A new, statewide analysis of tribal agricultural activity in Arizona determined that Indigenous-run farms and ranches generated $753.3 million in total economic output and directly supported more than 2,300 jobs in 2022. The work, described by its authors as a first-of-its-kind estimate, was produced by Cooperative Extension economic analysts in the University of Arizona College of Agriculture, Life, and Environmental Sciences and was supported by the Indian Land Tenure Foundation and the Native American Agriculture Fund. The research used the most recent agricultural census and several complementary datasets to assemble a baseline picture of tribal agricultural contributions across the state.
The scale of tribal agriculture across Arizona is substantial. American Indian producers operate 62% of all farms in the state and manage roughly 20 million acres of land, constituting about 81% of Arizona’s agricultural acreage. Many of those operations are small in land area—67% of American Indian farms are between 1 and 9 acres—but collectively they produce significant market and nonmarket value. “We have always known that tribal agriculture is a huge share of Arizona agriculture in terms of the number of producers, the amount of land that these operations manage, and it has sort of an outsized effect on the state-level numbers,” said Dari Duval, an Extension economist and corresponding author on the report.
Estimating the full footprint of tribal agriculture required combining multiple sources because federal datasets do not always align neatly with reservation boundaries and privacy protections limit reporting in sparsely populated places. Researchers drew on the USDA Census of Agriculture, the Reservation Census and the Navajo Nation Census, then supplemented those sources with USDA CropScape satellite data and supporting Cooperative Extension and institutional reports. The report’s authors present their figures as a baseline intended to inform future analyses carried out in partnership with tribal communities.
Market-level production from tribal operations was substantial in 2022. On-farm sales attributed to American Indian agriculture totaled $434 million that year, with crop production accounting for about $410 million and livestock production contributing $23.9 million. Tribal farms represent an overwhelming share of certain sectors: they make up 95% of all sheep and goat farms in Arizona and 71% of vegetable and melon farms. Despite the dominance in acreage and the number of operations, many producers’ market receipts are modest, a dynamic shaped in part by the prevalence of small-scale plots and production intended for household and community use.
Sheep graze among sagebrush with the rock formations of Monument Valley in the background — livestock grazing on tribal lands, featured as part of the $753.3 million total economic output from Arizona tribal agriculture in 2022.
The economic impacts of tribal agriculture extend well beyond reservation borders. The analysis finds that 85% of the multiplier effects from tribal agricultural activity spilled over into non-tribal parts of the state in 2022, benefiting counties and businesses that are not on tribal lands. Maricopa County received the largest share of that spillover—an estimated $203 million in economic output—followed by Yuma County at $31 million and Pima County at $18 million. Outside tribal lands, the agricultural activity supported roughly 1,670 jobs in sectors such as wholesale nondurables, which includes food distributors, fuel and farm supplies, and in agricultural support services. “People don’t always connect the dots and there's this perception that tribal communities aren't impacting our economic bottom line in the state,” said Michael Kotutwa Johnson, a coauthor on the study and an assistant professor and Cooperative Extension specialist of Indigenous resilience.
The report also attempts to quantify a long-overlooked portion of tribal food systems: production that never enters formal market channels because it is raised for household and community consumption. Working from both supply- and demand-side indicators, the research team estimated the value of this so-called hidden economy at about $116 million in 2022. That figure translates to as much as $1,120 in grocery-retail equivalent value per person in tribal areas. The authors emphasize that conventional measures of agricultural receipts undercount this production, which contributes to food security, cultural continuity and community resilience. “It’s challenging to provide a good, defensible metric for the value of home consumption in tribal communities, particularly in food deserts where a grocery store isn't around the corner,” said Trent Teegerstrom, manager for tribal engagement with Cooperative Extension. “If it doesn't enter the market channels, we don't really get to count it as sales but that agricultural production has value, it's contributing to food security, to food sovereignty and cultural resilience,” Duval added.
Young corn planted in rows on tribal farmland at sunset — crop production highlighted in the new analysis showing tribal agriculture directly supported more than 2,300 jobs statewide.
Despite the economic and social value documented in the analysis, tribal producers face persistent systemic barriers that limit access to federal support and to the tools that could expand production. The report finds a stark disparity in federal agricultural payouts: tribal farms received just 16% of total federal agricultural payments in the state in 2022. Although American Indian producers comprise roughly 75% of the farms that received some form of federal support, their average payout was about $3,800 per farm receiving payment—far below the $63,600 average for non-tribal operations. The report points to land-tenure complications and jurisdictional fragmentation as major drivers of that gap. Much tribal land is fractionated through inheritance, meaning a single allotted parcel can have scores or more owners, making it administratively difficult to assemble the required signatures for conservation grants, leases or other programs. “You can have a lot of heirs on a small plot, and it becomes very difficult to actually get anything done,” Johnson said.
A pronounced digital divide compounds administrative and productivity obstacles. Only 10% of American Indian farms in Arizona had access to broadband in the dataset used for this analysis, compared with 39% of non-tribal farms. Limited connectivity reduces producers’ ability to apply for federal grants and payments online and constrains adoption of precision agriculture technologies such as GPS-guided equipment, drones and soil-mapping tools that can raise yields and efficiency. Water also emerged as a central issue: while tribal nations hold critical water rights across important basins, gaps in infrastructure and investment limit the ability to make full use of those allocations. “It begs the question, what would be possible if the tribes had full access to their water resources, their water rights, or allocations?” Duval said, noting the findings reflect both the historical disadvantages and the potential for expanded production if resources and infrastructure were aligned.
The report presents a detailed set of baseline measurements intended to deepen understanding of how tribal agriculture contributes to Arizona’s economy and to identify barriers that shape outcomes. The authors frame the analysis as a starting point for further work in close collaboration with tribal leaders and communities, and to inform policy and investment conversations about land tenure, infrastructure, broadband access and equitable distribution of federal agricultural support. The data and methods used to assemble the estimates are documented in the analysis so that future researchers and tribal partners can refine and expand the work.