The field of water resources research is changing rapidly. One of the major shifts is that information for the sake of science has a much lower priority than information that can be used immediately. Often the usability of research is a function of economics (it may be good, but can I afford it); and of less understood sociological factors (I'm not sure why, but I don't like it). This column will give an outline of a new project which is trying to address those issues.

New funding in the Mississippi Delta Management System Evaluation Area (MSEA) project is allowing scientists at Mississippi State University to add socioeconomic elements to the USDA-ARS National Sedimentation Laboratory's research. The economic portion is being addressed by Dr. Lynn Reinschmiedt and Dr. David Laughlin, while the sociological portion is the responsibility of Dr. Duane Gill of the Social Science Research Center.

Investigations such as the MSEA project have several potential areas for "added value." A basic project that installs practices which are intended to improve water quality is good. One which monitors the project to determine how those practices performed is better. If several alternatives can be evaluated to give the producers more options, the project becomes even more valuable. Modeling allows the practices to be translated to other locations with good estimates of how they will perform. Economics and sociology add value in much the same way.

The economic analysis will include an evaluation of the practices being used at the three lakes to determine which ones offer the most value for the cost. The initial phase will be based on those three farms involved. Subsequent phases will establish how those practices change with both farm size and field size. In addition, other farmers in the Mississippi Delta region will be profiled, in order to define which options are the ones most likely to fit their needs. While some options are obviously preferred economically, others are less evident, particularly those which involve, a change in the type of machinery used in the field.

Just because an alternative makes economic sense does not assume that it will be adopted. The information on that practice needs to come from a trusted source and in a form that removes uncertainties about how it will perform. A potential user will have questions about how a new management option will fit with present practices, how it will work over the long run, and some assurance that all of the rules won't make it obsolete in the near future. Beyond even such obvious questions are less understood biases. Even if no-till is excellent in every way, can I keep myself from tilling when the weather and field conditions tell me the time has come? What new computer skills will I need to move into precision agriculture? Do I want to learn them?

The socioeconomic portion of the research is intended to answer such questions as these. If the MSEA project produces answers that no one uses. it is a failure. Now is the time to find out which options will be adopted.