The article opens with an interesting statement that centre pivot irrigation was introduced, or rather succeeded, in the Plains where groundwater irrigation fai

The article opens with an interesting statement that centre pivot irrigation was introduced, or rather succeeded, in the Plains where groundwater irrigation failed. That stamement is never really expanded on and is a bit odd on its own. All irrigation systems still need water, so what made the difference? From what I can tell, centre pivot irrigation is preferred primarily because it's dirt cheap and it's reliable. But from a sustainably perspective it's simply encouraged intensive agriculture in places where the local water supply can't support it. These systems ultimately still have to pump water from underground. The irony is that while the invention allowed the dust bowl to bear crop, it's also thoroughly draining local aquifers and its likely that in the near future we won't be able to grow anything there any more. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/how-center-pivot-irrigation-brought-dust-bowl-back-to-life-180970243/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/how-center-pivot-i...