Rising demand for food, fiber, and biofuels drives expanding irrigation withdrawals from surface water and groundwater. Irrigation efficiency and water savings have become watchwords in response to climate-induced hydrological variability, increasing freshwater demand for other uses including ecosystem water needs, and low economic productivity of irrigation compared to most other uses. We identify three classes of unintended consequences, presented here as paradoxes. Ever-tighter cycling of water has been shown to increase resource use, an example of the efficiency paradox. In the absence of effective policy to constrain irrigated-area expansion using "saved water", efficiency can aggravate scarcity, deteriorate resource quality, and impair river basin resilience through loss of flexibility and redundancy. Water scarcity and salinity effects in the lower reaches of basins (symptomatic of the scale paradox) may partly be offset over the short-term through groundwater pumping or increasing surface water storage capacity. However, declining ecological flows and increasing salinity have important implications for riparian and estuarine ecosystems and for non-irrigation human uses of water including urban supply and energy generation, examples of the sectoral paradox. This paper briefly considers three regional contexts with broadly similar climatic and water-resource conditions – central Chile, southwestern US, and south-central Spain – where irrigation efficiency directly influences basin resilience. The comparison leads to more generic insights on water policy in relation to irrigation efficiency and emerging or overdue needs for environmental protection.

Advanced information in the form of seasonal climate forecasts has the potential to improve farmers’ decision making, leading to increases in farm profits. Interdisciplinary initiatives seeking to understand and exploit the potential benefits of seasonal forecasts for agriculture have produced a number of quantitative ex-ante assessments of the economic value of seasonal climate forecasts. The realism, robustness, and credibility of such assessments become increasingly important as efforts shift from basic research toward applied research and implementation. This paper surveys published evidence about the economic value of seasonal climate forecasts for agriculture, characterizing the agricultural systems, approaches followed, and scales of analysis. The climate forecast valuation literature has contributed insights into the influence of forecast characteristics, risk attitudes, insurance, policy, and the scale of adoption on the value of forecasts. Key innovations in the more recent literature include explicit treatment of the uncertainty of forecast value estimates, incorporation of elicited management responses into bioeconomic modeling, and treatment of environmental impacts, in addition to financial outcomes of forecast response. It is argued that the picture of the value of seasonal forecasts for agriculture is still incomplete and often biased, in part because of significant gaps in published valuation research. Key gaps include sampling of a narrow range of farming systems and locations, incorporation of an overly restricted set of potential management responses, failure to consider forecast responses that could lead to “regime shifts,” and failure to incorporate state-of-the-art developments in seasonal forecasting. This paper concludes with six recommendations to enhance the realism, robustness, and credibility of ex-ante valuation of seasonal climate forecasts.