Irrigated vs. Non-Irrigated (Dryland) Farmland: Pros, Cons, and Value Differences

One of the most fundamental decisions for Nebraska farmland owners and investors is choosing between irrigated and non-irrigated (dryland) farmland. Irrigated land — typically equipped with pivot systems or gravity irrigation — allows producers to apply water during the growing season, reducing yield risk in dry years and often commanding higher values per acre because of this yield stability. Dryland farmland, on the other hand, relies solely on rainfall and is more susceptible to drought risk but also typically carries lower purchase prices and fewer infrastructure costs.

From a leasing perspective, irrigated land can generate higher rental rates, reflecting its productivity advantage in most years. However, irrigation brings additional responsibilities: farmers and landlords need clear agreements about operation, maintenance, and water rights, especially given Nebraska’s Natural Resources District (NRD) water regulations and the long-term concerns around the Ogallala Aquifer. Nebraska’s water policy treats groundwater use rights differently than mineral rights — meaning surface water and groundwater are managed by state and local agencies, not automatically owned with the land itself.

For investors, balancing irrigated and non-irrigated holdings can diversify risk. Dryland may outperform in wetter seasons, while irrigated acres provide resilience in drought years. Both types have a place in a well-rounded Nebraska farmland portfolio.