A rainfed-crop grower from Illinois who can no longer rely on the sky to deliver steady yields describes a well-timed storm: “[It’s] a million-dollar rain.”
Rainfall’s value is hard to overstate. When it arrives in the right amounts at the right times, as it used to across much of the eastern United States, rain eliminates the need to consider many irrigation costs and doesn’t increase pressure on groundwater and surface water systems. That same rain, however, can also become brutally expensive when there’s too much of it. Flooded fields can drown roots, wash out seed, erode soil, damage equipment and even wipe out entire acres that can’t be replanted.
Those benefits and risks are becoming harder to predict and manage because precipitation amounts and timing have changed. Some regions don’t receive enough rain and are starting to resemble arid western regions of the U.S. Other regions receive enough, or even too much, but it arrives outside the growing season, when crops can’t use it. Others are experiencing both extremes. For farmers, such variability can increase yield risk and make production more complex and costly.
To stay viable, growers are turning to supplemental irrigation. Those shifts bring heavy costs — capital for wells, pumps, irrigation technology systems, energy for pumping, new insurance coverage and time spent learning new production. The shifts also bring a different challenge: water governance.
The eastern U.S. has long operated under the assumption that water is abundant. That assumption is now breaking. As irrigation expands east of the Mississippi River, water institutions are being pushed to answer questions they haven’t had to address at scale: Who owns the water pumped from shared aquifers? How much is too much, and who decides? Can withdrawals be capped? Who must cut back first?
Current water rights systems in the eastern U.S. are generally not prepared for water scarcity. Most states lean on riparian and reasonable use doctrines, which give landowners the right to use water that touches their land as long as that use doesn’t “unreasonably” harm neighbors. That framework worked well when precipitation was regular and irrigation demand was low. It is much more complex when multiple farms, towns and industries pull from the same stressed water source during a dry July.
Some of those areas now require users to obtain permits for withdrawals, creating a layer of oversight and an avenue for mediating potential disputes between water users more effectively. But, in many places, there’s no fast, enforceable way to decide who must slow pumping when a water body is in decline.
Building resilience in agriculture doesn’t mean effectively responding to the last drought or flood; it means being ready for the next ones. That includes rebuilding soils that hold more water, protecting aquifers, designing integrated drainage and storage, and modernizing water law to increase accountability, fairness, flexibility and conservation. It also means scaling incentive-based tools and best management practices in accordance with local hydrology.
With a “million-dollar rain,” there’s a lot at stake: yield, inputs, debt, equipment, local jobs and the ability to stay in business. Ironically, multiple parts of the Midwest received good in-season precipitation in 2025. Yields look strong for many producers, though converting those bushels into profit is trickier with lower commodity prices and riskier markets. It’s a reminder that some challenges can’t be forecast. However, one need is clear: to proactively strengthen water governance so that agriculture can remain productive, profitable and resilient.
Renata Rimšaitė, PhD, is a senior program manager for the Daugherty Water for Food Global Institute at the University of Nebraska. Views or opinions expressed in this column do not represent her employer.
