to schedule irrigation that vary in the technology and complexity, a testing protocol based on the soil water balance model was developed by the Irrigation Association (2008) titled Smart Water Application Technology (SWAT) protocol. SWAT is a national initiative to improve landscape water efficiency by applying water based on plant needs in order to reduce waste and runoff (St Hilaire et al., 2008;McCready and Dukes, 2011). McCready and Dukes (2001) compared the irrigation adequacy and scheduling efficiency of soil moisture sensors, ET controllers, and rain sensors over several 30-day periods to determine the amount of over irrigation and under irrigation for each technology based on the SWAT testing protocol. All controllers resulted in water conservation. However, they concluded that examining only one 30 day testing period as recommended in the SWAT testing protocol was not sufficient to capture the performance of an irrigation controller because values varied significantly (McCready and Dukes, 2011).

Alternative water sources
Although a more expensive alternative to other conservation practices, the use of reclaimed water from sewage effluent after treatment is a cheaper alternative for landscape irrigation than using other potable water sources (Postel, 1992). Waste water effects on field and forage crops, wetland plants, and forest ecosystems, have been the subject of numerous studies (Brister and Schultz, 1981;Day et al., 1981;Day and Tucker, 1977). However, studies conducted on the use of reclaimed waste water on the growth of ornamental plants have reported varying results (Yeager et al., 2009;Devitt et al., 2003;Gori et al., 2000;Parnell and Robinson, 1990;Fitzpatrick et al., 1986;Fitzpatrick, 1985;Parnell, 1988). For example, Fitzpatrick et al. (1986) reported that 4 out of 20 ornamental plant species tested had significantly increased growth when irrigated with treated waste water effluent while the other species showed no difference. They speculated that increased nutrient levels, especially nitrogen and phosphorus in sewage effluent might have contributed to increases in growth. Lubello et al. (2004) reported no difference in shoot dry weight of cypress (Taxodium spp.), juniper (Juniperus spp.), myrtle (Myrtus spp.), and Weigela spp. between well water and tertiary effluent irrigated plants but Spiraea spp. and Arbutus spp. shoot dry weight was less for plants irrigated with tertiary effluent. They suggested that there appeared to be no major limitation to using tertiary effluent as an irrigation source and that it had the added potential of serving as a source of fertilizer. Monitoring of nutrients in irrigation water is important when using reclaimed water. In general reclaimed water tends to have higher soluble salts and must be applied at higher volumes to provide leaching of salts from the soil (Hayes et al. 1990).
The use of waste water is not available in all states in the United State and in some states the costs of connecting to waste water is quite high. Most active waste water programs are used to irrigate golf courses, parks, and roadway medians where public acceptance is higher than in areas with greater contact with the general public (St Hilaire et al. 2008). www.intechopen.com

Conclusions
With rising water costs and limited water resources worldwide, it is imperative to continue to investigate conservation alternatives. It is evident that irrigation during plant establishment in the landscape is critical to survival. Research supports more frequent irrigation during establishment. Data also suggests that new landscape installations should be completed during times of lower evapotranspiration stress. After plants are established, irrigation is required to maintain acceptable aesthetic quality standards.
There are many choices available for urban landscape irrigation conservation. Research on using new and existing technologies have already resulted in reduce water consumption in the urban landscape and include the use of smart controllers. Research on low water use landscapes, grouping plants with like water needs, and alternative water sources have also resulted in reduced water consumption but these practices need further research. The book Irrigation Systems and Practices in Challenging Environments is divided into two interesting sections, with the first section titled Agricultural Water Productivity in Stressed Environments, which consists of nine chapters technically crafted by experts in their own right in their fields of expertise. Topics range from effects of irrigation on the physiology of plants, deficit irrigation practices and the genetic manipulation, to creating drought tolerant variety and a host of interesting topics to cater for the those interested in the plant water soil atmosphere relationships and agronomic practices relevant in many challenging environments, more so with the onslaught of global warming, climate change and the accompanying agro-meteorological impacts. The second section, with eight chapters, deals with systems of irrigation practices around the world, covering different climate zones apart from showing casing practices for sustainable irrigation practices and more efficient ways of conveying irrigation waters -the life blood of agriculture, undoubtedly the most important sector in the world.