Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158
DOI 10.1007/s00271-012-0394-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Strategy for Efficient Energy Management to solve energy
problems in modernized irrigation: analysis of the Spanish case
C. Rocamora • J. Vera • R. Abadı́a
Received: 24 March 2012 / Accepted: 25 September 2012 / Published online: 12 October 2012
 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012
Abstract While the modernization of irrigation tech-
niques in recent years has improved water use efficiency, the
substitution of open channels by pressurized pipes led to a
substantial increase in the energy used in irrigated agricul-
ture. Given the concern for energy savings and sustainability,
official administrations have promoted several initiatives to
improve energy efficiency in irrigated agriculture, and
researchers have developed different tools for the same.
Although energy audits have been conducted in irrigation
networks managed by Water Users’ Associations, the
implementation of energy conservation measures proposed in
these audits has not been always successful. This paper,
which reviews the energy aspects of irrigation systems
modernized in recent decades in Spain and in other countries,
considers the characteristics and special features of Water
Users’ Associations and proposes an energy management
system (EMS) for the same. The stages of the EMS are
described, beginning with the definition of energy policy and
the establishment, implementation and verification of energy
plans, the essential conditions to guarantee the success of the
EMS are described, in which energy audits are just a part of a
process of continual improvement of energy efficiency.
A Strategy for Efficient Energy Management has been
implemented in a Water Users’ Association in southeast
Communicated by J. Kijne.
C. Rocamora (&)
J. Vera
R. Abadı́a
Departamento de Ingenierı́a, Universidad Miguel Hernández,
Ctra. de Beniel km 3.2, 03312 Orihuela, Alicante, Spain
e-mail: rocamora@umh.es
J. Vera
e-mail: jorgeveramorales@gmail.com
R. Abadı́a
e-mail: abadia@umh.es
Spain. The improvement measures proposed in the first
energy plan were implemented, and an increase from 60 to
65 % in average energy efficiency was achieved.
Abbreviations
WUA Water Users’ Association
SEEM Strategy for Efficient Energy Management
EMS Energy Management System
Introduction and review
This paper reviews the effect of modernization of irrigation
on the use of water and energy in irrigated agriculture, con-
sidering both the positive and negative aspects. It evaluates
energy efficiency in the sector and the tools developed to
improve energy efficiency by Water Users’ Associations
(WUAs), whose role in the management of collective irri-
gation networks is also analyzed. The methodologies for
evaluating energy efficiency, the results of the energy audits
conducted and the energy savings expected after the imple-
mentation of energy conservation measures proposed in
energy audits are reported. The difficulties observed in putt-
ing these measures into practice highlight the need for a
further step forward and lead us to propose a Strategy for
Efficient Energy Management (SEEM) by WUAs.
Modernization of irrigation in Spain: positive
and negative issues
Irrigation is the key for increasing agricultural production
in forthcoming decades to meet the increasing food
demand of a growing population (FAO 2003; Cai and
Rosegrant 2003). However, irrigated agriculture must face
up to great challenges derived from decreasing water
123
1140
availability in a context of climate change (UN Water
2007; Tarjuelo et al. 2010) and contribute to a rural
development that must be environmentally and economi-
cally sustainable (Playán and Mateos 2006). For this to be
achieved, the efficient use of its main inputs, water and
energy, is essential.
It is estimated that agriculture consumes 70 % of the total
freshwater in the world, but with large differences between
countries and even between different regions within the same
country (CAWMA 2007). According to MARM (2006a, b),
irrigation consumes 68 % of water resources in Spain,
although this amount may reach 90 % in areas with limited
water resources (MMA 2000; Tarjuelo et al. 2010).
Reasons for the modernization
Over the past decade, the Spanish Government has promoted
the improvement of water productivity and the efficiency of
water use in irrigated agriculture through two irrigation
modernization plans: ‘‘Plan Nacional de Regadı́os horizonte
2008’’ approved in 2002 (MAPA 2002) and ‘‘Plan de Choque
de Modernización de Regadı́os’’ (MARM 2006a, b). The
underlying objective of both plans was to improve the
infrastructure for the distribution and application of irrigation
water, in an attempt to rationalize the use of water resources,
to reduce groundwater and surface water pollution derived
from the agricultural activity and to promote the change of
irrigation systems by introducing technological innovations,
allowing the implementation of less water-demanding irri-
gation techniques. The water saving foreseen by both plans
represents about 15 % of the yearly average of agricultural
water use. Together, these plans envisaged an investment of €
7,400 million to improve the irrigation structures of nearly
2 Mha (Lecina et al. 2010).
The modernization projects developed during recent
years promoted by these government plans have involved
changing from open-channel gravity-based systems to
branched- and looped-pressurized networks (Abadı́a et al.
2008a), to supply water to on-farm trickle or sprinkle
irrigation systems. In the words of Allan (1999), this
improvement in water efficiency is understood as the
improvement of technical efficiency and the modernization
of the infrastructure. These new modernized irrigation
systems offer several advantages, increasing reliability and
flexibility leading to higher irrigation efficiency and crop
yield (Playán and Mateos 2006), the twin aspects of
greatest importance for the viability of irrigation projects
(Clemmens and Molden 2007). In terms of conveyance
efficiency, this has been improved from values of 60–70 %
in open channels to values close to 100 % in pressurized
networks (Rodrı́guez Dı́az et al. 2008). Modernization can
also bring about social and environmental benefits, since
irrigation helps stabilize the rural population, makes rural
123
Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158
employment more attractive and reduces salt and nutrient
leaching from irrigated areas (Playán and Mateos 2006).
From an energy point of view, modernized collective-dis-
tribution networks have the advantage of being more effi-
cient than individual irrigation-pressurized networks,
providing energy savings. When one or several pumping
stations supply a collective network, it is easier to attain
high energy efficiency than by using many small ones, and
it is also easier to organize the pumping schedule to use the
cheapest electricity tariff (Abadı́a et al. 2008a).
However, after the implementation of such moderniza-
tion plans developed in Spain, certain negative aspects
have become evident that had not been adequately con-
sidered in the planning stage.
Energy and modernization
Irrigation modernization has led to an increase in energy
consumption in agriculture (Abadı́a et al. 2008a; Rodrı́guez
Dı́az et al. 2009), and users must face up to a substantial
increase in energy costs plus amortization costs of new
infrastructures. The substitution of open channels, where no
significant energy consumption was required, by pressurized
pipe networks, entails the need to pump water to provide the
required head to feed the irrigation systems and the sub-
sequent increase in energy consumption. In this sense, the
‘‘Plan Nacional de Regadı́os’’ projected an increase of 759
GWh in electricity consumption in irrigated agriculture
(MAPA 2002) similar to that estimated in the ‘‘Strategy for
Energy Saving and Efficiency in Spain 2004–2012 (E4)’’
aimed at energy use in the agriculture sector the for period
2001–2012 (Ministerio de Economı́a 2003).
The problem of higher energy consumption in the irri-
gation sector has been aggravated by the liberalization of
the electricity market in Spain and the change in the
structure of the electric tariffs. Special rates for irrigation,
with significantly low power charges, have disappeared,
and also the energy charges have increased, questioning the
profitability of modernization projects with high energy
requirements (Corominas 2010).
Some examples have been reported by Moreno et al.
(2010a), who cites an average increase of energy costs at
WUAs of between 40 and 75 % in 2008. Also, over nine
irrigation districts, Rodrı́guez Dı́az et al. (2008) reported a
substantial increase in average management, operation and
maintenance costs from 0.02 € m-3 in open-channel net-
works to 0.10 € m-3 in pressurized systems. The results of
modernization projects show that some irrigation networks
have acquired the same cost structure as an urban water
utility, where energy costs are major part of total operation
and maintenance costs (Arora and LeChevalier 1998).
Figure 1 shows the evolution of the main energy bill
components, power charge and energy charge, since 2004
Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158
Fig. 1 Evolution of energy rate
components for a 3-period
irrigation electric supply tariff
€/kW year (Power charge)
for a specific energy supply for irrigation with a contracted
power of less than 450 kW in a 3-period tariff. To calculate
energy and power charges, it is considered that after the
second semester of 2008 (date of elimination of special
rates for irrigation), the system works only on P2 and P3
periods, in which both energy and power charges are lower,
avoiding operation in peak hours (P1). The rise in the
electricity tariffs has made users and WUA managers more
conscious of the need for improving energy efficiency.
In several cases, modernization projects have not con-
sidered the problem of users having to adapt their man-
agement for a new and more complex distribution system.
For proper management, qualified personnel with specific
training are necessary. Some authors have described
similar problems in other irrigated areas around the world
and consider that irrigation modernization must incorpo-
rate these issues to fully achieve the benefits of modern-
ization plans. Plusquellec (2009) states that the objectives
of modernization are broader than improving the delivery
service to users and reducing the operating costs: mod-
ernization should aim at improving agricultural production
in a sustainable manner and at improving the livelihood of
the rural population. The modernization of irrigation will
not be complete unless it includes improved management,
which must consider the new technologies and structures
of the irrigation facilities. According to Horta (2000),
modernizing entails an ensemble of legal, financial, con-
structing, training and management proceedings, to
achieve an increase in the efficiency of water and energy
use, in economic efficiency and in environmental
efficiency.
1141
25 0.12
0.1
20
€/kWh (Energy charge)
0.08
15
0.06
10
0.04
5
0.02
0 0
Period
Power Charge (€/kW year) Energy Charge (€/kWh)
The role of the Water Users’ Associations
In Spain, the major part of the surface under irrigation,
69 % of 3,700,000 ha, is managed by more than 7,000
Water Users’ Associations (WUAs) (MAPA 2002). These
organizations are corporations under public law which hold
the water concessions for an irrigable area and have the
responsibility of organizing collective exploitation of
common public surface water and groundwater, and for
managing the collective networks and pumping stations to
provide water and pressure to every user. WUAs have a
long tradition in Spain and some have been in existence for
many centuries (Framji et al. 1983; Plusquellec 2009).
The present structure of WUAs has been adequate for
exploiting water resources in the scenario of traditional irri-
gation, but the current scenario of modernized irrigation with
technified installations presents new requirements. Success in
the management of modernized irrigation systems depends
much on the professional profile and personal interest of the
board and the skills of the staff and requires managers with
full-time dedication, aware of water and energy management
issues, and qualified technicians to efficiently operate the
equipment. This may be unaffordable especially in the
medium- and small-size associations with fewer resources to
employ technical staff. A survey of WUAs in the Alicante
region (Puerto et al. 2006) revealed the little relevance given
to training farmers and managers although it is a basic tool for
improving the management of irrigation water. This trend
also has a negative influence on the awareness of users, not
only concerning water use but also energy use. The recent
‘‘Estrategia Nacional para la Modernización Sostenible de los
123
1142
Regadı́os, Horizonte 2015’’ (MARM 2010) continues efforts
to improve water efficiency and to rationalize energy use in
irrigation, to contribute to the conservation of the rural
environment and to promote the application of good practices
and the use of the best available technology in irrigated
agriculture. Its guidelines incorporate as objectives
improvements in the training of technical staff and users of
WUAs and the adoption of energy efficiency criteria in the
design of pumping stations and distribution networks.
Assessment of energy efficiency in irrigation
Energy and water are the main resources in modernized
irrigated agriculture, and it is considered that a proper
management of a water distribution system must consider
jointly the water–energy combination (Cohen et al. 2004;
Klein et al. 2005).
Energy efficiency can be defined as the ratio between
the performance of a system or a process and the energy
used (AENOR 2010a), and energy efficiency improve-
ments refer to a reduction in the energy used for a given
service or level of activity (WEC 2010). Energy con-
sumption in irrigation distribution systems is directly
related to water loss in the network, since a loss of water
means a loss of the energy supplied to this amount of
water. But water loss is not considered in general energy
efficiency: it must be evaluated as part of the water effi-
ciency use of the irrigation system, together with convey-
ance efficiency and field application efficiency (Bos 1979).
Therefore, an irrigation distribution system will be more
energy efficient when it is able to deliver the same amount
of water at the necessary pressure with less energy
expenditure (Abadı́a et al. 2008a). As described in this
paper, energy efficiency depends on the pumping energy
efficiency, which is determined by the proper performance
and regulation of pumping systems, and the supply energy
efficiency, which is determined by spatial distribution of
the irrigated area and the network layout and management.
From the figures mentioned concerning the role of WUAs
in managing irrigable areas in Spain, it can be deduced that a
great part of energy consumption in irrigation is managed by
WUAs and that these organizations are the main bodies
affected by the increase in energy consumption and energy
rates. Thus, energy saving measures focused on WUAs
should have a significant repercussion on the energy con-
sumption of the agricultural sector. Actually, the measures
envisaged in the ‘‘Strategy for Energy Saving and Efficiency
in Spain 2004–2012’’ (E4) (Ministerio de Economı́a 2003)
through the Action Plans (IDAE 2005, 2007) for irrigated
agriculture consist of energy audits and plans for energy use
improvement in WUAs.
As a first step, the Institute for Diversification and
Energy Savings (IDAE) commissioned the elaboration of a
123
Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158
guideline for energy audits in WUAs (Abadı́a et al. 2008a).
This guideline is based in the methodology for assessing
energy efficiency in collective irrigation networks devel-
oped by Abadı́a et al. (2008b) and is in accordance with the
Spanish Standard for Energy Audits (AENOR 2009), since
the document describes the key points for energy efficiency
improvement, the promotion of energy savings and the
avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions.
In the audit process of a WUA, a broad description of
the network is made, and a thorough analysis of the per-
formance of the system is carried out. The pumping energy
efficiency and the supplied energy efficiency are evaluated,
highlighting the critical points and the processes that
should improve energy efficiency. Energy contracting is
also analyzed to determine measures to improve cost effi-
ciency. Energy and economic savings derived from the
implementation of improvement measures are estimated. It
also defines a series of performance indicators to qualify
the WUAs in energy-related terms based on the three
aspects: energy consumption, energy efficiency and energy
management. The indicators used for the qualification of
WUAs are active energy consumed per hectare (EacSr) and
global energy efficiency (GEE) (Abadı́a et al. 2008a).
Performance indicators have been introduced into the
irrigation and drainage sector in recent years (Bos 1997;
Malano and Burton 2001; Malano et al. 2004; Alexander
and Potter 2004; Rodrı́guez Dı́az et al. 2008) to establish
benchmarking techniques and to achieve continuous
improvement in the performance of the irrigation systems.
Córcoles et al. (2010) evaluated seven WUAs, obtaining
a large number of indicators, which included descriptive,
performance and energy indicators. Many of the energy
indicators coincide with those proposed by Abadı́a et al.
(2008a, b). Some of them also coincide with those pro-
posed by other researchers: efficiency of the energy supply
is the inverse of the quality indicator defined by Pelli and
Hitz (2000) and represents the same concept as network
energy efficiency (Cabrera et al. 2010); measured absorbed
power per unit irrigation delivery (in kW m-3) and con-
sumed active energy per unit irrigation delivery (in
kWh m-3) are also proposed by Luc et al. (2006).
Abadı́a et al. (2008a) and Córcoles et al. (2010) propose
as indicator both the consumed active energy per unit
irrigation supply and per unit irrigation delivery, in kWh
m-3. The use of indicators allows to compare WUAs and
to monitor the evolution of the performance of a WUA
throughout the time.
Review of the optimization of energy efficiency
in irrigation networks
Energy efficiency issues are gaining in importance for the
management of irrigable areas, and, in recent years,
Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158
researchers have begun to look into energy optimization of
WUA irrigation systems. Different tools have been devel-
oped to cover the main aspects of energy management: (1)
the assessment of energy efficiency; (2) models for opti-
mizing the design and management of irrigation systems
(network layout design, pumping stations design and
management, flow demand prediction, network sectoring,
etc.) and (3) models for the optimization of the electricity
contracting.
Assessment of energy efficiency in WUAs: energy audits
Based on the above-mentioned methodology and guideline
(Abadı́a et al. 2008a, b), several energy audits have been
conducted in recent years. In some cases, regional energy
agencies have entrusted energy audits to research groups
with experience in measuring energy efficiency in irriga-
tion networks (Rocamora et al. 2008; Abadı́a et al. 2010a,
b; Carrillo-Cobo et al. 2010; Moreno et al. 2010a, b; Vera
et al. 2010; Rodrı́guez Dı́az et al. 2011).
Our research group carried out several energy audits in
southeast Spain: in the first stage, two WUAs were audited
to validate the guideline; later, the regional energy agency
entrusted our group the performance of the energy audits
that applied for the subsidy envisaged in the action plan of
the Strategy for Energy Saving and Efficiency in Spain, and
from then on we have also supervised energy audits per-
formed by consultants in the provinces of Alicante and
Murcia. The results of one of the energy audits conducted
to validate the guideline were reported by Rocamora et al.
(2008). In this paper, general indicators were obtained for
the whole WUA and for each of two independent sectors,
one for drip irrigation and the other for surface irrigation.
Researches of CREA (Centro Regional de Estudios del
Agua, Universidad de Castilla—La Mancha) and UMH
(Universidad Miguel Hernández, the authors’ research
group) have compared the results of energy audits con-
ducted by both groups in 22 WUAs located in Castilla-La
Table 1 Energy and economic savings estimated in energy audits conducted in seven WUAs in the provinces of Alicante and Murcia
WUA Energy savings (%)
D&M Equip Total
1 6.05 8.45 14.50
2 25.15 25.15
3 11.72 11.72
4 3.95 20.79 24.74
5 4.71 18.26 22.97
6 15.25 15.25
7 11.95 11.95
D & M savings due to improvements in design and management. Equip savings due to improvements in equipment. Contract savings due to
improvements in electricity contracting
1143
Mancha and Levante region, in terms of energy efficiency
(Abadı́a et al. 2010a) and in terms of the cost-effectiveness
of the proposed measures (Abadı́a et al. 2010b).
Abadı́a et al. (2010a) reported a weighted average
pumping energy efficiency (PEE) of 54.8 %. Similar values
were described by Vera et al. (2010) in the analysis of 22
well pumps (50.2 %) and by Rodrı́guez Dı́az et al. (2011)
in 10 WUAs in Andalusia (58.1 %). These results, obtained
after the analysis of more than 150 pumps in a large
number of WUAs, rated pumping energy efficiency as C,
regarded as normal according to the scale established by
the guideline (Abadı́a et al. 2008b).
In the investigations carried out in WUAs, several types
of measures for improving energy efficiency and for
obtaining significant energy and cost savings have been
proposed. These measures can be related with the
improvement of the energy consumer equipment (pumps,
engines) or related with the management of the irrigation
network. There are also measures focused on the reduction
in energy costs that consist of improving the energy con-
tracting, which permits cost savings even higher than those
derived from the energy savings. Important potential
energy savings have been estimated (11.4 % was reported
by Rocamora et al. 2008; 10.2 % by Moreno et al. 2010a;
or 21.8 % by Vera et al. 2010). In the aforementioned
comparison of the proposed measures in 22 WUAs, the
results reported by Abadı́a et al. (2010b) show potential
average energy savings of 14.03 % and cost savings of
19.98 % highlighting maximum energy savings of 44.08 %
in a WUA, which would result in economic savings of
61.85 %. The average values of estimated energy savings
were due to different types of measures: 2.79 % due to
improvements in design and management of the network
and 11.24 % due to improvements in the energy con-
sumption equipment. Table 1 shows both energy and cost
savings estimated in the energy audits carried out by the
authors’ research group in seven WUAs in the provinces of
Alicante and Murcia.
Economic savings (%)
D&M Equip Contract Total
5.75 9.28 5.33 20.36
18.76 2.22 20.98
11.99 27.98 39.97
6.26 15.42 1.54 23.22
4.54 17.62 22.16
10.71 10.71
9.45 9.45
123
1144
A great number of WUAs have been evaluated. However,
large-scale monitoring of the implementation of improvement
measures has not been made, and so the actual effectiveness
has not been tested. Only Moreno et al. (2010a) monitored the
implementation of improvement measures in WUAs. Fifteen
WUAs were audited; different models were used to analyze
the irrigation networks, the demand curve and the energy
efficiency in pumping stations and wells. Improvement
measures were proposed and the estimated average energy
savings in all the WUAs was 9.5 %, whereas average cost
savings of 14.6 % were estimated. In those WUAs where
improvement measures were implemented (7 out of 15),
performance indicators were monitored. SEE was difficult to
improve since managers do not easily accept changes in irri-
gation habits such as sectoring the irrigation network; PEE
increased in some of the WUAs but decreased in others. The
annual consumed energy per volume of irrigation water
delivered (kWh m-3), considered the most reliable perfor-
mance indicator, decreased in 5 out of 7 WUAs. Although
Moreno et al. (2010a) report actual energy savings through the
implemented measures that fit the estimated savings and
emphasize that only 7 out of 15 analyzed WUAs established
the corrective measures, they do not suggest any way to in-
centivize the implementation of the improvement measures
that on the other cases have shown to be effective.
The assessment of the energy efficiency allows the pro-
posal of the improvement measures that should be set up to
achieve energy savings. Nevertheless, the assessment per se
does not guarantee the reduction in energy consumption, as is
proved by Moreno et al. (2010a); hence, the need for a
strategy to ensure the implementation of the improvement
measures and thus to get a reduction in energy use.
Models for optimizing the design and management
of irrigation systems
Different aspects such as the layout and the hydraulic
calculations of the distribution network, the sectoring and
management of the network, the design and regulation of
pumping stations and the maintenance of all the irrigation
infrastructure are interrelated and all of them influence the
energy consumption and efficiency of the irrigation system.
Aspects such as the layout of the distribution network or
the optimal dimensioning of pipelines have been widely
referred to in the literature (Labye et al. 1988; Granados
1990; DIOPRAM 2003; Planells et al. 2007; Farmani et al.
2007), and different optimization techniques have been
used. Several computer tools that analyze the performance
of different alternatives for the design and management of
the network (Rossman 1997; Aliod et al. 1997; Lamadda-
lena and Sagardoy 2000) are available.
Moreover, in recent years, many studies have focused on
the energy-related aspects of the process of design and
123
Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158
management of the distribution networks and of irrigation
pumping stations in the face of increasing energy prices.
Several authors have developed models for the optimal
design and operation of irrigation pumping stations aiming
at minimizing the design and energy cost (Moradi-Jalal
et al. 2003, 2004; Pulido-Calvo et al. 2003a; Planells et al.
2005). However, some studies consider only the design
flow and pressure heads, whereas the discharge pattern
varies throughout the irrigation season and it is also neces-
sary to improve energy efficiency for low and medium
discharges. For that purpose, the characterization of water
flow and water demand forecasting systems are important
aspects to consider in the determination of network per-
formance (Clement 1966; Lopez-Luque et al. 1995; Pulido-
Calvo et al. 2003a, b, 2007; Moreno et al. 2007a).
Optimum design and regulation of pumping stations for
the supply of on-demand irrigation networks have been
object of different studies. Tools and models have been
developed for dimensioning and regulating pumping sta-
tions, analyzing energy efficiency and determining the
optimum sequence of pump activation and the use of speed
drives (Planells et al. 2005; Moreno et al. 2007b, 2009;
Lamaddalena and Khila 2011).
Groundwater extraction, frequent in many irrigable
areas in Spain, represents the largest energy consumption
in the irrigation sector. Some methods have been proposed,
minimizing the cost of well pumping. For example, Helweg
(1982) proposed a replacement analysis to schedule
replacement or repair in order to increase well and pump
efficiency. Katsifarakis (2008) approached the minimization
of pumping costs in confined aquifers, and Moreno et al.
(2010c) developed a methodology to obtain the minimum
total cost of pumping for underground water extraction,
optimizing the characteristic and efficiency curves, together
with the pumping pipe diameter.
Network sectoring is an issue of great import in the
energy consumed during water distribution for irrigation,
especially in irrigable areas presenting large differences in
elevation, entailing an extra energy supply for the highest
areas. At the design stage, the network should be divided to
best fit the energy requirements of the area under irrigation.
However, once the network is constructed, sectoring
becomes more complex. Different methods and models for
dividing irrigation networks into sectors to minimize
energy consumption have recently been developed.
Rodrı́guez Dı́az et al. (2009) found important potential
energy savings (up to 27 %) by sectoring an irrigation
district, using elevation as the criterion to make sectors.
Sectoring means losing flexibility, but the authors state that
complete on-demand irrigation cannot be justified from an
energy point of view. Other approaches have been made to
sectoring: the algorithm proposed by Carrillo-Cobo et al.
(2010) was based on topological dimensionless coordinates
Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158 1145

related to the elevation of hydrants and the distance to the marketing company, whereas the power charge and
inlet point. Jiménez-Bello et al. (2010) developed a the rest of energy charge are established by the
methodology for grouping intakes based on genetic algo- Government, as well as the distribution of periods
rithms and applied it to the network of a WUA, achieving throughout the day and year. Some marketing com-
energy savings up to 36.4 %. On-demand irrigation net- panies offer energy charges associated with the
works are more flexible for users since farmers can irrigate energy price in the daily wholesale electricity market.
at will (Moreno et al. 2010b); however, the whole irrigation
The contracted power supply is an important issue in
system is designed to meet the peak irrigation demand,
energy contracting. In Spain, electricity is contracted
which is usually limited to a few days, resulting in an
according to the maximum power one expects to use. One of
oversized pumping station during most of the irrigation
the components of the energy bill is the power charge, which
season (Calejo et al. 2008). A study carried out by Moreno
is obtained by multiplying the contracted power (kW) by the
et al. (2010b) compared irrigation networks of four WUAs,
power rate (€ kW-1) applied according to the contracted
two on-demand and two under rotational management,
tariff. On the one hand, contracting more power than required
observing lower pumping energy efficiency in the on-
by the pumping stations results in wasting money, as power
demand irrigated WUAs, but higher values of supply
charge will unnecessarily increase the energy bill. On the
energy efficiency in these WUAs. The results suggested
other hand, contracting a low power may lead to surcharges if
that irrigation systems under a rotation schedule are more
the power demand registered by ‘‘maximeters’’ surpasses the
susceptible to be managed inefficiently than on-demand
contracted power. These penalties depend on the contracted
networks, but if they are properly managed, greater energy
tariff, the power excess and the number of times the power
efficiency can be achieved in networks under rotational
contracted is exceeded, according to the regulation of the
management.
electricity sector (Ministerio de Economı́a 2001). An excess
of reactive energy consumption will also be penalized when
Models for optimizing the electricity tariffs
the value of power factor is lower than 0.95, so adequate and
well-managed capacitors will be required in the electrical
Bad management of the electricity contracts may lead to
installation.
paying a high price for the energy used.
The IDAE developed software (OFE) to analyze and
Improving energy purchase means looking for the most
optimize the electricity bill in any kind of agricultural
convenient type of contract, taking into account the con-
exploitation, which is also valid for any electricity supply.
tracted power which is determined by the power demanded
This software simulates different scenarios of regulated
by the pumping systems. Good energy management also
tariff rates and market offers to determine the potential
implies knowledge of the different electricity rates and
savings. In the present context of a deregulated market,
periods based on time of day and types of days during the
tariff simulators are useful to compare offers from different
year, adapting, if possible, the energy consumption to this
marketing companies taking into consideration the energy
pattern. Another factor that must be considered is the need
use pattern of the WUA, to optimize the power supply
for compensating reactive energy. WUAs managers gen-
capacity and to calculate the banks of capacitors required
erally lack knowledge of these issues (Moreno et al.
to improve the power factor.
2010a), and Irrigation Advisory Services of different
It is important to specify that a suitable energy contract
regions provide technical support to farmers and WUA
will result in a decrease in the energy cost, but has no effect
managers about energy contracting aspects to help to
on energy savings. Energy contracts may improve eco-
achieve energy cost savings (Ortega et al. 2005).
nomic efficiency but not energy efficiency.
With the liberalization of the electricity market, farmers
and WUAs have different options for energy contracting:
Maintenance of facilities
(a) Attending directly the wholesale electricity market.
They must register as direct consumers, so as to The maintenance of irrigation water distribution networks,
purchase energy in the daily market or through a the implementation of preventive maintenance pro-
bilateral agreement with energy producers. grammes and the development of methodologies to analyze
(b) Contracting the electricity supply with a marketing and optimize the life cycle cost in irrigation systems are
company. This is the most common case in which the issues of capital importance related with energy efficiency.
consumer must contract a 3- or 6-period tariff, The lack of investment in maintenance and the deficient
according to the supply characteristics of voltage maintenance observed in irrigation infrastructures has been
and power. A fraction of the energy charge (€ kWh-1) highlighted (Bos 1997; Malano et al. 1999; Atkinson et al.
for each period is agreed between the WUA and the 2003; Murray-Rust et al. 2003; Huppert et al. 2003). Poor

123
1146
maintenance may drive to the loss of energy efficiency as
required head upstream increases or higher water volumes
have to be pumped.
Operation and maintenance costs represent a large pro-
portion of the life cycle cost of irrigation assets, but this
proportion is higher for pumps and equipment (Malano et al.
1999).
The initial working conditions of the pumps are not
constant along its lifetime. There is a loss of hydraulic
performance of pumps due to a progressive deterioration,
even under a normal use. Efficiency losses could reach
5–20 % in the first years of pump working life (Reeves
1960; Fleming 1989). Proper operation of a pumping sys-
tem should include periodic inspection of all the elements
of the pumping system: pump components, electrical
motor, cables, electrical operation components, variable
speed drives and voltage transformer. Preventive mainte-
nance programs will ensure that the pumping systems
performance is not compromised because of pump wear
(Hydraulic Institute 2008). Saidur (2010) mentions motors
maintenance as one of the ways to get energy savings,
stating that preventive maintenance protects motor failure
due to overheating and contamination, which are respon-
sible for 25 and 42 % respectively of failures.
The life cycle cost (LCC) approach analyzes the operation
and maintenance costs of a system and intends to minimize
the total operation costs. LCC methodology has been applied
to industrial sector (Hennecke 1999; Huttunen and Halme
2002; Kayrbekova and Markeset 2009), in which the lifetime
energy and maintenance cost dominate the life cycle costs,
reaching to values of 92–97 % (Waghmode et al. 2006) even
in pumping systems that run more than 2,000 h/year; the
energy cost are one of the larger cost elements (Hydraulic
Institute 2001). In the irrigation sector, Malano et al. (2005)
developed a LCC model to evaluate alternative irrigation and
drainage asset management strategies. Other cost studies
have been conducted in wells (Helweg 1982), irrigation
systems (Letey et al. 1990; Montero et al. 2012) and water
supply systems (Bounds et al. 2006). For users of WUAs in
the Spanish irrigation sector, the main components in the
exploitation of pumping systems are the energy and mainte-
nance costs since the initial investments in modernization
projects are partially subsidized.
Scheduling maintenance according to monitored perfor-
mance indicators and LCC analysis for irrigation pumping
system are tools that should be taken into account by any
organization concerned about pumping energy efficiency.
Difficulties in the implementation of energy
conservation measures
All the aforementioned tools and models aim to improve
energy efficiency of the collective irrigation systems and
123
Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158
may be used in energy audits as tools to determine the
potential for any energy efficiency improvement derived
from the implementation of energy conservation measures.
All of them require a great deal of information and reliable
data, as well as specific technical knowledge that often
exceeds the training of the WUA staff. Several reasons
have been seen to hinder the implementation of measures
proposed in some audited WUAs:
(a) The energy audit represents a static analysis of the
energy performance of a WUA in relation with the
period during which it has been conducted. Different
conditions not contemplated in the analysis may occur
that will make implementation of the corrective
measures difficult.
(b) Some WUAs have no technical capability to imple-
ment the measures proposed in the audit, since there
are no qualified staff who are able to properly perform
the changes in the equipment and operation of the
network.
(c) Besides the practical difficulty of carrying out the
corrective measures proposed in the energy audit, the
required investment is also an issue that makes it
difficult to perform the measures, despite the eco-
nomic cost-effectiveness and short payback period.
(d) Subjective factors such as the possible lack of
commitment on the past of the WUA managers must
not be forgotten. As stated above, some energy audits
were entrusted by energy agencies, which meant that
they represented no cost for the WUAs, which made
no undertaking to implement the measures recom-
mended for improving energy efficiency. Moreno
et al. (2010a) stated that the directive and users of
WUAs do not accept changes in irrigation habits,
such as sectoring as these changes are considered to
reduce flexibility.
Some of these problems have been experienced in the
years following completion of energy audits. It can be
asserted that an energy audit is useful as a tool for assessing
the energy situation of a WUA, highlighting the main
causes of low efficiency and for proposing conservational
measures, but it is not a guarantee of improvement, since
the measures may or may not be implemented. Only the
correct implementation and monitoring of the energy
conservation measures can achieve improvements in
energy efficiency and produce energy savings.
An organization willing to maintain an optimum energy
use over time must evaluate the energy efficiency, must
implement the improvement measures and must conduct a
continual monitoring of the performance of the equipment
and the installations following an established plan.
The purpose of the paper is to make a comprehensive
review of the problems associated with energy in the
Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158
modernized irrigation and propose a Strategy for Effi-
cient Energy Management (SEEM) as possible solution.
The proposed SEEM has been applied to a WUA in
Spain. The different stages of SEEM are described, and
the results of the first energy plan are reported and
discussed.
Methodology
A Strategy for Efficient Energy Management (SEEM) for
WUAs carried out on the initiative of the WUA managers
is proposed as an effective way of achieving the imple-
mentation of measures to improve energy efficiency. The
SEEM consists of an Energy Management System (EMS)
adapted for WUAs, taking into consideration the special
characteristics of these organizations. The basic guidelines
are defined and the stages of the SEEM are described, so
that managers of WUAs can set up their SEEM in order to
attain the efficient use of water and energy. The SEEM
proposed in this paper complies with the requisites estab-
lished by the European Standard EN 16001:2009 (AENOR
2010b).
An EMS can be defined as a set of interrelated elements
of an organization, aiming at establishing an energy policy,
proposing energy goals and achieving these goals. An EMS
enables the organization to take a systematic approach to
the continual improvement of its energy efficiency
(AENOR 2010b).
An EMS by WUAs must involve different aspects,
such as the assessment of the consumption of resources,
maintenance, implementation and monitoring of improve-
ment measures, purchase of energy, staff training and
investment planning. As water conveyance and delivery is
the main activity of WUAs and the cause of most of the
energy consumption, both resources must be taken into
account in the implementation of an EMS.
The SEEM consists of four stages which are described
below. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the stages
of the SEEM and the detailed actions involved in these
stages.
In the case of WUAs, all the agents related with the
energy and water management and use of the irrigation
systems are involved to a greater or lesser extent in the
successful implementation of the SEEM. These agents are
the Executive Board, the users, the technicians and field
staff, the Energy Board and the Energy Manager. An
adequate definition of the roles and responsibilities and the
communication of these roles to the agents involved in the
energy management and members of the WUA is neces-
sary. The roles and responsibilities of the involved agents
are summarized in Table 2.
1147
Stage 1: definition of the energy policy
Energy policy is a declaration of the commitment of the
Executive Board of the WUA to the rational use of energy
resources and to a continuous improvement of energy
efficiency.
The energy policy should be stated in a formal doc-
ument containing the undertaking of the WUA manage-
ment as regards efficient energy use, engaging the
necessary resources for its implementation and defining
the scope of the SEEM. The fundamental aspects that
should be considered are: design of new infrastructure,
management and maintenance of the irrigation distribu-
tion system and pumping stations, and also energy con-
tracting. The scope may be more or less ambitious
according to the current conditions of the WUA and the
available resources, but it must be realistic. The energy
policy also entails the appointment of an Energy Board
and an Energy Manager for the implementation of
energy plans and the assignation of tasks to the agents
involved in the SEEM. All the personnel of the WUA
and the General Assembly must be informed about
energy policy definition.
Stage 2: energy planning
After evaluation of initial energy aspects, improvement
measures will be proposed and analyzed. Their imple-
mentation is planned considering the economic and energy
evaluation. A long-term investment plan is established and
every year energy goals are settled. This stage also includes
the establishment of a maintenance plan. The steps of
energy planning are the following:
Assessment of energy efficiency
For this step, an energy audit must be conducted. The
energy audit can assess all or some of the aspects of energy
performance: design, management, maintenance and
energy contracts. The audit highlights the subsystems and
processes whereby energy efficiency can improve and
should be conducted following the procedure stated in the
guideline edited by IDAE (Abadı́a et al. 2008b); never-
theless, depending on the scope of the assessment, a simple
audit could be carried out (Saidur 2010).
In the course of the energy audit, measures for
improving energy efficiency are identified. These measures
can be classified into two groups, depending on the process
involved (Abadı́a et al. 2010b): (a) measures affecting the
performance of energy consumer equipment (pumps,
engines, filters, variable speed drives) and (b) measures
affecting the design and management of the network, such
as sectoring, design of new pipelines or reservoirs. Also
123
1148 Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158

ENERGY POLICY
Definition of the Energy Policy

Commitment of agents
Scope of the SEEM
involved in the SEEM

Appointment of Energy Board

and Energy Manager

ENERGY PLANNING
Assessment of the energy efficiency: energy audit
Study and assessment of improvement measures

Investment plan
Defining, prioritizing and
scheduling improvement
measures
Establishment of Energy goals Assignment of tasks

Establishment of preventive Definition of indicators to be

maintenance program monitored

Execution of the IMPLEMENTATION

improvement measures
Monitoring of energy
indicators
Development of preventive
maintenance program
Guideline for data collection
and indicators monitoring
Data collecting

VERIFICATION

Annual report:
Assessment of the Energy indicators Communication to the General
achievement of energy Energy efficiency Assembly
goals

Revision of the
energy plan
Are
A
energy
no
goals
achieved?
Revision of the
energy strategy

yes

Assessment of the role of all the

involved agents, assessment of
Establish a new the degree of compliance of
annual energy plan compromises of the Board

Fig. 2 Flowchart of the SEEM stages

123
Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158 1149

Table 2 Responsibilities and roles of the different agents concerned in the implementation of SEEM
Agents Responsibilities and roles

Executive Board To promote the establishment of the Energy Strategy

To appoint the Energy Board
To appoint an Energy Manager
To explain the Energy Strategy to the users and the technical staff
To achieve the involvement of all the users and their active participation
To adopt the necessary measures for the education and training of the staff and to achieve the involvement of the staff in
the energy management
To provide the sufficient means and resources required to achieve the objectives
Energy Board To define the energy policy of the WUA
To establish the SEEM
To establish energy goals, investment plans and to schedule the implementation of the energy plan
To assess the achievement of energy goals and to revise the SEEM
To define the tasks of the technical and field staff
Energy Manager To advise the Energy Board in the definition of the Energy Strategy
To conduct an energy audit as a first step of the Energy plan
To propose energy conservation measures, estimate energy savings and assess cost-effectiveness of the measures
To propose energy goals
To define a maintenance plan
To organize and supervise the implementation of the energy plan
To elaborate a guideline for data collection, indicators monitoring and maintenance work of the water distribution
network
To analyze and interpret the parameters and indicators
To assess the achievement of energy goals and to revise the energy plans
To elaborate annual reports on the performance of the system to inform the Energy Board
To reformulate the energy plans if necessary
Technicians and field They must be qualified to operate the equipment and the network
staff They must be aware of the importance of their training as a decisive factor in the success of the energy strategy
To collect data and monitor parameters and perform the maintenance plan according to the guideline established by the
Energy Manager
Users They must be aware of the importance of the SEEM
Their irrigation practices must be in accordance with the energy strategy of the WUA
To take part in the definition of the SEEM

energy contracts must be revised and changes may be Investment plan

proposed to attain higher economic efficiency. Improve-
ment measures must be evaluated from an economic and an
energy point of view, estimating energy savings, invest-
ment, payback period and cost-effectiveness of the mea-
sures. For the best results and to effectively achieve the
energy goals, one of the criteria to be followed when
projecting the implementation of measures for improving
energy efficiency involves using the Best Available Tech-
nology (BAT) whenever possible. Greater investment
might be required, but normally performance will improve
as a consequence. The introduction of renewable energies
as alternative sources might be proposed at this stage in
case they can be implanted.
The Energy Board is responsible for prioritizing and
scheduling the execution of measures. The priority should
be established considering both the energy goals and the
economic evaluation of the measures, as well as the eco-
nomic and financial situation of the WUA (available
resources, financing and creditworthiness). Measures
entailing the greatest improvements in the light of available
resources should be top priority. The investments should be
planned in the long term.
State plans for improving energy efficiency have to be
studied by the Energy Board so that the WUA can benefit
from any funding.

123
1150 Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158

Establishment of goals
Every year the Energy Manager will define energy goals
according to the schedule of implementation of measures
and according to potential energy savings. Goals will be
defined for every aspect that will be affected by the
measures and they will be conditioned by the investment
plan. Energy goals consist of reference values of certain
indicators, which must be improved over the initial val-
ues. Goals have to be ambitious, realistic, specific and
measurable. The consecution of goals can be assessed by
means of performance indicators which will be obtained
periodically and will be used to determine the evolution
of the energy efficiency of the irrigation distribution
system.
Definition of indicators to be monitored
The most relevant indicators of the performance of the
irrigation system (Abadı́a et al. 2008a, b; Córcoles et al.
2010) should be periodically obtained to assess the
implementation of measures and performance of the sys-
tem. The following indicators must be monitored: indi-
vidual indicators for every electricity supply and for every
pumping station; general indicators of energy use and
water delivery efficiency for every hydraulic sector and for
the whole WUA. Energy bill data, hydraulic parameters
(pumping volume, flow, head or water table) and electric
parameters (voltage, current, absorbed power) are neces-
sary to obtain the proposed indicators. These indicators and
the necessary data are shown in Tables 3, 4 and 5. As for
the indicator of energy performance defined by AENOR
(2010a), whose value is indicative of energy use of the
irrigation system, general specific energy consumption
(kWh m-3) or energy cost per unit irrigation delivery
(Cevs, € m-3) for the whole WUA could be chosen.
In order to obtain the required indicators, data collection
throughout the operation of the irrigation system is
required. The Energy Manager must establish the meth-
odology and the frequency for the acquisition and set up a
guideline for data collection that will be used by the
technical or field staff. Data of energy bills and perfor-
mance of every pumping station should be monitored
monthly as a part of the assessment of the conservation
measures implemented, but it is also a requirement of the
maintenance plan.
Establishment of a preventive maintenance plan
Maintenance is a very important issue in the performance
of the equipment and the network. Nevertheless, many
WUAs do not carry out adequate maintenance of the irri-
gation system and only repair pumps and other elements
when a breakdown occurs and the water delivery is inter-
rupted. However, preventive maintenance of pumping
stations has advantages such as guaranteeing water deliv-
ery, since stoppages are programmed; maintenance costs
are lower than repair costs since breakdowns usually pro-
voke the failure of other elements; adequate management
helps maintain high pumping efficiency throughout the
pumps lifetime, also reducing energy costs.
Maintenance must be programmed by the Energy
Manager. A maintenance plan involves recording data and
monitoring indicators as well as planning periodic main-
tenance operations, which will be preferably carried out off
season. Compulsory inspections of some subsystems such
as electric boards and transformers must be included in the
maintenance planning.

Table 3 Data and indicators for every electricity supply

Years 2009/2010 2010/2011
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6

Percentage of energy consumption 0.1 4.3 1.2 8.1 13.0 73.3 0.1 1.8 1.5 7.4 12.0 77.3
in every tariff period (EaT/p, %)
cosu 0.971 0.974
Contracting power per tariff period 100 2,590 2,590 2,590 2,590 2,590 100 2,590 2,590 2,590 2,590 2,590
(Ncp, kW)
Maximum power registered per 33 2,515 2,488 2,492 2,515 2,563 44 2,455 2,479 2,490 2,490 2,612
tariff period (Nmaxrp, kW)
Maximum registered power yield 33.0 97.1 96.1 96.2 97.1 99.0 44 95 96 96 96 101
per tariff period (RNr, %)
Total active energy consumption 14,455,780 12,525,184
(EaT, kWh)
Total amount of energy bill (Ce, €) 1,202,155 1,083,225
Values for the case study in two irrigation seasons

123
Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158 1151

Table 4 Data and indicators for every pumping station

2009/2010 2010/2011
Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Pump 4 Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Pump 4

Hydraulic and electric parameters

Flow (Q, Ls-1) 91.1 90.6 94.8 105.4 104.2 99.2 98 101.2
Head (Hm, mca) 410.6 409.7 415.2 392.2 415.3 391.6 407.7 391.8
a
Water table (Wt, m) 17.1 12.9 22.1 15.2 13 31 28 16
Absorbed power (Na, kW) 604.0 647.3 653.2 609.8 655.5 632 664.5 617.5
Indicatorsb
Pump energy efficiency (PEE, %) 60.8 56.2 59.1 66.5 64.8 60.3 59.0 63.0
Specific energy consumption (Eav, kWh m-3) 1.836 1.990 1.928 1.631 1.747 1.770 1.884 1.695
Values for the case study in two irrigation seasons
a
In case of well pumps
b
Defined by Abadı́a et al. (2008a)

Table 5 General indicators for every hydraulic sector and for the whole WUA (Abadı́a et al. 2008b; Córcoles et al. 2010)
Years 2009/2010 2010/2011

Total amount of water 8,548,161 7,406,400

Water distribution efficiency (WD, %) 91.4 n.a.
General specific energy consumption (EavG, kWh m-3) 1.71 1,69
Irrigation water supply per unit irrigated area (VTSr, m3 ha-1) 1631.3 1366.5
-3
Energy cost per unit irrigation delivery (Cevs, € m ) 0.1406 0.1462
Energy dependence index (EDI, %) 100 100
Energy load index (ELI, m) 406.9 401.6
Pumping energy efficiency (PEE, %) 60.65 61.75
Supply energy efficiency (SEE, %)a n.a. n.a.
b
General energy efficiency (GEE, %) n.a. n.a.
Values for the case study in two irrigation seasons
n.a. not available
a
SEE was not calculated for this WUA. The energy audit involved only the pumping efficiency
b
GEE cannot be calculated if SEE is not available

Assignment of tasks to the different agents involved
in the energy use of the WUA
The Energy Manager or the Energy Board will be the
responsible for assigning tasks. In this stage, it is important
to identify all the persons who work for the WUA or on
behalf of the WUA, whose actions can lead to significant
changes in energy use.
(a) The technical and field staff of the WUA are in charge
of the management, operation and maintenance of the
irrigation network and pumping stations. They are
responsible for performing improvement measures,
(c)
collecting data and monitoring the performance of the
irrigation system.
(b) Administrative staff must also be integrated in the
Energy Strategy. No special skills are required, but
they must be aware of the importance of the Strategy
and collaborate with the other agents. They must
know how to apply for the subsidies and incentives
for carrying out energy audits and for the implemen-
tation of improvement measures. The administrative
staff will compile data of water and energy consump-
tion, operation costs, maintenance costs, etc. They
will keep all the documents related to the Energy
Strategy: data collection forms, records of monitored
indicators, guidelines for technical and field staff, etc.
This information must be centralized and be available
to the Energy Manager.
The Users, members of the WUA, have to be aware of
the importance of the energy strategy for improving
the energy efficiency and the consecution of energy
savings in the WUA. Good irrigation practices,

123
1152 Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158

adjusting water application to the crop requirements,
will contribute to reducing energy expenditure. On the
contrary, illegal water abstractions could increase the
energy consumption of the WUA, affecting the rest of
the users.
according to the schedule elaborated by the Energy
Manager. All these tasks require adequate training of the
technical and field staff.
Stage 4: verification of the energy plan

The performance indicators and energy indicators recorded

Stage 3: implementation of the improvement measures
allow continual revision of the energy plans. Adequate
measures can be taken any time to maintain energy effi-
Execution of improvement measures according
ciency within the range established by the energy plan.
to the investment plan
At fixed intervals (e.g., once a year), a global assessment
of the achievement of the proposed goals will be made.
This may consist of the following actions: Substitution of
Energy indicators obtained throughout the operation of the
or repairing pumps, engines or filters; installation of new
irrigation system must be compared with the reference
equipment such as variable speed drives, automation and
values. The indicator of energy performance defined above
control systems; substitution of pipelines, construction of
must be calculated, and its value will be the basis for
new pumping stations or reservoirs; change in the man-
evaluating the energy plan. If energy goals have been
agement of the network: regulation of pumps, changes in
accomplished, new energy goals will be established start-
the use and regulation of reservoirs and sectoring; adjusting
ing from the current energy situation. Otherwise, the causes
the operation of pumps in groundwater wells; changes in
of the failure must be analyzed and the energy plan must be
the purchase of energy; introduction of renewable sources
reformed through the proposal of new measures in accor-
of energy. Some of these measures are envisaged in the
dance with the causes. The results of the energy plan must
plans of energy efficiency, and Energy Agencies provide
be reported to the users in a General Assembly. An annual
incentives for the execution of these projects.
report must gather the evolution of registered indicators
Actual energy savings must be calculated and compared
and any change that can affect energy use, such as changes
with the expected results. The energy consumption after the
in water delivery or flow rate demand.
implementation of improvement measures must be com-
In the long term, the global objectives of the energy
pared with previous consumption. Comparison between the
strategy must be revised. The Energy Board must monitor
current and previous situations can be made by means of
the evolution of energy indicators, assessing the achieve-
the performance indicators.
ment of the goals of the energy plans over two or 3 years,
and thus any improvement in energy efficiency, which is
Monitoring, control and assessment of the implemented
the aim of the SEEM. A high degree of achievement of the
measures
energy goals indicates that proper energy plans were
defined and that the strategy is being successful. An
The energy consumption will be recorded at regular
acceptable degree of consecution indicates that some
intervals. Data collection will be done by the field staff or
modifications should be introduced. In case of a failure of
the technical staff, according to the guideline elaborated by
the energy plans, a thorough revision must be conducted on
the Energy Manager. Previously defined energy indicators
the accomplishment of the conditions, the role of the
will be obtained and monitored. All these data must be
Energy Manager and other agents involved in the strategy
registered and kept in the headquarters of the WUA.
(technicians and field staff), the extent of their engagement
The Energy Manager should establish ratios between the
in the energy plans and also the degree of commitment of
energy used and monitored indicators and compare these
the Executive Board (allocation of resources, investment
results at regular intervals. The indicator of energy per-
and communication) must be assessed.
formance previously defined by the Energy Manager will
be calculated periodically.
Requirements and roles for the implementation
of SEEM
Execution of preventive maintenance plan
The key to the implementation of a SEEM is a firm com-
The technician and field staff will be in charge of the promise on the part of WUA managers, who must take the
maintenance programmed by the Energy Manager. Main- initiative so that the SEEM is successful. The launch of the
tenance works include the adjustment of some elements, Strategy is the responsibility of the WUA Executive Board.
substitution of pieces, greasing and revision of pumps, Its members must commit themselves to ongoing
engines and other elements of the irrigation network, improvement of energy efficiency. In this regard, they must

123
Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158
guarantee that economic, material, human and logistic
resources necessary for the implementation of the SEEM
are allocated, and all the required information concerning
the performance and operation of the network and instal-
lations is available.
The traditional structure and functioning of WUAs, in
which the Executive Board could be formed by growers
without the necessary training and who do not dedicate
themselves full time to the management of the association,
makes the planning and successful implementation of a
SEEM in a modernized irrigation distribution system dif-
ficult. Therefore, in these organizations, the designation of
an Energy Manager is a matter of great importance. The
Energy Manager must be someone with sufficient qualifi-
cations to successfully define and lead the SEEM. If pos-
sible, the Energy Manager will be a technician of the
WUA, or a member of the Executive Board.
WUAs formed by a great number of users or covering a
large area, which manage a large budget, usually have an
adequate organization of the different tasks and employ
qualified technicians and field staff. In many WUAs, some
users and members of the Executive Board have a technical
qualification. In these cases, a technician or a member of
the Executive Board could be appointed as Energy Man-
ager, with the advantage of knowing the operation of the
network and the characteristics of the WUA. If neither the
technical staff of the WUA nor any member of the Board is
qualified to lead the strategy, the WUA must rely on an
external expert advisor.
Likewise, an Energy Board responsible for the definition
and implementation of the SEEM must be designated. The
Energy Board should be made up of at least one member of
the Executive Board, a technician of the WUA, if one
exists, and the Energy Manager. The definition of the
SEEM and decisions concerning energy goals, investments
and implementation of measures must be taken by the
Energy Board and reported to the General Assembly, since
the resources of the WUA are involved. Once the energy
plans are decided, the Energy Manager will be responsible
for the performance of the different stages.
The technical and field staff of the WUA have a crucial
role in the water and energy management since they are in
charge of the operation and maintenance of the irrigation
system. In recently modernized WUAs, the functions of the
field staff have dramatically changed, whereas their old role
was the opening of gates and the regulation of the water
delivery, with the new irrigation systems they have to
operate and maintain pumping and filter stations, pressur-
ized networks and hydrants. Any lack of capability on the
part of the staff could be a cause for poor performance
(Plusquellec 2009). Taking this into account, technicians
and field staff must have professional skills required for the
performance of their new duties. If the personnel do not
1153
have the required qualification, adequate training is essen-
tial, otherwise the strategy will fail. The Spanish Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Environment, local administrations
and other organizations offer training courses for workers of
WUAs. The Executive Board must be aware of the impor-
tance of this issue and encourage staff training, compelling
the staff, if necessary, to obtain the skills required to carry
out their job. The Executive and Energy Board will allocate
the needed resources for this goal, but the staff will be
responsible for the fulfillment of their duty.
The close collaboration among the Executive Board, the
energy Board, the Energy Manager and the technical and
field staff is essential for the success of the undertaking.
Thus, the staff must have a commitment by virtue of which
all the instructions given by the Energy Manager as regards
the implementation and operation of energy plans will be
followed scrupulously. Also the Executive Board must
respect the plans agreed in the Energy Board and not issue
orders that contradict these plans. If an emergency decision
must be taken or contradictory orders are issued, the
Energy Board must find a solution to the conflict.
Ultimately, WUA users are beneficiaries of good energy
efficiency, and the General Assembly must be informed by
the Energy Board about the definition of SEEM, its goals
and implementation of improvement measures. If users are
aware of the importance of the energy plans and their role
in the success of the energy strategy, and if their irrigation
practices are in accordance with energy efficiency criteria,
a SEEM will stand a better chance of success. For this
purpose, advice on good irrigation practices could be
offered by the Energy Board and Irrigation Advisory
Services.
Application case
The SEEM has been implemented in a WUA in the Alti-
plano region of the province of Murcia (Spain). This WUA
covers an irrigated area of 5,240 ha, where the main crops
are stone fruit trees, vineyards and vegetables.
Four wells extract water from an aquifer: M, J, P and R.
All the wells are equipped with identical pumps (1, 2, 3 and
4). The wells depth varies between 400 and 415 m. The
pumping head and nominal discharge of each pump are
429 m and 100 L s-1, respectively, and their absorbed
power is about 600 kW each one. The pumps elevate water
to a reservoir attached to the plot where the four wells are
located; this reservoir is 15 m above the wells mouth.
Water is distributed by gravity from the reservoir to the
irrigation network. The reservoir elevation is enough to
provide water to the discharge points (hydrants) at the
required pressure.
A unique electricity supply provides the four pumps. A
6-period tariff is contracted. During the irrigation season
123
1154 Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158

Table 6 Evolution of the pumping energy efficiency (PEE) and specific energy consumption (Ce) of the pumps
Pump PEE (%) Ce (kWh m-3)
March 2009 October 2010 March/April 2011 March 2009 October 2010 March/April 2011

1 67.4 60.6 64.8 1.642 1.841 1.747

2 65.6 56.0 60.3 1.649 1.998 1.770
3 66.2 58.5 59.0 1.688 1.934 1.884
4 66.0 66.7 63.0 1.631 1.607 1.695

2009/2010, the total extracted volume was 8.5 Mm3, the
energy consumption 14.5 GWh and the energy expenditure
1.2 M€.
In March 2009, the four wells were provided with new
pumps that replaced the previous ones. Just after the instal-
lation, efficiency and energy consumption measurements
were conducted by the pump providers, as shown in Table 6.
Tables 3, 4 and 5 present the values of indicators
obtained for irrigation seasons 2009/2010 and 2010/2011.
Results and discussion
Implementation of the SEEM
In 2010, the WUA managers established a SEEM advised
by the authors, aiming at maintaining a high efficiency in
the pumping equipment. An external engineers consulting
with experience in energy audits in WUAs were hired for
this purpose. The stages of the SEEM established in this
WUA are summarized as follows:
Definition of the energy policy
2010 following the procedure established by the guideline
for energy audits (Abadı́a et al. 2008b). The comparison of
the data with those measured in March 2009 (Table 6)
shows a significant decrease in the performance due to the
wear of the equipment.
A preventive maintenance plan was proposed as the
main improvement measure. This plan included monitoring
of energy efficiency in every pump in order to determine
the moment for the maintenance labors so as to minimize
the operation costs. For this purpose, a cost analysis was
conducted considering the evolution of flow rate, hours of
operation, energy price and repairing costs. The set up of
the pumps was programmed: pumps 1 and 2 would be
adjusted as soon as water demand decreased during the
winter season. Set up of pump 3 would be delayed to the
following year to guarantee the water availability during all
the season.
Upon requirement of the Energy Manager, digital electric
network analyzers were installed in every electric board to
improve the accuracy of recorded electric parameters. The
cost of installing the analyzers was 2,600 €.
The field technician of the WUA was trained for data
collection.

The Energy Board was composed by the President of the
WUA, the field technician of the WUA and the consulting
engineers. One engineer of the consulting was appointed as
Energy Manager.
The annual rate applied by the consultant was 1,000 € for
each well, which includes assessment of energy efficiency,
monitoring of indicators and assistance in case of breakdown
or fall of efficiency at any well. The main aim of the SEEM is
to conduct a proper management and maintenance of the
pumps so as to keep a high efficiency. The second aim, which
concerns the electricity cost, consists of maintaining a
favorable energy contracting and keeping as much as possible
energy use in the off-peak hours.
Energy planning
To assess the energy efficiency after the SEEM imple-
mentation, pumping efficiency was measured in October
Implementation of the improvement measures
During the irrigation season 2010/2011, the preventive
maintenance plan was executed as planned. Hydraulic and
electric parameters were recorded monthly by the field
technician to monitor the evolution in the performance of
the pumps.
Pumps 1 and 2 (operating in wells M and J respectively)
were extracted for set up in March 2011. Severe rotor
damage was detected in the motor of pump 2.
Maintenance cost was estimated in 10,900 € per well.
The cost of maintenance and repair for season 2010/2011
was 36,637 €.
New measurements were carried out in March and April
2011 to assess the effectiveness of the implemented mea-
sures. These measurements were conducted by the Energy
Manager following the methodology of the aforementioned
guideline. Results are shown in Table 6.

123
Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158
Verification of the energy plan
Performance of pumps 1 and 2, placed in wells J and M,
increased after repairing and set up (Table 6). Pump 1
shows a high efficiency (64.8 %). The specific energy
consumption decreased in 5.1 %.
In the case of pump 2, the cost of repairing exceeded the
foreseen cost. The motor repair and the pump set up
resulted in an increase of pumping efficiency up to 60.3 %,
far lower than the expected improvement, due to the state
of the motor. Nevertheless, the specific energy consump-
tion decreased by 11.4 %.
Efficiency of pump 3, placed in well P, did not decrease
since the last assessment. Changes in the piezometric head
could make the pump work closer to its optimal operating
point. Nevertheless, its performance was lower comparing
to the values obtained just after the installation of the pump
in September 2009. Thus, the Energy Manager proposed its
set up for the following year.
Pump 4, operating in well R, that had not shown wear
after the first year, probably due also to changes in the
piezometric head, started to lose efficiency, although its
performance in March 2011 was still high.
During 2011, the pumps were mainly operated during
off-peak hours (Table 3). 77.3 % of electricity use was in
P6 period (lowest energy charge). Energy use in peak hours
was very low. Power factor was higher than 0.97. The
contracted power in every tariff period was adequate, as
indicates the fact that only once the registered power
exceeded the contracted power and the penalty was of 6 €.
These data improve those registered during the campaign
2009/2010, although the energy use in peak hours was also
low.
The average final price paid by the WUA, including the
power charges and taxes, was 8.32 c€ kWh-1 in 2009/2010
and 8.65 c€ kWh-1 in 2010/2011. In terms of energy cost
per volume of pumped water, the price paid increased
in 4 % (14.06 c€ m-3 in 2009/2010 and 14.63 c€ m-3 in
2010/2011). Energy charges increased in January 2010
in different percentages according to the tariff period (there
was no increase for P6 and P5, while the raise in P1 was
50 %). Besides, there was a raise of 2 % in VAT rates
(16–18 %) in July 2010. These increments make unviable
any reduction in energy costs, although the energy con-
sumption decreased due to the improvement of the energy
efficiency.
The small increase in the price paid against rises gives
an idea of good energy management in terms of time of
operation of pumps, power factor, power contracted, in
short, factors related to billing.
The monitoring of parameters established in 2010 got to
know the state of the equipment, the state of the electricity
1155
billing, to act on the equipment in the optimal time and to
minimize the water elevation price.
The Energy Manager elaborated an annual report in
which all the aspects of the energy management during the
first year of the SEEM were described.
The new measures proposed for the following energy
plan include:
• The set up of pump 3 (well P)
• The determination of the optimal moment for adjusting
pump 4 (well R)
• The monitoring of performance indicators as heretofore
to detect any fall in energy efficiency
• To carry out a market study to find the best electricity
rates well before the end of the current contract
Finally, the annual report was communicated to the
General Assembly of the WUA, and it was concluded that
the energy reduction goals were achieved, and a new
annual energy plan should be established to implement the
new measures proposed by the Energy Manager.
Analysis of the results
In the irrigation season 2010/2011, reduction in energy use
with regard to the previous season 2009/2010 resulted in
13.4 % while the energy cost decreased by 9.9 %
(Table 3). Cost reduction was 118,931 €. Nevertheless,
water delivery in the irrigation season 2010/2011 also
decreased by 13.4 %, which explains much of the reduc-
tion in energy use. However, no variation of specific
energy consumption of the WUA obtained from these data
was observed between the two irrigation seasons
(1.691 kWh m-3).
To evaluate the implementation of the SEEM, the
energy consumption that would have occurred without
maintenance to pumps 1 and 2 was estimated. Two sce-
narios were considered: (a) the increase in specific energy
consumption is linear and (b) the increase in specific
energy consumption is softened with time and the second
year the decline is halved. For both cases, the specific
energy consumption of pumps 3 and 4 was the same as
occurred in season 2010/2011. Table 7 shows the estima-
tion of energy consumption and costs under these cir-
cumstances compared to real data obtained.
In Table 7, energy costs without maintenance were
estimated using the energy charge (€ kWh-1) obtained for
the season 2010/2011. The net cost includes energy cost
plus 36,337 € of maintenance cost and 6,600 € of SEEM
implementation cost (4,000 € for the consultant plus 2,600
€ for the analysers). It is remarkable that the SEEM
implementation cost represents a very low fraction (0.6 %)
of the energy cost of the WUA. Without SEEM
123
1156
Table 7 Estimation of energy
Season 2010/2011 Energy
and cost compared to real data
consumption (kWh)
due to the implementation of the
SEEM With SEEM implementation
Energy billed 12,525,184
Without SEEM implementation
Scenario 1 13,916,158
a
Include the cost of SEEM Scenario 2 13,771,835
implementation
implementation, the estimated cost increase is 7.1 and 6 %
for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively, equivalent to 77,360 €
and 64,878 €. The implementation of the SEEM is justified
by both estimated energy savings and cost savings.
In the cost analysis, the possibility of a breakdown in
peak irrigation season should also be taken into consider-
ation. This would entail an added cost of urgently
extracting and repairing pumps, plus the incalculable cost
of not supplying water during a period of high irrigation
requirements, which would be transferred to the users as
loss of production. This possibility is minimized by the
SEEM implementation.
Conclusions
Energy audits are effective for identifying the causes of low
efficiency and for analyzing and proposing measures to
improve energy efficiency, but they do not guarantee the
implementation of the proposed measures. In contrast, a
SEEM is presented as a good way of approaching the
continual improvement of energy efficiency as it entails a
commitment by the WUA managers to actually implement
the conservation measures. The SEEM proposed in this
paper is adapted to the specific characteristics of WUAs and
observes the requirements stated in the European Standard.
The undertaking of the Executive Board of the WUA con-
cerning the allocation of resources, the appointment of an
Energy Board and Energy Manager, professional training
for technical and field staff, the close collaboration among
different agents concerned in the energy management and
the general awareness of users are all essential requirements
for the success of the SEEM. The most important role for
the successful implementation of a SEEM is that of the
Energy Manager, who must have sufficient technical qual-
ification to successfully define and lead the SEEM.
The continual monitoring of performance allows cor-
rective measures and improvements in energy efficiency to
be introduced gradually and the energy plans to be cor-
rected, according to the extent to which the energy goals
are achieved.
In the case study, the SEEM was successfully imple-
mented in a WUA in southeast Spain, consisting mainly of
123
Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158
Energy Energy Net Cost
increase (%) cost (€) cost (€)a increase (%)
1,083,224 1,126,161 0
11.1 1,203,521 1,203,521 7.1
9.9 1,191,039 1,191,039 6.0
the performance of preventive maintenance of well pumps.
Energy efficiency of two pumps increased after the
implementation of the measures defined in the first energy
plan. The cost of the SEEM implementation was very low
(0.6 % of energy cost) compared to an increase in energy
and cost simulated in two possible wear and tear scenarios
(7.1 and 6 % respectively). These results more than justify
the cost of the SEEM implementation.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the
Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation for funding the TRACE
project ‘‘Sostenibilidad en el uso del agua y energı́a en el regadı́o’’
(‘‘Sustainability in energy and water use in irrigation’’), reference
PET2008_0175_02.
References
Abadı́a R, Rocamora MC, Ruiz A, Puerto H (2008a) Energy
efficiency in irrigation distribution networks I: theory. Biosyst
Eng 101:21–27
Abadı́a R, Rocamora MC, Ruiz A (2008b) Protocolo de auditorı́a
energética en comunidades de regantes. Instituto para Diversi-
ficación y Ahorro de la Energı́a, (IDAE) Serie Divulgación
Ahorro y Eficiencia Energética en Agricultura n8 10. Ministerio
de Industria, Turismo y Comercio, Madrid
Abadı́a R, Rocamora MC, Córcoles JI, Ruiz-Canales A, Martinez-
Romero A, Moreno MA (2010a) Comparative analysis of energy
efficiency in water users associations. Spa J Agric Res
8(S2):134–142
Abadı́a R, Rocamora MC, Córcoles JI, Ruiz A, Martinez-Romero A,
Moreno MA (2010b) Estudio comparativo sobre medidas de
ahorro energético y económico en Comunidades de Regantes.
Riegos y Drenajes XXI 172:14–18
AENOR (2009) UNE 216501. Auditorı́as Energéticas: Requisitos.
Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación, Madrid
AENOR (2010a) CEN/CLC/TR 16103:2010. Gestión energética y
eficiencia energética. Glosario de términos. Asociación Española
de Normalización y Certificación, Madrid
AENOR (2010b) UNE-EN 16001 Sistemas de gestión energética.
Requisitos con orientación para su uso. Asociación Española de
Normalización y Certificación, Madrid
Alexander PJ, Potter MO (2004) Benchmarking of Australian
irrigation water provider businesses. Irrig Drain 53:165–173
Aliod R, Eizaguerri A, Estrada C, Perna E (1997) Dimensionado y
análisis hidráulico de redes de distribución a presión en riego a la
demanda: aplicación del programa GESTAR. Riegos y Drenajes
XXI 92:22–38
Allan T (1999) Productive efficiency and allocative efficiency: why
better management may not solve the problem. Agric Water
Manag 40:71–75
Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158
Arora H, LeChevalier MW (1998) Energy management opportunities.
J AWWA 90(2):40–51
Atkinson E, Elango K, Mohan S, Fadda G, Cinus S (2003) A rational
approach to scheduling main-system maintenance. Irrig Drain
Syst 17:239–261
Bos MG (1979) Standards for irrigation efficiencies of I.C.I.D. J Irrig
Drain Div 105(IR1):37–43
Bos MG (1997) Performance indicators for irrigation and drainage.
Irrig Drain Syst 11:119–137
Bounds P, Kahler J, Ulanicki B (2006) Efficient energy management
of a large-scale water supply system. Civ Eng Environ Syst
23(3):209–220
Cabrera E, Pardo MA, Cobacho R, Cabrera E Jr (2010) Energy audit
of water networks. J Water Resour Plan Manag 136(6):669–677
Cai X, Rosegrant MW (2003) World water productivity: current
situation and future options. In: Kijne JW, Barker R, Molden D
(eds) Water productivity in agriculture: limits and opportunities
for Improvement. CABI Publishing, UK, (in association with
IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka), pp 163–178
Calejo MJ, Lamaddalena N, Teixeira JL, Pereira LS (2008) Perfor-
mance analysis of pressurized irrigation systems operating on
demand using flow-driven simulation modelling. Agric Water
Manag 95:154–162
Carrillo-Cobo MT, Rodrı́guez Dı́az JA, Montesinos P, López R,
Camacho E (2010) Low energy consumption seasonal calendar
for sectoring operation in pressurized irrigation networks. Irrig
Sci 29(2):157–169
CAWMA, Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in
Agriculture (2007) Water for food, water for life: a comprehen-
sive assessment of water management in agriculture. Earthscan
and Colombo: International Water Management Institute,
London
Clement R (1966) Calcul des débits dans les réseaux d’irrigation
fonctinnant à la demande. Houille Blanche 20(5):553–575
Clemmens AJ, Molden DJ (2007) Water uses and productivity of
irrigation systems. Irrig Sci 25:247–261
Cohen R, Nelson B, Wolff G (2004) Energy down the drain. The
hidden costs of California’s water supply. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Pacific Institute, Oakland
Córcoles JI, de Juan JA, Ortega JF, Tarjuelo JM, Moreno MA (2010)
Management evaluation of Water Users Associations using
benchmarking techniques. Agric Water Manag 98(1):1–11
Corominas J (2010) Agua y energı́a en el riego, en la época de la
sostenibilidad. Ingenierı́a del Agua 17(3):219–233
DIOPRAM (2003) Diseño óptimo de redes ramificadas 3.0. Manual
de Usuario. Grupo Multidisciplinar de Modelación de Fluidos,
Univ Politec Valencia, Valencia
FAO (2003) World agriculture: towards 2015/2030. Food and
agriculture organization of the United Nations. Earthscan
Publications Ltd., London
Farmani R, Abadı́a R, Savic D (2007) Optimun design and
management of pressurized branched irrigation networks. J Irrig
Drain Eng ASCE 133(6):528–538
Fleming J (1989) Identification and implementation of effective
pumping system energy cost savings. Pumping Cost Savings in
the Water Supply Industry Seminar. Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, London, pp 1–8
Framji K, Garg B, Luthra S (1983) Irrigation and drainage in the
world. A global review. International Commission on Irrigation
and Drainage, New Delhi
Granados A (1990) Infraestructura de regadı́os. Redes colectivas de
riego a presión (2a edn). Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros
de Caminos Canales y Puertos, Univ Politec, Madrid
Helweg OJ (1982) Economics of improving well and pump
efficiency. Ground Water 20:556–562
1157
Hennecke FW (1999) Life cycle costs of pumps in chemical industry.
Chem Eng Process 38:511–516
Horta MA (2000) Mejora de la gestión de recursos hı́dricos:
modernización de regadı́os y asesoramiento al regante. SEDECK
1:45–51
Huppert W, Svendsen M, Vermillion DL (2003) Maintenance in
irrigation: multiple actors, multiple contexts, multiple strategies.
Irrig Drain Syst 17:5–22
Huttunen H, Halme P (2002) Cost efficient centrifugal pump use and
maintenance in the beet sugar industry. Zuckerindustrie
127:376–379
Hydraulic Institute (2008) Optimizing pumping systems. A guide to
improved energy efficiency, reliability and profitability. Hydrau-
lic Institute, Parsippany, NJ
Hydraulic Institute & Europump (2001) Pump life cycle costs: a guide
to LCC analysis for pumping systems. Hydraulic Institute,
Parsippany, NJ
IDAE (2005) Estrategia de Ahorro y Eficiencia Energética en España
2004–2012: Plan de Acción 2005–2007. Instituto para la
Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energı́a, Madrid
IDAE (2007) Estrategia de Ahorro y Eficiencia Energética en España
2004–2012: Plan de Acción 2008–2012. Instituto para la
Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energı́a, Madrid
Jiménez-Bello MA, Martı́nez F, Bou V, Bartoli HJ (2010) Method-
ology for grouping intakes of pressurised irrigation networks into
sectors to minimise energy consumption. Biosyst Eng
105(4):429–438
Katsifarakis KL (2008) Groundwater pumping cost minimization—an
analytical approach. Water Resour Manag 22:1089–1099
Kayrbekova D, Markeset T (2009) Life cycle cost analysis in design
of oil and gas production facilities to be used in harsh, remote
and sensitive environments. Saf Reliab Risk Anal Theory
Methods Appl 1–4:2955–2961
Klein G, Krebs M, Hall V, O’Brien T, Blevins BB (2005) California’s
water-energy relationship. California Energy Commission,
Sacramento
Labye Y, Olson MA, Galand A, Tsourtis N (1988) Design and
optimisation of irrigation distribution network. Irrig Drain Paper
44. FAO, Rome
Lamaddalena N, Khila S (2011) Energy saving with variable speed
pumps in on-demand irrigation systems. Irrig Sci 30(2):157–166
Lamaddalena N, Sagardoy JA (2000) Performance analysis of on-
demand pressurized irrigation ystems. Irrig Drain Paper 59.
FAO, Rome
Lecina S, Isidoro D, Playán E, Aragüés R (2010) Irrigation
modernization and water conservation in Spain: the case of
Riegos del Alto Aragón. Agric Water Manag 97(10):1663–1675
Letey J, Dinar A, Woodring C, Oster JD (1990) An economic analysis
of irrigation systems. Irrig Sci 11:37–43
Lopez-Luque R, Reca J, Camacho E, Roldán J, Alcaide M (1995)
Valoración energética y diseño óptimo de impulsiones con
caudal variable. Ing Agua 2(1):19–24
Luc JP, Tarhouni J, Calvez R, Messaoud L, Sablayrolles C (2006)
Performance indicators of irrigation pumping stations: applica-
tion to drill holes of minor irrigated areas in the Kairouan plains
(Tunisia) and impact of malfunction on the price of water. Irrig
Drain 55:85–98
Malano H, Burton M (2001) Guidelines for benchmarking perfor-
mance in the irrigation and drainage sector. IPTRID-FAO, Rome
Malano HM, Chien NV, Turral HN (1999) Asset management for
irrigation and drainage infrastructure. Principles and case study.
Irrig Drain Syst 13:109–129
Malano H, Burton M, Makin I (2004) Benchmarking performance in
the irrigation and drainage sector: a tool for change. Irrig Drain
53:119–133
123
1158
Malano HM, George BA, Davidson B (2005) Asset management
modelling framework for irrigation and drainage systems:
principles and case study application. Irrig Drain Syst
19:107–127
MAPA (2002) Plan Nacional de Regadı́os Horizonte 2008. Ministerio
de Agricultura. Pesca y Alimentación, Madrid
MARM (2006a) Hechos y cifras de la agricultura, la pesca y la
alimentación en España (8aed). Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y
Medio Rural y Marino, Madrid
MARM (2006b) Plan de Choque de Modernización de Regadı́os.
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino. Madrid.
http://www.plandechoque-ahorrodeagua.es. Accessed July 2011
MARM (2010) Estrategia Nacional para la Modernización Sostenible
de los Regadı́os, Horizonte 2015. Spanish Ministry of the
Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs, Madrid
Ministerio de Economı́a (2001) RD 1164/2001, de 26 de octubre, por
el que se establecen tarifas de acceso a las redes de transporte y
distribución de energı́a eléctrica
Ministerio de Economı́a (2003) Estrategia de Ahorro y Eficiencia
Energética en España 2004–2012, Madrid
MMA (2000) Libro Blanco del Agua en España. Ministerio de Medio
Ambiente, Madrid
Montero J, Martı́nez A, Valiente M, Moreno MA, Tarjuelo JM (2012)
Analysis of water application costs with a centre pivot system for
irrigation of crops in Spain. Irrig Sci. doi:10.1007/s00271-012-
0326-4
Moradi-Jalal M, Mariño MA, Afshar A (2003) Optimal design and
operation of irrigation pumping stations. J Irrig Drain Eng
129(3):149–154
Moradi-Jalal M, Rodin SI, Mariño MA (2004) Use of genetic
algorithm in optimization of irrigation pumping stations. J Irrig
Drain Eng 130(5):357–365
Moreno MA, Planells P, Ortega JF, Tarjuelo JM (2007a) New
methodology to evaluate flow rates in on-demand irrigation
networks. J Irrig Drain Eng 133(4):298–306
Moreno MA, Carrión P, Planells P, Ortega JF, Tarjuelo JM (2007b)
Measurement and improvement of the energy efficiency at
pumping stations. Biosyst Eng 98:479–486
Moreno MA, Planells P, Córcoles JI, Tarjuelo JM, Carrión PA (2009)
Development of a new methodology to obtain the characteristic
pump curve that minimize the total cost at pumping stations.
Biosyst Eng 102:95–105
Moreno MA, Ortega JF, Córcoles JI, Martı́nez A, Tarjuelo JM
(2010a) Energy analysis of irrigation delivery systems: moni-
toring and evaluation of proposed measures for improving
energy efficiency. Irrig Sci 28(5):445–460
Moreno MA, Córcoles JI, Tarjuelo JM, Ortega JF (2010b) Energy
efficiency of pressurised irrigation networks managed on-
demand and under a rotation schedule. Biosyst Eng
107(4):349–363
Moreno MA, Córcoles JI, Moraleda DA, Martı́nez A, Tarjuelo JM
(2010c) Optimization of underground water pumping. J Irrig
Drain Eng 136(6):414–420
Murray-Rust H, Svendsen M, Burton M, Molden DJ (2003) Irrigation
and drainage systems maintenance: needs for research and
action. Irrig Drain Syst 17:129–140
Ortega JF, de Juan JA, Tarjuelo JM (2005) Improving water
management: the irrigation advisory service of Castilla-La
Mancha (Spain). Agric Water Manag 77(1–3):37–58
Pelli T, Hitz HU (2000) Energy indicators and savings in water
supply. J Am Water Works Assoc 92(6):55–62
Planells P, Carrión P, Ortega F, Moreno MA, Tarjuelo JM (2005)
Pumping selection and regulation for water-distribution net-
works. J Irrig Drain Eng 131(3):273–281
123
Irrig Sci (2013) 31:1139–1158
Planells P, Ortega JM, Tarjuelo JM (2007) Optimization of irrigation
water distribution networks, layout included. Agric Water
Manag 88:110–118
Playán E, Mateos L (2006) Modernization and optimization of
irrigation systems to increase water productivity. Agric Water
Manag 80:100–116
Plusquellec H (2009) Modernization of large-scale irrigation systems:
is it an achievable objective or a lost cause? Irrig Drain 58:S104–
S120
Puerto HM, Melián A, Rocamora MC, Ruiz A, Cámara JM, Abadı́a R
(2006) Social and irrigation water management issues in some
water user’s associations of the Low Segura River Valley
(Alicante, Spain). WIT Trans Ecol Environ 96:205–214
Pulido-Calvo I, Roldán J, López-Luque R, Gutiérrez-Estrada JC
(2003a) Water delivery system planning considering irrigation
simultaneity. J Irrig Drain Eng 129(4):247–255
Pulido-Calvo I, Roldán J, López-Luque R, Gutiérrez-Estrada JC
(2003b) Demand forecasting for irrigation water distribution
systems. J Irrig Drain Eng 129(6):422–431
Pulido-Calvo I, Montesinos P, Roldán J, Ruiz-Navarro F (2007)
Linear regressions and neural approaches to water demand
forecasting in irrigation districts with telemetry systems. Biosyst
Eng 97:283–293
Reeves DT (1960) Deterioration of a centrifugal pump in service.
Allen engineering review
Rocamora C, Abadı́a R, Ruiz A, Puerto H, Melián MA (2008) Energy
efficiency in irrigation: energy audits and qualification of Water
Users’ Associations. AgEng 2008, international conference on
agricultural engineering. agricultural and biosystems engineering
for a sustainable world. Hersonisos, Greece
Rodrı́guez Dı́az JA, López Luque R, Carrillo-Cobo MT, Montesinos
P, Camacho E (2009) Exploring energy saving scenarios for on-
demand pressurised irrigation networks. Biosyst Eng
104:552–561
Rodrı́guez Dı́az JA, Camacho E, Blanco M (2011) Evaluation of
water and energy use in pressurized irrigation networks in
southern Spain. J Irrig Drain Eng 137(10):644–650
Rodrı́guez JA, Camacho E, López R, Pérez L (2008) Benchmarking
and multivariate data analysis techniques for improving the
efficiency of irrigation districts: an application in Spain. Agric
Syst 96:250–259
Rossman LA (1997) Epanet: users manual. Risk reduction engineer-
ing laboratory office of research and development. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati
Saidur R (2010) A review on electrical motors energy use and energy
savings. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 14:877–898
Tarjuelo JM, De Juan JA, Moreno MA, Ortega JF (2010) Review:
water resources deficit and water engineering. Span J Agric Res
8(S2):102–121
UN Water (2007) Coping with water scarcity. Challenge of the twenty-
first century. World Water Day 2007. http://www.fao.org/nr/
water/docs/escarcity.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2011
Vera J, Abadı́a R, Mora M, Rocamora MC (2010) Eficiencia
energética de instalaciones de bombeo en pozos para extracción
de aguas de riego subterráneas. XXVIII Congreso Nacional de
Riegos AERYD, León, June 15–16
Waghmode LY, Birajdar RS, Joshi SG (2006) A life cycle cost
analysis approach for selection of a typical heavy usage
multistage centrifugal pump. Proceedings of the 8th Biennial
Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis
2:865–873
WEC (2010) Energy efficiency: a recipe for success. World Energy
Council, London