Talk:Environmental effects of irrigation

Adding the neutrality is disputed tag.
I arrived at the article initially on a yak shaving exercise otherwise related, but after skimming it briefly. I have ended up placing a POV tag on it because of its extremely one-sided presentation at a venue that requires a five sided approach. While there is no dispute concerning the negative impacts that can occur, their presentation very strongly implies that these happen regularly, widely and normally. There is no mention of these conditions existing naturally. There is no qualifier of 'where properly managed' and particularly to the point 'when not properly managed' (designed/utilized/implemented/etc). The presentation makes no mention of 'when' these occur/ed, when they first were identified, and when they became of environmental concern to the world.

The article does mention these occurrences 'at the tail-end area of the river basin and downstream of an irrigation scheme', and effects are 'indirect and complex', yet insufficiently weighed in the beginning to provide the necessary balance. This article does not even present water as a renewable resource, which is otherwise used anyway for mans' purposes. I will summarize, by saying that in the sentence: 'Irrigation projects can have large benefits, but the negative side effects are often overlooked.' The 'can should be 'do' and the 'are often overlooked' should be 'have been overlooked and are being studied.' I believe this might reset the proper tone for a neutral presentation. If there are not good points to irrigation, then why is it so widely used in areas world-wide that have few alternatives. While I may keep an eye on this, editors more attuned to the specifics will have to take the lead. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is about serious environmental impacts of irrigation, not about effects of irrigation in general, like economical impacts, impacts on the food situation etc. The article on Environmental impact of reservoirs has a similar tone, and it is not easy to give it a happy ending. The present article is not POV, but factual and heavily substantiated by literature references. Quite possibly the article is incomplete. The five sided approach includes "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute: ...". Any improvement is welcome, like adding a section that shows how careful management has mitigated environmental damage. Any article on other impacts of irrigation, including beneficial impacts (which are enormous), would also be welcome. I appreciate the concern of CasualObserver and his/her initiative to bring it up for discussion. It is worth extensive consideration, because the issue at hand is "anxious". The tagging, however, seems impulsive and premature and might be appropriate only after a thorough exchange of views has led to that conclusion. Water and Land (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On 2 September a sentence was added about the importance of irrigation to alleviate the concerns of CasualObserver. Water and Land (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is very one sided    The majority of the page is "Adverse" impacts of irrigation.
 * There are many advantages of irrigation, including environmental benefits.   The most obvious one is linked to the increased productivity of the land.   Irrigated land is many times more productive than dryland. Therefore if we attempted to produce the same quantity of food and fibre with non-irrigated land we would require far more area, leading to further deforestation, desertification, not to mention the significant social and economic issues. GILDog (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the NPOV dispute by adding information that represents the other side of the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathantfroelich (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Environmental impact of irrigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217192619/http://home.windstream.net/bsundquist1/ir1.html to http://home.windstream.net/bsundquist1/ir1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813155125/http://www.swwrc.wsu.edu/newsletter/fall2001/IrrImpact2.pdf to http://www.swwrc.wsu.edu/newsletter/fall2001/irrimpact2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

File: Rubaksa gardens.jpg
I'm having hard time understanding what message that picture trys to convey, can anybody help elaborate? Thanks. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Need writer or anybody who can help elaborate following
[Increased groundwater recharge stems from the unavoidable deep percolation losses occurring in the irrigation scheme.] I had hard time understanding the meaning, nor I could find citations online that support the statement. Can anybody help? ThomasYehYeh (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)