Agricultural water management in a changing Maryland: stakeholder experiences and attitudes towards weather variability, alternative water sources, and related factors

The state of Maryland has experienced significant but commonly overlooked impacts on water quality and quantity. Future climate change is predicted to further reduce water availability, with nontraditional water sources such as treated recycled wastewater (TRW) as one potential way to mitigate impacts. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 Maryland stakeholders—including farmers, extension agents, state agency personnel, and academics—to explore their perceptions and experiences with 1) past, existing and future weather variability; 2) freshwater and reusable water use and management in agriculture; and 3) related factors impacting agricultural water management. Qualitative coding of interview transcripts produced 27 categories containing 291 unique codes and 121 sub-codes. Analysis revealed 24% of interviewees were hesitant to confirm climate change as a human-caused phenomenon, yet all interviewees described changes to the weather over recent decades, including drought, high rainfall events, extreme and unpredictable weather, and changes in temperature. Over half of interviewees had some knowledge of TRW in agriculture, and a majority thought it would be valuable; however, none had direct experience with its application. Many identified implementation barriers, with Distance, Infrastructure/Transport, Cost, and Contamination Concern as the most common codes. Many interviewees did not believe that water provisioning for agriculture was a problem because the region receives enough or more than enough precipitation. Related factors mentioned by interviewees included tension between residential and agricultural water use, land ownership, and concerns over existing or potential regulations. These findings inform our research exploring the use of TRW to support Maryland water sustainability under projected climate scenarios.

1 Introduction

The Mid-Atlantic region of the United States (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, and the District of Columbia) experiences significant impacts on water quantity and quality, which are anticipated to increase due to climate variability and population dynamics. Mid-Atlantic trends are consistent with regional to global observations: warming temperatures, with 15 of 16 warmest years on record occurring during the 21st century; mean annual precipitation increasing by 4.5 inches from 1901 to 2011; and increased probability of extreme weather events (Butler-Leopold et al., 2018). For example, heavy precipitation events increased by over 70% in recent decades in the Mid-Atlantic (Horton et al., 2014). Mid-Atlantic climate projections include increased risk and intensification of extremes such as flooding and drought, resulting in greater variability in water quantity (Horton et al., 2014; Butler-Leopold et al., 2018). Other projected impacts include sea level rise and saltwater intrusion, increased temperatures, and decreased water quality (Butler-Leopold et al., 2018). The main impacts of climate change on water quality found in a review of the research from 1998-2018 were: the aggravation of eutrophication, changes in the flow, hydrological and thermal conditions, and the destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity (Li et al., 2020).

Agriculture is responsible for nearly 70% of global freshwater consumption (Suri et al., 2019). Climate change has intensified water deficits in the Mid-Atlantic region, by altering temperature and precipitation patterns critical to crop water use (Dong et al., 2019; Smith and Chang, 2020). Rising temperatures have increased crop evapotranspiration rates, elevating water requirements for key crops like corn and soybean, while erratic precipitation—marked by more frequent droughts and intense rainfall events—has reduced the reliability of effective precipitation to meet these needs (Tigkas et al., 2020; Mirzaei et al., 2025; Peña-Gallardo et al., 2019). Agricultural water shortages have wide-reaching social, economic, and environmental implications (Mendelsohn and Dinar, 2003); diminishing the number of productive farms, irrigated areas and crops, and food production (Paul et al., 2020). Percent of water consumption in Mid-Atlantic region varies from one state to another. In the state of Maryland, the focus of this study, water consumption for agriculture irrigation varies from one county to another, with some counties like Anne Arundel using about 66% of total water consumed in state (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2019). Irrigation can buffer against weather variations to prevent production losses from water shortages, but this increases groundwater consumption. While total farmland acreage decreased by 2.3% from 1997-2017, Maryland irrigated acres increased by 63% in that same time period (United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2025). Irrigated acres increased another 5% from 2018-2023, with 130,707 total acres irrigated in Maryland in 2023, despite a 0.6% reduction in total farmland acreage during that time (United States Department of Agriculture and National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2024). Groundwater level decline has been observed in many locations across the state. From 1982-2018, drastic declines in the Maryland Coastal Plain ranged from 50 to 75 feet in Calvert and St. Mary’s counties of Southern Maryland and 11–41 feet in Kent and Dorchester counties on the Eastern Shore of Maryland (Shirmohammadi et al., 2019). These declines, if prolonged, will have significant, wide-reaching impacts on freshwater sustainability in Maryland.

One solution to augment freshwater drawn from aquifers is to utilize recycled water (Jeong and Adamowski, 2016). Treated recycled wastewater (TRW) for irrigation provides various benefits, including decreasing freshwater withdrawal, managing nutrients for crop needs, and increasing water supply reliability (Shoushtarian and Negahban-Azar, 2020). However, challenges persist, including recycled water quality, social acceptance, and conflicts between different stakeholders (Shoushtarian and Negahban-Azar, 2020). A survey of Mid-Atlantic farmers (Suri et al., 2019) found the majority were concerned about water availability and would use nontraditional water to supplement their water source if given the option. Still, one-third had no knowledge about nontraditional water (i.e., recycled water). Nearly 80% responded that they either did not have access to nontraditional water sources or did not know if they have access. This indicates a need to support farmers in decision-making regarding TRW.

Currently, the rate of TRW use in Maryland is limited. With increasing demands for irrigation water and climate change effects on precipitation, there is a critical need to explore the full potential use of Maryland’s TRW (Paul et al., 2021). However, expanding the use of water conservation practices including TRW depends on willingness to adopt them. A review of 55 U.S. studies found that education levels, capital, income, farm size, access to information, attitude, and social networks typically positively impacted the adoption of conservation practices among farmers (Prokopy et al., 2008). Other studies have found that farmers’ perceptions or experiences with drought are related to their likelihood of participating in conservation programs or adopting conservation practices (Ding et al., 2009; Wallander et al., 2013; Etumnu et al., 2023). Conversely, flooding was not found to impact the adoption of conservation practices (Etumnu et al., 2023; Rahman et al., 2024).

Given the many factors influencing decisions, decision tools may help farmers assess options. The research presented here is part of a coupled systems project utilizing modeling approaches to explore nontraditional water sources to help increase water availability and decrease water demand for irrigation. This applied research aims to utilize Agent-Based Modeling (ABM) to develop a transdisciplinary Diagnostic Decision Support System (DDSS) to help farmers identify and implement best management practices to efficiently use freshwater and TRW sources. As an initial step in developing the Agent-Based Model, we collected information from 17 farmers and related agricultural professions through semi-structured interviews. Interview questions asked about stakeholders' perceptions and experiences with: 1) past, existing and future weather variability; 2) agricultural use of freshwater and reusable resources; and 3) related factors impacting water use and management (see Supplementary Appendix 1). These interview findings will provide foundational information for developing the next step of data collection: a structured survey of farmers. The results from that survey will be used as an input into the development of the ABM. This paper reports the interview results and their relevance to future adoption of TRW in Maryland agriculture.

2 Methods

This study was developed as an initial step of an Agent-Based Modeling study that draws upon hydrologic, climate, and social data focused in the Zekiah and Greensboro watersheds in Maryland’s Caroline and Charles Counties (Figure 1). Caroline County is located on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay. Charles County is in Southern Maryland, bordered to the south and west by the Potomac River. Both watersheds are located within the Coastal Plain physiographic region, thus representing similar land resources with the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. Maryland follows the riparian water rights doctrine, allowing landowners reasonable use of adjacent or underlying water for irrigation, regulated through groundwater permits by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Agriculture in the study areas (Caroline and Charles Counties) is mainly corn, soybean, and hay, primarily irrigated by on-farm wells using water from confined aquifers. While most farms have historically relied on rainfed systems, the use of on-farm wells for supplemental irrigation has been steadily increasing across the region. To meet the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the Chesapeake Bay, MDE coordinates the implementation of water use and water quality practices under the doctrine of reasonable use of water referenced as the Code of Maryland Regulations for water quality standards and the reasonable use doctrine for surface water rights. Specific regulations cover topics like water quality criteria (Maryland Code of Regulations, 2025), water reuse guidelines, and groundwater management.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Location and land use for the focal watersheds of the modeling research of which this study is part: Zekiah watershed in Maryland (left) and the Greensboro watershed located across two states of Maryland and Delaware (right). These watersheds represent the Coastal Plain physiographic region and roughly correspond with the political boundaries of Caroline and Charles Counties in Maryland.

We conducted purposive sampling to identify potential interviewees representing diverse perspectives on agricultural water management in the region. The sampling population of 46 potential participants was developed through referrals from the project team, agricultural extension agents, and other partners. All 46 were initially contacted by phone, with an average of 2 follow-up calls and/or emails. Table 1 describes the 17 study participants.

Table 1

Table 1. Occupation and location of work for the 17 participants of this study.

Notably, three of the 10 non-farmer participants also had personal or family connections to farming. We conducted semi-structured interviews with these 17 participants between April and December 2023. Goals of the data collection were to better understand participants’ perceptions and experiences with past, existing and future weather variability; agricultural use of freshwater and reusable water resources; and related factors impacting water use and management. The protocol included 13 questions, with sub-questions and prompts to guide discussion (see Supplementary Appendix 1). Interviews ranged in length from approximately 30 min to nearly 1.5 h. Interviews were conducted via videoconferencing or phone, audio-recorded and automatically transcribed using the Zoom desktop application. Transcripts were reviewed and corrected for accuracy.

Qualitative analysis was conducted by two researchers who inductively coded the transcripts (see Bingham (2023) for detailed description). This included a “first-pass” independent review of 17 transcripts in Microsoft Word, with each researcher inserting codes for appropriate excerpts of text using the comment function. During this process, the researchers created a database that listed each code with a preliminary definition, as well as analytic memos in a “notes” field. In the “second-pass,” codes and definitions were refined through iterative discussion and independent review. The researchers met weekly to discuss their individual memos and deliberate on specific codes and definitions. This second-pass included multiple rounds of review of the data, during which similar codes were consolidated and sub-codes were added to the complex codes to capture important details. The researchers utilized the three themes of the interview questions (i.e., weather variability, agricultural water use, related factors) along with the emergent themes of the analytic memos to organize the codes into categories. Resulting codes and categories were quantified and summarized. The researchers identified specific text excerpts to illustrate the most frequent or notable codes, and created visual representations to highlight key findings. These results are presented in the next section, organized by the three areas of our research questions. Given the small sample size and overlap in professional identities (e.g., some non-farmers also operating farms), stratified counts are presented descriptively and were not interpreted as statistically representative comparisons.

3 Results

First-pass qualitative analysis produced 521 codes. These were consolidated and organized into categories, with second-pass analysis producing 385 total entries, including 291 unique codes and 121 sub-codes organized into 27 categories (Figure 2). The category “other” includes 7 codes that did not belong in the other categories but were not prominent enough to create a standalone category (e.g., “Crop type impacted by market changes”).

Figure 2

Figure 2. List of the 27 categories that emerged from quantitative analysis of interviews with 17 Maryland and Delaware professionals with expertise in agricultural water management. The category “other” includes 7 codes that did not belong in the other categories but were not prominent enough to create a standalone category.

3.1 Past, existing, and future weather variability

When interviewees were asked whether they had observed changes to the local weather or climate in the past 20 years, 76% expressed a belief in climate change, while 24% either denied the validity of climate change as an anthropogenically caused phenomenon (6% - one farmer), expressed hesitancy to confirm its validity (12% - two farmers), or were unclear as to their belief (6% - one researcher). One engineer and farmer who expressed belief in climate change described their opinion on the beliefs of their peers, saying,

So I think everybody, even the most cynical, are in agreement that the extremes are more extreme, overall average. While the scientific data supports that is changing, I think the perception among most of my clientele is that the average isn’t that much different, but the extremes of excessive moisture/precipitation, and then excessive drought is increased from what it used to be.

Another farmer described it simply:

Yeah, the climate change thing. Well, you know, we read about it. We hear about it, and I’ll be quite honest. I think I’m experiencing it.

When prompted with the follow-up “how do you think you’re experiencing it?” this farmer described below normal rainfall combined with more intense storms. This was echoed by several interviewees describing their climate change observations. The most frequent related codes were Drought, Extremifying weather, High/intense rainfall events, Changes in temperature, Unpredictable weather, Pests, Sea level rise, Flooding, and Storms (Table 2). As shown in the table, interviewees with farming as their primary occupation were less likely than other professionals to indicate observations typically associated with climate change.

Table 2

Table 2. Most frequent codes related to the category “Observed climate change” produced through qualitative analysis of 17 interviews with Maryland and Delaware agriculture and water professionals.

Drought was mentioned as an increase in drought intensity and length as well as decreased rainfall due to the effects of climate change. A geologist described.

I believe, to varying extents, we’ve seen periods of drought within the last 2 decades that are kind of concerning at various times.

Extremifying weather included an increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and extremifying overall weather patterns, such as cycles of drought and rainfall. One farmer explained:

I mean, it seems like when it’s dry it tends to stay dryer longer, with no rain, and we do tend to get torrential downpours and some thunderstorms and wet periods. So either really, really wet or really, really dry.

An agricultural extension agent described,

We’ve gotten very heavy rains in the month of May, June, or July. Rain events with 10 or 14 inches of rain. Like a 100-year rain. And then it turns dry. We have a period of 30 or 45 days of very dry weather and then we have wet fall. So just that there’s more frequent extreme events.

Several interviewees noted high rainfall events, with another agricultural extension agent describing,

The more recent data that we’ve been shown or seen is talking about how it’s not just an increase in the frequency of severe storms, but also the regular storms might just have more rain in them. So I do think that will continue to happen. More water is coming.

Interviewees also observed increased temperatures, especially in summer. One interviewee, a professor and extension specialist, noted a temperature reversal for certain months, for example, with an unseasonably warm April and a cold May. There were other less frequently mentioned but notable codes in the Observed Climate Change category. Insect populations and pathogenic insects were observed to increase due to warmer temperatures. Loss of marshland, inland wetland migration, damage to infrastructure, and land subsidence were all observed or predicted climate change impacts due to sea level rise. Interviewees working with Maryland’s Eastern Shore farmers mentioned increases in urban/pluvial or “sunny day” flooding, in which low-elevation areas are inundated due to high tides. These observed and predicted phenomena due to climate change were mentioned by interviewees to currently or possibly have significant impacts on agriculture. While most observed changes were described as having negative impacts, several interviewees mentioned positive impacts, such as the ability to grow new types of crops. One of the farmers who was hesitant to confirm the validity of climate change expressed the belief that the climate seemed to have improved for agriculture over the last 20 years.

3.2 Perceived barriers to recycled water in agriculture

Interviewees were asked about their familiarity, interest, and potential concerns about the TRW use in agriculture. Overall, 59% of interviewees, including 5 out of 7 farmers, believed that TRW would be valuable in some way and/or that farmers would likely be interested. None of the farmers interviewed utilized TRW on their own farms; however, 53% of participants knew of one or more cases of TRW being used specifically in agriculture. Two of the non-farmer participants described specific cases of TRW being used—in poultry production and in grain growing. The others provided more vague references. For example, one extension agent said.

Yeah, I know that it is permissible in Maryland. And I know that it is happening. I don't know again to what extent, how often, or in what areas it's being used. But I do know that it is actively being done.

All 17 interviewees expressed relevant concerns. Figure 3 shows the analysis of more frequent concerns—to be included, they had to be mentioned by at least two interviewees. This produced 14 codes and 6 sub-codes organized into the category “barriers to water reuse in agriculture” (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Visual representation of the codes and sub-codes for the category “Barriers to Water Reuse in Agriculture” produced through qualitative analysis of 17 interviews with Maryland and Delaware agriculture and water professionals. Codes were included only if mentioned by two or more interviewees.

One agricultural engineer and farmer stated that they would not use TRW for agriculture,

Personally, I wouldn’t use it. Not here. If I was in Kansas, certainly. Arizona, certainly, yes. But it’s too easy and too cheap to get good water here. Why take the chance?

The four most mentioned barriers to TRW use in agriculture were: Distance, Infrastructure/Transport, Cost, and Contamination Concern (Figure 4). Distance between farms and wastewater treatment plants was a frequently mentioned concern. Interviewees expressed that piping TRW at significant distances was impractical. Interviewees were concerned about the feasibility of infrastructure required to transport TRW, such as piping or trucking it to agricultural fields. Some interviewees wondered how pipes would be run through or around private roads and if additional equipment would be necessary for farmers to utilize TRW. It was mentioned that many farms are not connected to municipal water supplies and instead utilize wells or other water sources.

Figure 4

Figure 4. The four most commonly mentioned barriers to treated recycled wastewater in agriculture by 17 interviewees, along with example quotes. 12 interviewees (including 6 farmers) mentioned issues related to distance, 11 (5 farmers) mentioned barriers regarding infrastructure/transport, 10 (3 farmers) referenced contamination concern, and 10 (3 farmers) referenced cost.

Interviewees expressed concern about the cost of infrastructure, higher treatment levels to render the water adequate for crop application, the high costs of transporting the water long distances, and varying costs depending on geography and proximity to treatment plants. Interviewees also questioned who would be responsible for these costs, and suggested that some government subsidies would be necessary to make it affordable for farmer use. Land ownership was mentioned, with several interviewees describing hesitancy to invest in leased land as a barrier to water reuse in agriculture. While not all interviewees were farmers, 47% of interviewees reported that they have a farm and possess generational ownership. Other interviewees reported that they leased all or some of their farmland. However, of all interviewees, 35% explicitly mentioned that regardless of whether they owned all their land or leased some, they felt that they were the decision-makers regarding their farming operations. Interviewees discussed the conflict between leased versus owned land, how many farmers lease a significant portion of their land, and that leasing land deters them from investing in infrastructure, whether to facilitate use of TRW or otherwise. Interviewees also mentioned that there is high competition among farmers for leased land, and that land ownership changes hands frequently. One interviewee mentioned that nearly 50% of Maryland’s agricultural land is leased by farmers, and that most farmers own anywhere between 30%-60% of the land that they farm. An agricultural outreach professional stated, In a lot of situations, the farmer is hesitant to do any sort of practice. It's gonna cost them a lot of money, because a lot of the leases are just handshakes and/or they’re short term. So you know, are you going to put a big investment on a piece of land, whether it be irrigation or any sort of best management practice that you could get kicked off of any year? I mean, truthfully, it's a major issue for them… I know that’s a tangent, but it's a really important tangent for people to understand, because when farmers are making these decisions, it can be a whole lot different if it’s their land they’re talking about versus a lease land they’re talking about.

Interviewees were concerned about possible contamination in TRW. Heavy metals, micro-contaminants like PFAS, and pharmaceuticals or personal care products were the most frequently mentioned contaminants. Interviewees also mentioned that some crops, such as leafy greens, are much more vulnerable to contamination than others, and that contaminants could be introduced to groundwater by applying TRW on agricultural fields. One state water expert described,

It may not be worth it to try to overcome concerns about using [TRW] on food crops that are consumed by humans. Because there’s plenty of other uses for it.

Other interviewees also expressed concern about microcontaminants such as PFAS harming their soil and subsequently their business, as described by one agricultural engineer and farmer,

They come out and test my soil, if they find PFAS in that soil, I won’t get a contract. I can’t grow stuff there.

3.3 Related factors impacting water use and management

Nearly half (47%) of interviewees, including 3 of 7 farmers, mentioned conflict between residential and agricultural water use. Groundwater use was a primary topic of relevance. One farmer mentioned that deep agricultural wells are no longer being permitted to avoid infringing on the groundwater needed for drinking water. Several other interviewees predicted future competition between residential and agricultural needs, with one state water expert stating,

If they start drilling deeper into the confined aquifers, where people also get their drinking water, then you could have competition for that water.

Some interviewees suggested that urbanization will affect Maryland agriculture in a variety of ways, including increased utilization of vertical farming practices, decreased irrigation system implementation, and decreased funds and space for agriculture near metropolitan areas. One farmer said,

You know I wouldn't put in [an irrigation system] cause we’re like, you know this land around here is high residential, you know. It's worth a lot of building lots. And someone wouldn't want to tie it up in the irrigation system. And then they sell it so it's building lots, you know.

Another farmer said,

The demographics of Charles County are changing greatly, dramatically, just due to its proximity to Washington D.C., metropolitan areas. So the amount of funds we have are relatively small. The fields are relatively small.

Finally, one agricultural outreach professional mentioned a conceptual divide between urban and agricultural areas, and that people may not consider TRW for agriculture as a way to conserve water. They said,

I think other people think “urban” and “ag”, and not really thinking of the resources in totality and how they might be used.

Regulation was an emergent concern related to water and agriculture. Four interviewees, including 3 farmers, described that current and future regulation, including taxation of irrigation water and the limitation of new wells, is of significant concern. One farmer said,

My biggest concern is that someone who doesn’t know what I do or what I’m all about is gonna write a bill taxing my water or telling me that I can’t use it anymore. That is the number one concern of pretty much everyone that I talked to.

An engineer and farmer said,

…we all know, particularly when you get bureaucracy involved in management of private businesses, that things go to [expletive]. And farmers are independent and they will always… you cannot get 5 farmers to decide on where to go to lunch, let alone what to do as far as policy. So they are going to buck up against regulation and control. And they want control themselves.

The final notable emergent categories were water quantity and quality. For water quantity, 65% of interviewees, including 5 of 7 farmers, believed that there was currently enough or too much water for agriculture in the region. One farmer and engineer said,

It's a function of 44 inches of average rainfall per year, and 22 inches of crop usage, so we’re a net positive as far as per acre on a recharge basis. If the precipitation gets more extreme, I would say, we’re gonna have less recharge and more run off, which could affect that. But my sense is at least locally, we’re not really concerned about water resources.

A university researcher stated, So most farmers, they’re just relying on rain for their water needs. And honestly, the biggest problems that we have in our system is getting the water off. We have too much water.

The second most mentioned code under water quantity was groundwater depletion, with 41% of interviewees, including 4 of 7 farmers, describing related concerns. One state scientist said,

…probably one of the biggest issues I see from my work is the drop of the confined aquifer levels within the coastal plain of Maryland.

Following concerns about contamination discussed in the previous section, the most frequently mentioned codes related to water quality in Maryland were related to agricultural runoff and excess salinity. A state scientist explained,

…I see a concern in that some streams, for instance, that are fed by groundwater…just year after year, keep accumulating salinity, and it just keeps rising. It’s very hard to remove from any kind of distributed natural system. So that would be kind of salinity as a result of human activity: road salt, agriculture, wastewater. But there’s also natural salinity that’s a concern with rising sea levels. There’s more of a chance for saltwater intrusion in certain areas…

One farmer expressed water quality as a greater concern than quantity, saying,

Well, in my opinion, I’m not a professor. But if you don’t have good water quality, what difference is the quantity?

4 Discussion

This paper describes findings from 17 interviews with Maryland participants in professions related to agricultural water management. We made efforts to stratify our sampling to recruit participants to represent a range of perspectives, expertise, and location within our study area, yet we acknowledge the limitations of the small sample size and narrow geographic extent on the generalizability of our findings. However, the results can contribute to a broader understanding of perceptions of and experiences with climate change, water resources, and related topics, while also directly informing the development of a targeted survey of farmers regarding water conservation practices and use of TRW. Here we discuss how the results relate to past research and how they might inform current work on wastewater reuse in Mid-Atlantic agriculture in the United States, in particular, the study area of the state of Maryland.

Most interviewees confirmed their belief in climate change, though about one-quarter—including three of the seven interviewed farmers—expressed hesitancy to confirm its validity or actively denied that it is happening. Some farmers even felt that the climate had improved for agriculture, mentioning factors such as the ability to grow different types of crops. There is growing evidence from research in locations such as California, Puerto Rico, and New Zealand (Petersen-Rockney, 2022; Rodríguez-Cruz and Niles, 2021; Niles et al., 2015) that perception of climate change is not the largest driver influencing adaptation; rather, farmers respond based on personal experience and perceived risks to their own farms. In our study, despite some misgivings about the long-term climate change process, most interviewees observed weather changes over the past two decades. In particular, extreme and/or unpredictable weather was identified, mainly related to an abundance of precipitation such as intense rainfall, storms and flooding, or a lack of precipitation, such as drought. Indeed, drought was the most mentioned climate change observation. Previous studies suggest that drought can be an important factor in influencing farmers’ adoption of conservation practices (Ding et al., 2009; Wallander et al., 2013; Etumnu et al., 2023), thus approaches to promote or incentivize wastewater reuse may be more successful by targeting farms most impacted by drought. Evidence from water-scarce countries including Tanzania, Pakistan, and Iran bolsters the potential success of this approach, as farmers view wastewater positively as a way to solve the need for reliable water sources for irrigation (Mirra et al., 2024). However, other TRW benefits will likely need to be emphasized to attract farmers who believe there is enough, or too much, water in Maryland, and those who are more concerned about other issues such as sea level rise. For example, a review of the relevant global literature in coastal regions suggests there may be benefits of utilizing TRW to help mitigate saltwater intrusion and recharge coastal aquifers (Hussain et al., 2019).

When specifically asked about TRW in agriculture, most participants expressed that it could be valuable in some way. About half of interviewees knew of at least one example of wastewater reuse, but none of the farmers interviewed had experience with it. Many potential barriers were identified, with Distance, Infrastructure/Transport, Cost, and Contamination Concern as the most common (Figures 3, 4). Interviewees did not think there were wastewater treatment plants close enough to farming areas, and they were unsure how the water would get to the farms. This follows Suri et al.’s 2019 finding that Mid-Atlantic farmers do not believe or do not know whether they have access to nontraditional water sources, and highlights a fundamental challenge to adopting TRW for water conservation. Interviewees also expressed uncertainty about how the water would be distributed and if it would require farms to be retrofitted with new pipes and other infrastructure, especially for farms that do not use irrigation. This relates to another key concern emphasized by interviewees: Cost. Interviewees were unsure of who would pay for necessary upgrades, and several suggested that the government would need to subsidize the cost. This issue has been explored elsewhere, including water-scarce countries with a history of TRW use. A study of farmers in Spain finding that cost was the most widespread barrier to wastewater reuse, which could be tempered with public subsidies (López-Serrano et al., 2022). Similarly, lessons learned from 20 years of agricultural wastewater reuse in Israel describe it as beneficial but costly and requiring significant public subsidies (Marin et al., 2017). Even with subsidies; however, several interviewees mentioned that farmers often lease their land, and thus are hesitant or unable to invest in new infrastructure. Another issue described was tension between domestic and agricultural water use, including at least one interviewee’s belief that irrigation infrastructure would compete with desired future uses for farms to be converted to residential land. One cost-related concern that emerged was that Maryland farmers do not pay much for their water, and are skeptical that new programs may come with regulations or taxes. Finally, interviewees mentioned concerns about real or perceived contamination of TRW, and that potential contaminants could be taken up by the food crops themselves or enter into the soil, which could harm agricultural operations.

While interviewees expressed many valid concerns, some were based on limited familiarity with the wastewater treatment level or the allowable applications. This supports Suri et al.’s (2019) findings in which one-third of surveyed farmers had no knowledge of nontraditional water sources, and suggests a need for increased outreach regarding TRW. An examination of 35 years of quantitative literature on adoption of agricultural conservation practices found several education and outreach-related variables to be positively associated with adoption. These included: seeking and using information, a positive attitude toward the particular program or practice, and awareness of programs or practices (Prokopy et al., 2019). Interview findings provided data for a study utilizing modeling approaches to promote the adoption of TRW and other water conservation practices in Maryland agriculture. The results described here informed the development of a survey instrument conducted with farmers in early 2025. Data from that survey will be incorporated into an Agent-Based Model (Yazdisamadi et al., 2025) to parameterize a decision tool for farmers, which will be developed in collaboration with regional agricultural extension agents. There is evidence that the expertise and relationships of agricultural extension agents will be key to facilitating the awareness and adoption of this tool (Dinar et al., 2017). Researchers will work with extension agents to incorporate the findings reported here into regionally relevant educational and outreach programming related to wastewater reuse.

In conclusion, while the sample size was small, this study along with previous supporting research can provide some insight for policymakers and agricultural outreach practitioners into how they may approach new policies or programs related to the use of TRW in agriculture. Suggestions may include prioritizing TRW adoption efforts to farms most impacted by drought, and to emphasize other TRW benefits to attract farmers who do not believe that water scarcity is a problem in Maryland. It will also be important to address farmers’ real concerns with the logistics of getting TRW implemented on their land, including infrastructure, distance, cost, and contamination. All of the above will require increased outreach regarding TRW, which may be best facilitated through the trusted relationships of agricultural extension agents.

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because the raw data for this project are interview transcripts in which identifiable details are included. If transcript data is requested, the authors could supply versions with redacted details. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to MR, bWljaGVsZS5yb21vbGluaUBsbXUuZWR1.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Institutional Review Board, Loyola Marymount University. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author contributions

MR: Writing – original draft, Formal Analysis, Resources, Methodology, Visualization, Data curation, Validation, Investigation, Writing – review and editing, Conceptualization, Supervision. AlS: Visualization, Data curation, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing, Formal Analysis. PL: Writing – review and editing, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Project administration, Resources. AR: Conceptualization, Writing – review and editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition. MN-A: Project administration, Resources, Writing – review and editing, Funding acquisition. AdS: Writing – review and editing, Funding acquisition, Resources, Project administration.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, project award no. 1027960.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The handling editor VC declared a shared parent affiliation with the author(s) PL, AR, MN, and AS at the time of review.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2026.1650298/full#supplementary-material

References

Bingham, A. J. (2023). From data management to actionable findings: a five-phase process of qualitative data analysis. Int. Journal Qualitative Methods 22, 16094069231183620. doi:10.1177/160940692311836

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Butler-Leopold, P. R., Iverson, L. R., Thompson, F. R., Brandt, L. A., Handler, S. D., Janowiak, M. K., et al. (2018). Mid-atlantic forest ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis: a report from the mid-Atlantic Climate change response framework project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-181 (294), 1–294. doi:10.2737/NRS-GTR-181

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chesapeake Bay Program (2019). Recommendations of the best management practice (BMP) for cropland irrigation. Cropland irrigation BMP expert panel, report # CBP/TRS-325-19. 81p.

Google Scholar

Dinar, A., Ashraf, A., and Reints, J. (2017). Farmer adoption of water management practices in response to recurrent drought. Choices 32 (4), 1–7. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26487415.

Google Scholar

Ding, Y., Schoengold, K., and Tadesse, T. (2009). The impact of weather extremes on agricultural production methods: does drought increase adoption of conservation tillage practices? J. Agric. Resour. Econ., 395–411. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41548424.

Google Scholar

Dong, Y., Jiang, C., Suri, M. R., Pee, D., Meng, L., and Goldstein, R. E. R. (2019). Groundwater level changes with a focus on agricultural areas in the mid-atlantic region of the United States, 2002–2016. Environ. Research 171, 193–203. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2019.01.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Etumnu, C., Wang, T., Jin, H., Sieverding, H. L., Ulrich-Schad, J. D., and Clay, D. (2023). Understanding farmers’ perception of extreme weather events and adaptive measures. Clim. Risk Manag. 40, 100494. doi:10.1016/j.crm.2023.100494

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Horton, R., Yohe, G., Easterling, W., Kates, R., Ruth, M., Sussman, E., et al. (2014). “Ch. 16: northeast,” in Climate change impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment. Editors J. M. Melillo, T. C. Terese, and G. W. Yohe (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Global Change Research Program), 371–395.

Google Scholar

Hussain, M. S., Abd-Elhamid, H. F., Javadi, A. A., and Sherif, M. M. (2019). Management of seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers: a review. Water 11 (12), 2467. doi:10.3390/w11122467

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jeong, H., and Adamowski, J. (2016). A system dynamics based socio-hydrological model for agricultural wastewater reuse at the watershed scale. Agric. Water Manag. 171, 89–107. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2016.03.019

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, X., Li, Y., and Li, G. (2020). A scientometric review of the research on the impacts of climate change on water quality during 1998–2018. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (13), 14322–14341. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-08176-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

López-Serrano, M. J., Velasco-Muñoz, J. F., Aznar-Sánchez, J. A., and Román-Sánchez, I. M. (2022). Farmers’ attitudes towards irrigating crops with reclaimed water in the framework of a circular economy. Agronomy 12 (2), 435. doi:10.3390/agronomy12020435

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Marin, P., Tal, S., Yeres, J., and Ringskog, K. (2017). “Water management in Israel: key innovations and lessons learned for water-scarce countries,”. Technical Report. Washington DC: World Bank.

Google Scholar

Maryland Code of Regulations (2025). Md. Code regs. 26.17.06.02 - statement of policy. Legal information institute. Cornell Law Sch. Available online at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/maryland/COMAR-26-17-06-02.

Google Scholar

Mendelsohn, R., and Dinar, A. (2003). Climate, water, and agriculture. Land Economics 79 (3), 328–341. doi:10.2307/3147020

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mirra, L., Russo, S., and Borrello, M. (2024). Exploring factors shaping farmer behavior in wastewater utilization for agricultural practices: a rapid review. Sustainability 16 (7), 2870. doi:10.3390/su16072870

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mirzaei, M., Shirmohammadi, A., Ruiz-Barradas, A., Olson, L. J., and Negahban-Azar, M. (2025). Climate change effects on the spatial and temporal distribution of extreme precipitation in the mid-atlantic region. Urban Climate 61, 102382. doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2025.102382

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Niles, M. T., Lubell, M., and Brown, M. (2015). How limiting factors drive agricultural adaptation to climate change. Agric. Ecosystems & Environment 200, 178–185. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2014.11.010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Paul, M., Negahban-Azar, M., Shirmohammadi, A., and Montas, H. (2020). Assessment of agricultural land suitability for irrigation with reclaimed water using geospatial multi-criteria decision analysis. Agric. Water Manag. 231, 105987. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105987

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Paul, M., Negahban-Azar, M., Shirmohammadi, A., and Montas, H. (2021). Developing a multicriteria decision analysis framework to evaluate reclaimed wastewater use for agricultural irrigation: the case study of Maryland. Hydrology 8 (1), 4. doi:10.3390/hydrology8010004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Peña-Gallardo, M., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Quiring, S., Svoboda, M., Hannaford, J., Tomas-Burguera, M., et al. (2019). Response of crop yield to different time-scales of drought in the United States: spatio-temporal patterns and climatic and environmental drivers. Agric. Forest Meteorology 264, 40–55. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.09.019

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Petersen-Rockney, M. (2022). Farmers adapt to climate change irrespective of stated belief in climate change: a California case study. Clim. Change 173 (3), 23. doi:10.1007/s10584-022-03417-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Prokopy, L. S., Floress, K., Klotthor-Weinkauf, D., and Baumgart-Getz, A. (2008). Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: evidence from the literature. J. Soil Water Conservation 63 (5), 300–311. doi:10.2489/jswc.63.5.300

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Prokopy, L. S., Floress, K., Arbuckle, J. G., Church, S. P., Eanes, F. R., Gao, Y., et al. (2019). Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature. J. Soil Water Conservation 74 (5), 520–534. doi:10.2489/jswc.74.5.520

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rahman, A., Negahban-Azar, M., Shirmohammadi, A., and Karki, R. (2024). Evaluating the potential of recycled water use for irrigation in southern Maryland: impact of groundwater conservation and crop yield. Water Supply 24 (7), 2451–2472. doi:10.2166/ws.2024.137

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Cruz, L. A., and Niles, M. T. (2021). Awareness of climate change's impacts and motivation to adapt are not enough to drive action: a look of Puerto Rican farmers after hurricane maria. PLoS One 16 (1), e0244512. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244512

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shirmohammadi, A., Rowe, M., Kasraei, S., Summers, R., Michael, B., Ortt, R., et al. (2019). “Stressed aquifers on the coastal plain of Maryland,” in Proceedings of american geophysical union (AGU) (Valencia, Spain: Quest for Sustainability of Heavily Stressed Aquifers at regional to Global Scales).

Google Scholar

Shoushtarian, F., and Negahban-Azar, M. (2020). Worldwide regulations and guidelines for agricultural water reuse: a critical review. Water 12 (4), 971. doi:10.3390/w12040971

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Smith, R. K., and Chang, D. C. (2020). The utilization of a recursive algorithm to determine trends of soil moisture deficits in the mid-atlantic United States. Clim. Change 163 (1), 217–235. doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02898-w

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Suri, M. R., Dery, J. L., Pérodin, J., Brassill, N., He, X., Ammons, S., et al. (2019). US farmers' opinions on the use of nontraditional for agricultural activities. Environ. Research 172, 345–357. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2019.02.035

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tigkas, D., Vangelis, H., and Tsakiris, G. (2020). Implementing crop evapotranspiration in RDI for farm-level drought evaluation and adaptation under climate change conditions. Water Resour. Manag. 34 (14), 4329–4343. doi:10.1007/s11269-020-02593-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

United States Department of AgricultureNational Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) (2024). 2022 census of agriculture: 2023 irrigation and water management survey, volume 3, special studies, part 1. Washington DC: USDA/NASS, 216p.

Google Scholar

United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) (2025). Quick stats API. Data Available online at: https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/.

Google Scholar

Wallander, S., Aillery, M., Hellerstein, D., and Hand, M. (2013). The role of conservation programs in drought risk adaptation. Econ. Res. Serv. ERR 148, 1–68.

Google Scholar

Yazdisamadi, M., Gray, E., Shirmohammadi, A., Negahban-Azar, M., and Leisnham, P. (2025). “Modeling adoption of water management strategies and impacts on watershed-scale water resources using agent-based methods influenced by socio-economic factors. ASABE paper no. 2500328,” in Presented at: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting, Toronto, Canada, July 13-16, 2025.

Google Scholar