ABSTRACT Quantifying the interconnected impacts of climate change and irrigation on surface water flows is critical for the proactive management of our water resources and the ecosystem

services they provide. Changes in streamflow across the Western U.S. have generally been attributed to an aridifying climate, but in many basins flows can also be highly impacted by

irrigation. We developed a 35-year dataset consisting of streamflow, climate, irrigated area, and crop water use to quantify the effects of both climate change and irrigation water use on

streamflow across 221 basins in the Colorado, Columbia, and Missouri River systems. We demonstrate that flows have been altered beyond observed climate-related changes and that many of these

have exacerbated climate change-induced flow declines in parts of the Colorado basin. We classify each basin’s water resources sustainability in terms of flow and irrigation trends and link

irrigation-induced flow changes to irrigation infrastructure modernization and differences in basin physiographic setting. These results provide a basis for determining where modern

irrigation systems benefit basin water supply, and where less efficient systems contribute to return flows and relieve ecological stress. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS THE HUMAN

FACTOR IN SEASONAL STREAMFLOWS ACROSS NATURAL AND MANAGED WATERSHEDS OF NORTH AMERICA Article 24 February 2022 NEW WATER ACCOUNTING REVEALS WHY THE COLORADO RIVER NO LONGER REACHES THE SEA

Article Open access 28 March 2024 CLIMATE AND LAND MANAGEMENT ACCELERATE THE BRAZILIAN WATER CYCLE Article Open access 01 September 2022 INTRODUCTION Irrigation is a critical component of

large-scale agriculture and allows for food and fiber production in areas where insufficient precipitation would otherwise inhibit crop growth. About 86 km3 yr-1 of water is applied to

irrigated crops annually in the Western U.S., representing nearly 90% of total human water consumption in the region1. This practice, in turn, supports over 75% of commodity sales on less

than 25% of harvested land2. The waters of the Colorado, Columbia, and Upper Missouri river systems are perhaps the most important natural resources in the region, supporting a population of

20 million people and an economy of nearly a trillion dollars annually; over 75% of irrigation water in this region is drawn from surface water sources3,4,5. Many irrigated regions across

the west continue to expand in area and intensify irrigation water use despite ongoing and projected threats to water supply by humans and a changing climate. Further, ecological impacts

(e.g., fish mortality) have been linked to irrigation withdrawal for food production in the region, implying a human-ecological use tradeoff in water scarce systems6. Overall, the quantity

of irrigation water applied has declined over the past 40 years as more efficient (i.e., greater fraction of applied water used by plants) and advanced irrigation systems have been adopted7.

However, in a ‘paradox of irrigation efficiency’, reduced irrigation withdrawal and application requirements have led to higher consumptive irrigation water use (IWU; i.e.,

irrigation-derived water lost irretrievably to the atmosphere through crop evapotranspiration). This results in reductions in downstream water supply as crop irrigation is optimized for

production8,9,10. The consequences of the efficiency paradox are exacerbated by climate change-induced increases in crop water requirements which may lead to increased evapotranspiration

(ET) and reduced runoff at the basin scale11,12. Further, climate change has altered important natural hydrological processes that affect streamflow: precipitation, evaporative demand,

evapotranspiration, formation and melting of snowpack, and groundwater recharge13,14,15,16,17,18,19. While the implications of climate-induced changes to surface water supply are widely

recognized in the scientific literature, and process-based assessments of irrigation impacts on water resources have been made, a systematic, empirical, and spatiotemporally resolved

examination of irrigation—our society’s greatest hydrological intervention—has not been undertaken in the context of changing surface water availability in the region20,21,22,23. Studies

demonstrating irrigation impacts on streamflow across the Western U.S. are few and limited to relatively short periods at the basin scale24,25,26, hindered by coarse spatiotemporal

information, or dependent on proxies for crop water use6,7,27,28,29. Advances in scalable evapotranspiration and irrigation detection algorithms using long-period, high resolution satellite

remote sensing now enable the systematic estimate of crop water use at continental scales30,31. In this study, we developed a 35-year dataset consisting of high-resolution climate,

irrigation, and evapotranspiration data alongside streamflow, interbasin transfer, and reservoir storage records for 221 subbasins in the Colorado, Columbia, and Missouri river systems. We

determined the characteristic climate response period of monthly streamflow and show that climate change is impacting subannual streamflow in regionally organized patterns and across basin

scales. Our analysis suggests that crop irrigation can mediate or exacerbate climate-induced changes to flow and may contribute to streamflow change in the absence of climate change effects.

We summarize our results by providing an estimate of sustainability that is sensitive to water supply, use, and climate change. Ultimately, our results map the basin-specific consequences

of the irrigation efficiency paradox, characterize the trajectory of surface water sustainability, and provide a means to evaluate the likely impacts of irrigation management decisions on

streamflow. RESULTS The objective of this analysis is to understand the sustainability of irrigation water resources across the Western U.S. We define sustainability in the context of trends

in both surface water flows and irrigation water use, the principal water supply and use in the region, while accounting for climate change and basin scale irrigation water

use-to-availability ratio. Below, we describe our hierarchical approach to evaluating sustainability, ultimately resulting in spatial information that can inform future water management

across the West. CLIMATE AND STREAMFLOW RELATIONSHIPS IN IRRIGATED BASINS We quantified climatic drivers of streamflow using linear regression of the climatic water balance (CWB; reference

evapotranspiration [ETr] minus precipitation) and monthly flow over the basin-specific climatic aggregation period [Supplementary Note 3.1, Supplementary Fig. 1]. Unsurprisingly,

basin-specific models of CWB and streamflow indicate they are inversely related; 96.8% of significant relationships exhibited a negative slope demonstrating that drier climatic aggregation

periods yield lesser volumetric flow [Supplementary Data 1, 2]. The flow-CWB relationship explains the majority of monthly flow variance (r2 > 0.5) for at least 1 month of the year at 97%

of the irrigated basins in our study. Model explanatory power was lowest in February flows (median r2:0.41, interquartile range [IQR] 0.23) and was highest in June (median r2: 0.69, IQR

0.19). STREAMFLOW TRENDS Temporal trend analysis using Bayesian linear regression (i.e., the change in flow over time [Supplementary Note 3.3, Equation 2]) revealed that monthly flow volumes

have experienced significant changes during the study period; nearly all irrigated basins experienced monthly discharge changes during at least 1 month across our study area [Supplementary

Fig. 2a, Supplementary Data 3]. The Colorado basin experienced the most widespread and seasonally persistent declines in flow, especially along the major tributaries of the west slope (e.g.,

main stem Colorado and San Juan rivers). Major drainages within the Missouri (e.g., Yellowstone, Missouri rivers) experienced increases in flow in the spring and summer. More detailed

description of flow trends can be found in Supplementary Note 4. Temporal trends in climate-normalized flows (i.e., the time component of the bivariate Bayesian linear regression of flow as

a function of climate and time [Supplementary Note 3.3, Equation 7]) revealed significant changes in flow unrelated to climate, mostly in the northern regions of the study area (i.e., Pend

Oreille, Missouri, and Yellowstone rivers). Widespread flow increases were observed in the upper reaches of the Missouri and around the Columbia, except in the Snake River basin

[Supplementary Fig. 2b, Supplementary Data 4]. Of the 30 gages with negative median trends in monthly climate-normalized flow, the Snake River showed the most seasonally persistent and

systemic response, with negative trends found along the lower length of the river, generally during the winter and spring. IRRIGATION WATER USE TRENDS Volumetric IWU has represented a large

fraction of total available surface water in the most heavily irrigated basins since the beginning of our study period in 1987 [Fig. 1]. The mean annual ratio of April – October IWU to

annual flows at the outlets of major basins range from 0.02 on the Pend Oreille River to over 0.6 on the Snake River. In other words, the volume of water used for IWU represents an

impressive 60 percent of the water flowing through the Snake River at the Weiser, ID gage annually. Increases in IWU were widespread in terms of all metrics we tested; total IWU, IWU within

the perennially-irrigated domain (irrigated all years 1987–2021), and climate-normalized IWU (i.e., the time component of the bivariate Bayesian linear regression of IWU as a function of

climate and time [Supplementary Note 3.3, Equation 5]) all showed generally positive trends [Supplementary Fig. 3]. Increases in total IWU were experienced across the Missouri and Colorado

systems, but mixed in the Columbia, where decreases occurred in the Cascades. In nearly all cases, IWU increases are associated with the expansion of irrigated area [Supplementary Fig. 4];

of the 15 largest irrigated basins in the study, 12 experienced significant increases in irrigated area. Increases in IWU are further associated with increasing aridity in the Northern

Rockies and the Colorado River Basin (i.e., aridification, [Supplementary Fig. 5]). STREAM RESPONSE TO IRRIGATION WATER USE We found IWU was a significant predictor of climate-normalized

flows for at least one month at 90% of analyzed basins [Fig. 2, Supplementary Data 5]. Our analysis identified bidirectional regional and seasonal patterns; increased flows were associated

with increased IWU in the Upper Colorado and Missouri basins in the winter, while increased summer flows were less common in large basins, but were detected at smaller basin scales in the

headwaters of each system. The largest basins generally experienced flow decreases associated with increased IWU in the summer, while many smaller basins had mixed flow responses to IWU.

Over 60 of the study basins experienced IWU-associated impacts in opposite directions from summer to winter. For example, the two largest basins with this response were the Pend Oreille and

the Yellowstone Rivers, both of which see reduced flows in the summer and greater flows in the winter subsequent to increased IWU. DISCUSSION Our results show that in many basins, irrigation

is causing changes to streamflow, sometimes in opposition to climate change (i.e., increases in sub-annual streamflow despite climate aridification). This response varies from basin to

basin, and may increase or decrease flows during different times of the year. Our results indicate that in some basins, water returns to rivers from irrigated lands after some delay, while

in others, the water is effectively removed from the basin and ‘lost’ to ET. We posit that enhanced sub-annual flows occurring after the irrigation season, and subsequent to irrigation

intensification, are the result of increased groundwater storage and delayed release via return flow to nearby streams. We further suggest that these responses provide information that could

allow for targeted irrigation expansion of infrastructure type, timing, and intensity with an understanding of potential surface water consequences. In areas where applied water is lost to

further in-basin uses (e.g., lost to ET), irrigation infrastructure should be made as efficient as possible with the intent of minimizing avoidable non-beneficial consumptive uses (e.g.,

excessive spray and canopy interception losses32). Conversely, in areas where sub-annual flows are enhanced by irrigation systems, intensification of inefficient irrigation systems (e.g.,

flood irrigation) may benefit streams in the late summer when return flows of groundwater buffer low flow and high temperatures33. No two basins are the same and decisions to mitigate

declines in water resources must be based upon the interplay of a basin’s unique hydrological properties, irrigation systems, climate change trajectory, and multiple and often competing uses

of water. DISENTANGLING CLIMATE CHANGE AND IRRIGATION IMPACTS ON STREAMFLOW As expected, the annual streamflow variability in irrigated basins across the Western U.S. is primarily driven by

climatic variability34 [Supplementary Data 2]. The significant declines in flow around the Colorado River basin and increases in flow in the Missouri basin coincide with the regions’

respective drying and wetting climates [Supplementary Figs. S2, S5]. Interestingly, streamflow has changed in opposition to an obvious climate change signal in 83 basins, indicating the

influence of additional forcings (e.g., changes in precipitation intensity, riparian and basin-scale land cover, or the operation of small-scale reservoirs). There has been an intensive

(depth) and extensive (area) increase of irrigation over our study period; it is now more intense, more temporally persistent, covers more of each field, and has expanded into the margins of

existing irrigated regions across the west [Supplementary Figs. 3, 4]. This finding contradicts commonly cited county-based irrigated area estimates by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA), which documented only a modest 2% expansion of irrigated area from 1987–2017 in the study area, and a decline in irrigation water application1,35. The limited areal expansion of

irrigation reported in survey statistics was concurrent with a nearly two-fold increase in the area under pressurized irrigation systems (e.g., center pivot systems) in the 17 Western

states, while gravity-fed systems (e.g., flood) saw a decrease in area of nearly 50%7. While systematic and methodologically consistent, USDA reporting of irrigated area and applied

irrigation volumes are a poor proxy for IWU, and it appears the widespread reliance upon such data has led to the operation of the efficiency paradox at scale going unobserved. The

increasing intensity of IWU, concurrent with the remarkable expansion of modern irrigation systems across the region, and with regional increases in CWB appear to have outweighed any

retraction in irrigated area due to suburban development or water conservation efforts. Trends in climate-normalized IWU and IWU in perennially irrigated areas further support the notion of

the counterintuitive increase in water use accompanying increases in irrigation efficiency, despite reductions in irrigation water applications, and are consistent with previous work at

smaller scales10,36. Climate-normalized flow responses to IWU show that streams are sensitive to the expansion and intensification of irrigation operations [Fig. 2], suggesting that many

observed streamflow changes are due to irrigation intensification. Our results indicate that the most widespread negative impacts of increased IWU on flow occur during the summer, which may

imply strong ecological implications37. Impacts on winter flows have distinct systemic patterns, where unidirectional, multi-gage impacts are noted along the Pend Oreille, Snake, and Upper

Missouri rivers (negative responses), while the Yellowstone and Green also show organized responses at multiple gages (positive responses). In both seasons, response directions and timing

are highly variable from basin to basin, and while we emphasize system-wide patterns here, the larger basins are likely integrating bi-directional influences and noise resulting from our

simplified modeling approach. Trends in climate-normalized flows indicate that concurrent trends in irrigation are contributing to streamflow changes in many of the study basins. The

widespread positive trends observed in this study are focused around October and November flows, suggesting that irrigation during the summer can increase flows later in the season

[Supplementary Data 4]. We suggest this timing is the result of return flows of irrigation water after some delay, as has been modeled in real and conceptual systems by other workers38,39.

The positive influence on flows later in the season in some basins suggests that IWU may augment flows when they are at their lowest, providing valuable ecosystem services during times of

stress for aquatic and adjacent terrestrial ecosystems40. Positive impacts were not ubiquitous across the region; negative trends on the San Juan river suggest water diversions do not

increase late season flows and imply IWU is exacerbating the negative impacts of an aridifying climate in the region, further diminishing instream flows. On the Snake River, flow trends in

the lower basin are opposite than what we would expect given the slight wetting of the climate and increases in flows in upper tributaries. It appears IWU in the Snake River basin has

overcome increased water availability and caused flows to decline over the study period. WHY DO BASINS RESPOND DIFFERENTLY? The Missouri and Snake River basins are illustrative of IWU

impacts on contrasting streamflow trends. The Snake appears to have undergone a more clear wetting trend relative to the Missouri Basin, while both have seen increases in IWU [Supplementary

Figs. 3, 5]. In spite of these climate and IWU trends, the Missouri has mostly experienced increases in flow while the Snake has seen decreases [Supplementary Fig. 2]; due to physiographic

and management differences. For example, in the Eastern Snake River Plain, there has been a rapid conversion of irrigation infrastructure to more efficient center pivot systems, representing

a transition from about 35% in 1986 to about 75% 201541,42 [Supplementary Note 2]). Snake River basin irrigation systems are located on average 8 km from the nearest stream in areas

hydrologically connected to the river via regional aquifer flow paths that operate on long time scales43. Further, 50% of irrigated area overlays less permeable basalt formations with thick

unsaturated zones44. In summation, Snake River irrigation is more efficient, is less likely to recharge the subsurface, and the subsurface aquifer is less hydrologically connected to the

river than the Upper Missouri system43,45. This causes a diminished and long-term delay in return flows, potentially explaining the lack of a lagged, positive streamflow response to

increases in irrigation during the time scales assessed in this study (up to 60 months). In contrast, the Upper Missouri Basin in Montana saw mixed streamflow impacts, with more frequent

detection of lagged increases in streamflow due to irrigation on short time scales (Missouri Basin median lag: 5.2 months), especially along the Yellowstone River. Here, only 40% of the

basin’s irrigated lands utilized center pivot in 2019, over 50% of irrigation overlies unconsolidated alluvial and periglacial aquifers, and irrigated fields average only 2.7 km from the

nearest stream46,47. The Upper Missouri irrigation is less efficient due to the slower adoption of modern irrigation systems, likely resulting in more groundwater recharge during periods of

intense irrigation. Finally, irrigated regions in the Missouri River basin overlay aquifers that are more immediately hydrologically connected to neighboring streams, likely leading to more

robust return flows on sub-annual timescales47. SUSTAINABILITY OF WATER RESOURCES Comparison of trends in flow and IWU indicate the trajectory of water resources across the region and

provide a basis for classifying irrigated basins in terms of water resources sustainability [Fig. 3c]. Declining flows and increasing IWU are found at 43 gages, focused in the Snake and

Colorado River basins, and represent the least sustainable water resources trajectory identified in this study. The Snake further stands out as a highly appropriated system; the largest

sub-basins far exceed the threshold of 0.4 use-to-availability ratio at which a basin may be considered under water stress28,48,49. Surprisingly, the most numerous classification (60 gages)

is found where IWU and flow trends are both increasing, most widely observed in the Missouri basin (an area with widespread flood irrigation) and scattered through the Columbia and Colorado

basins. The most sustainable trajectory is focused in the western Columbia river basin, where water resource pressure is alleviated due to less IWU demand which subsequently increases

streamflow (13 gages; Figs. 2, 3). There are only a few cases of declining flows and declining IWU (3 gages). The trends identified here, therefore, suggest that the Upper Missouri system

follows a more sustainable trajectory, where increased water use is associated with generally increasing flows. This is in contrast to many of the major tributaries in the Colorado basin and

the Snake River, where water use, starting from an already very high baseline, has increased despite diminishing supplies and ongoing efforts to make water use more sustainable50. In fact,

it appears IWU and associated management actions on the Snake River have overcome a slight wetting trend in the fall and winter, which would otherwise be expected to increase flow. However,

a generally aridifying climate appears to play a primary role in the decline in flow throughout the Colorado River basin, though it appears that increasing IWU in the San Juan has

exacerbated these impacts. Our findings provide empirical evidence of the widespread occurrence of the processes detailed by previous work on the Smith River in Montana and in conceptual

modeling efforts, specifically that irrigation return flows may represent a large fraction of late season flows and result in sub-annual enhancement of flows in riparian irrigated

systems24,38,39. This study is the first of its kind to show the comparative influence of such processes across the Western US. The findings here supply a nuanced, high resolution, sub-basin

scale description of the impact of changes in irrigation intensity on stream flow, affirming and resolving results of process-based model analysis in previous work at larger

scales20,21,22,23. The development of field-scale, remote sensing-based IWU data provides insight into changes in consumptive water use by agriculture that has gone undocumented by the USDA,

as the survey methods in use currently only track irrigated area and water withdrawals, both of which can remain constant as changes in climate and irrigation infrastructure change actual

consumptive use and thus basin water balance. Much of our study area has experienced a deepening water crisis since the onset of drought two decades ago51. Under these conditions of

non-stationarity, it is crucial to configure our irrigated agricultural systems in such a way that they become resilient to climate change and flexible in their intensity of water use52. Our

results show that, given the unique response of basins to irrigation intensification and climate change, agricultural paradigms viewed as non-efficient, such as flood irrigation, may in

fact be preferable in regions such as the Missouri basin. Further irrigation development in areas experiencing surface water supply declines should be considered in the context of basin

physiography and likely streamflow impacts of irrigation expansion and intensification. This study advances that imperative through the spatiotemporal description of such basin-specific

characteristics in the context of climate change and human water use. METHODS AND PROTOCOLS Methods and Protocols are discussed at length in the Supplementary Note. BASE DATASETS We

calculated monthly mean flow over the period 1987–2021 at 221 gages from the United States Geological Survey National Water Information System53, accounted for reservoir storage and

interbasin transfers after54,55, and aggregated gridded climate, irrigated area, and evapotranspiration data for the contributing watershed above each gage [Supplementary Note 1,

Supplementary Data 1]. We calculated CWB using precipitation and ETr data from the GridMET product, a daily 4 km modeled meteorological dataset56. We estimated monthly IWU by masking SSEBop

satellite-based ET to the IrrMapper annual irrigation mask (both 30 m resolution), and subtracting the ‘naturalized’ ET signal using our monthly, 1 km resolution effective precipitation

estimates57,58. CLIMATE-FLOW PERIOD We calculated each basin’s monthly characteristic climate response time by finding the maximum correlation (Pearson’s R-squared) between monthly flow and

CWB (reference evapotranspiration minus precipitation) aggregated over an iteratively expanding period of consecutive months, ranging from the coincident, overlapping flow time period and

expanding into the past up to 60 months. The climate period with highest correlation to a given month’s flow was considered characteristic of the basin during that month and defined the

climate-flow period used to model climate-normalized flow in subsequent analysis [Supplementary Note 3; Supplementary Fig. 1, Supplementary Data Table 2]. Using this approach, we applied a

specific climate-flow period for each month’s flow at each gage, giving 12 climate-flow periods for each of the 221 gages. FLOW RESPONSE TO IWU We used Bayesian bivariate linear regression

to control for climate variations (‘climate-normalized flows’) to test for significant response of flow to IWU [Supplementary Note 3]. We derived uncertainty estimates for both variables by

calculating basin-specific or study-wide IrrMapper, effective precipitation, SSEBop, and gridMET error for use as uncertainty approximations in our irrigated area, IWU, and CWB estimates

[Supplementary Note 1]. We used the PyMC implementation of the Hamiltonian Monte Carlo method to obtain a sequence of randomly drawn samples and generate a distribution of linear model

parameters (i.e., slopes for each predictive variable and intercept) describing our data59. We extracted the posterior chain (final 1000 iterations) of the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)

samples to determine the highest credible interval of slopes. We considered regressions where 95% of the credible interval of posterior slopes are of the same sign to be significant60.

TRENDS ANALYSIS We used Bayesian univariate linear regression to test for significant trends in total monthly streamflow, IWU, irrigated area, and CWB, again using the 95% credible interval

to test for significance. We further tested flow trends by using Bayesian bivariate linear regression using CWB as an additional predictor to find significant climate-normalized trends. We

used a similar approach with time trends of IWU, but used the concurrent month CWB to find climate-normalized IWU. We used our uncertainty estimates for each dataset in the Bayesian time

trend analysis, as described above and in Supplementary Notes 2 and 3. DATA AVAILABILITY Model inputs used to perform this work are available in the Zenodo repository at

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10119415. CODE AVAILABILITY The analysis performed in this paper can be replicated using our Python repository at

https://github.com/dgketchum/irr_impacts/tree/comms_env. REFERENCES * U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2017 Census of Agriculture. U.S. Government

Printing Office. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.php#full_report (2019). * Gollehon, N. & Quinby, W. Irrigation in the American West: area, water and economic

activity. _Int. J. Water Resour. Dev._ 16, 187–195 (2000). Article  Google Scholar  * U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Gross Domestic Product by County, 2020.

https://www.bea.gov/news/2021/gross-domestic-product-county-2020 (2021). * James, T., Evans, A., Madly, E. & Kelly, C. The economic importance of the Colorado river to The Basin region.

http://greatbasinwater.org/archives/doc/ptf_final-121814.pdf (2014). * United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. _2018 Irrigation and Water

Management Survey_. (2019). * Richter, B. D. et al. Water scarcity and fish imperilment driven by beef production. _Nat. Sustain._ 3, 319–328 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Hrozencik, R.

A. Trends in US irrigated agriculture: increasing resilience under water supply scarcity. _SSRN J._ https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3996325 (2021). * Grafton, R. Q. et al. The paradox of

irrigation efficiency. _Science_ 361, 748–750 (2018). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Scott, C. A., Vicuña, S., Blanco-Gutiérrez, I., Meza, F. & Varela-Ortega, C. Irrigation efficiency

and water-policy implications for river basin resilience. _Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci._ 18, 1339–1348 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Ward, F. A. & Pulido-Velazquez, M. Water

conservation in irrigation can increase water use. _Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA_ 105, 18215–18220 (2008). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Vahmani, P., Jones, A. D. & Li, D. Will

anthropogenic warming increase evapotranspiration? Examining irrigation water demand implications of climate change in California. _Earths Future_ 10, (2022). * Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski,

S. Z. & Parks, S. A. Multivariate climate departures have outpaced univariate changes across global lands. _Sci. Rep._ 10, 3891 (2020). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Holden, Z. A. et

al. Decreasing fire season precipitation increased recent western US forest wildfire activity. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 115, E8349–E8357 (2018). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Luce, C.

H., Abatzoglou, J. T. & Holden, Z. A. The missing mountain water: slower westerlies decrease orographic enhancement in the Pacific Northwest USA. _Science_ 342, 1360–1364 (2013). Article

  CAS  Google Scholar  * Condon, L. E., Atchley, A. L. & Maxwell, R. M. Evapotranspiration depletes groundwater under warming over the contiguous United States. _Nat. Commun._ 11, 873

(2020). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Milly, P. C. D. & Dunne, K. A. Colorado River flow dwindles as warming-driven loss of reflective snow energizes evaporation. _Science_ 367,

1252–1255 (2020). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Atawneh, D. A., Cartwright, N. & Bertone, E. Climate change and its impact on the projected values of groundwater recharge: a review.

_J. Hydrol._ 601, 126602 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Meixner, T. et al. Implications of projected climate change for groundwater recharge in the western United States. _J. Hydrol._

534, 124–138 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Albano, C. M. et al. A multidataset assessment of climatic drivers and uncertainties of recent trends in evaporative demand across the

continental United States. _J. Hydrometeorol._ 23, 505–519 (2022). Article  Google Scholar  * Haddeland, I. & Skaugen, T. Anthropogenic impacts on continental surface water fluxes.

_Geophys. Res. Lett_. 33, 8, L08406 (2006). * Haddeland, I. et al. Global water resources affected by human interventions and climate change. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 111, 3251–3256

(2014). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Voisin, N. et al. On an improved sub-regional water resources management representation for integration into earth system models. _Hydrol. Earth Syst.

Sci._ 17, 3605–3622 (2013). Article  Google Scholar  * Voisin, N. et al. One-way coupling of an integrated assessment model and a water resources model: evaluation and implications of

future changes over the US Midwest. _Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci._ 17, 4555–4575 (2013). Article  Google Scholar  * Essaid, H. I. & Caldwell, R. R. Evaluating the impact of irrigation on

surface water—groundwater interaction and stream temperature in an agricultural watershed. _Sci. Total Environ._ 599-600, 581–596 (2017). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Wen, F. & Chen,

X. Evaluation of the impact of groundwater irrigation on streamflow in Nebraska. _J. Hydrol._ 327, 603–617 (2006). Article  Google Scholar  * Zeng, R. & Cai, X. Analyzing streamflow

changes: irrigation-enhanced interaction between aquifer and streamflow in the Republican River Basin. _Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss._ 10, 7783–7807 (2013). Google Scholar  *

Vicente-Serrano, S. M. et al. Climate, irrigation, and land cover change explain streamflow trends in countries bordering the northeast Atlantic. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 46, 10821–10833

(2019). Article  Google Scholar  * Wada, Y., van Beek, L. P. H., Wanders, N. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Human water consumption intensifies hydrological drought worldwide. _Environ. Res.

Lett._ 8, 034036 (2013). Article  Google Scholar  * Mpanga, I. K. & Idowu, O. J. A decade of irrigation water use trends in Southwestern USA: the role of irrigation technology, best

management practices, and outreach education programs. _Agric. Water Manage._ 243, 106438 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Anderson, M. C., Allen, R. G., Morse, A. & Kustas, W. P. Use

of Landsat thermal imagery in monitoring evapotranspiration and managing water resources. _Remote Sens. Environ._ 122, 50–65 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Melton, F. S. et al. OpenET:

Filling a critical data gap in water management for the western United States. _J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc_. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12956 (2021). * Burt, C. M. et al. Irrigation

performance measures: efficiency and uniformity. _J. Irrig. Drain. Eng._ 123, 423 (1997). Article  Google Scholar  * Niswonger, R. G., Morway, E. D., Triana, E. & Huntington, J. L.

Managed aquifer recharge through off‐season irrigation in agricultural regions. _Water Resour. Res._ 53, 6970–6992 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Ficklin, D. L., Stewart, I. T. &

Maurer, E. P. Climate change impacts on streamflow and subbasin-scale hydrology in the Upper Colorado River Basin. _PLoS One_ 8, e71297 (2013). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Haines,

Michael R. Price Fishback, and Paul Rhode. "United States Agriculture Data, 1840–2010." Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (2014). * Martinez

Baquero, G. F., Jordan, D. L., Whittaker, A. T. & Allen, R. G. Remote-sensing-based evaluation of relative consumptive use between flood- and drip-irrigated fields. in vol. 2013

H41A–1199 (ui.adsabs.harvard.edu, 2013). * Poole, G. C., Risley, J. & Hicks, M. Issue Paper 3 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Stream Temperature (Revised). _Environ. Prot_. 27, 787–80

2(2001). * Ferencz, S. B. & Tidwell, V. C. Physical controls on irrigation return flow contributions to stream flow in irrigated alluvial valleys. _Front. Water_ 4, 828099 (2022). *

Lonsdale, W. R., Cross, W. F., Dalby, C. E., Meloy, S. E., Schwend, A. C., 2020. Evaluating Irrigation Efficiency: Toward a Sustainable Water Future for Montana, Montana University System

Water Center, Montana State University, 42p., https://doi.org/10.15788/mwc202011 (2020). * Donnelly, J. P. et al. Climate and human water use diminish wetland networks supporting continental

waterbird migration. _Glob. Chang. Biol._ 26, 2042–2059 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Idaho Department of Water Resources, GIS Section. Irrigated Lands for the Eastern Snake Plain

Aquifer, 1986. (2019). * Idaho Department of Water Resources, GIS Section. Irrigated Lands for the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer, 1986 (2020). * Ackerman, D. J., Rattray, G. W., Rousseau, J.

P., Davis, L. C. & Orr, B. R. A conceptual model of ground-water flow in the Eastern Snake River Plain aquifer at the Idaho National Laboratory and vicinity with implications for

contaminant transport. _USGS - U.S. Geological Survey_ https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5122/ (2006). * Lewis, R. S., Link, P. K., Stanford, L. R. & Long, S. P. Geologic Map of Idaho.

(Idaho Geological Survey, 2012). * Ackerman, D. J. _Analysis of Steady-state Flow and Advective Transport in the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer System, Idaho_. (U.S. Department of the

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1995). * Montana Department of Revenue. Revenue Final Land Unit (FLU) Classification, 2019. (2019). * Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. Geologic Map of

Montana. (1996). * Raskin, P., Gleick, P., Kirshen, P., Pontius, G. & Strzepek, K. _Water futures: assessment of long-range patterns and problems. Comprehensive assessment of the

freshwater resources of the world_. (SEI, 1997). * Flörke, M., Schneider, C. & McDonald, R. I. Water competition between cities and agriculture driven by climate change and urban growth.

_Nat. Sustain._ 1, 51–58 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Board, I. W. R. Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer comprehensive aquifer management plan. _Idaho Water Resource Board: Boise, ID, USA_

(2009). * Williams, A. P. et al. Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought. _Science_ 368, 314–318 (2020). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  *

Stevenson, S. et al. Twenty-first century hydroclimate: a continually changing baseline, with more frequent extremes. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 119, e2108124119 (2022). Article  CAS 

Google Scholar  * U.S. Geological Survey. National Water Information System. _USGS Water Data for the Nation_ http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/ (2016). * Steyaert, J. C., Condon, L. E., W D

Turner, S. & Voisin, N. ResOpsUS, a dataset of historical reservoir operations in the contiguous United States. _Sci. Data_ 9, 34 (2022). Article  Google Scholar  * Siddik, M. A. B.,

Dickson, K. E., Rising, J., Ruddell, B. L. & Marston, L. T. Interbasin water transfers in the United States and Canada. _Sci. Data_ 10, 27 (2023). Article  Google Scholar  * Abatzoglou,

J. T. Development of gridded surface meteorological data for ecological applications and modelling. _Int. J. Climatol._ 33, 121–131 (2013). Article  Google Scholar  * Ketchum, D. et al.

IrrMapper: a machine learning approach for high resolution mapping of irrigated agriculture across the Western U.S. _Remote Sensing_ 12, 2328 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Senay, G. B.

et al. Mapping actual evapotranspiration using Landsat for the conterminous United States: Google Earth Engine implementation and assessment of the SSEBop model. _Remote Sens. Environ._ 275,

113011 (2022). Article  Google Scholar  * Patil, A., Huard, D. & Fonnesbeck, C. J. PyMC: Bayesian stochastic modelling in Python. _J. Stat. Softw._ 35, 1–81 (2010). Article  Google

Scholar  * Badjana, H. M. et al. Bayesian trend analysis in annual rainfall total, duration and maximum in the Kara River basin (West Africa). _J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud._ 13, 255–273 (2017).

Article  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS D.K. was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1633831, the University of Montana BRIDGES Fellowship and

funds from the Montana Climate Office. The authors are grateful to OpenET developers (Forrest Melton, Tyler Erickson, Gabriel Senay, Charles Morton, John Volk, MacKenzie Friedrichs, and

Grabriel Parrish) for providing access to software, computational resources, and expertise (https://openetdata.org/). AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Montana Climate Office,

W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, 32 Campus Dr., Missoula, MT, 59812, USA David Ketchum, Zachary H. Hoylman & Kelsey G. Jencso * Department of

Forest Management, W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, 32 Campus Dr., Missoula, MT, 59812, USA Zachary H. Hoylman & Kelsey G. Jencso * Division of

Hydrologic Sciences, Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV, 89512, USA Justin Huntington * Department of Computer Science, University of Montana, 32 Campus Dr., Missoula,

MT, 59812, USA Douglas Brinkerhoff Authors * David Ketchum View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Zachary H. Hoylman View author publications

You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Justin Huntington View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Douglas Brinkerhoff

View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Kelsey G. Jencso View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

CONTRIBUTIONS D.K., Z.H., and K.J. designed research; D.K. performed research and analyzed data; D.K. and J.H. contributed software; D.B. and Z.H. reviewed software; D.K., Z.H., and K.J.

wrote the manuscript, D.K., Z.H., D.B., J.H., and K.J. edited the manuscript. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to David Ketchum. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors

declare no competing interests. PEER REVIEW PEER REVIEW INFORMATION _Communications Earth & Environment_ thanks Jianyu Fu and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to

the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Min-Hui Lo, Joe Aslin and Aliénor Lavergne. A peer review file is available. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature

remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION PEER REVIEW FILE DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTARY

FILES SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE SUPPLEMENTARY DATA SET 1–7 RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits

use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the

Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated

otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds

the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and

permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Ketchum, D., Hoylman, Z.H., Huntington, J. _et al._ Irrigation intensification impacts sustainability of streamflow in the Western United

States. _Commun Earth Environ_ 4, 479 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01152-2 Download citation * Received: 19 April 2023 * Accepted: 29 November 2023 * Published: 15 December

2023 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01152-2 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable

link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative