Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. . <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />001990 <br /> <br />. , <br />Colorado River water, increased by a sufficient incentive.3o Over time, the economic benefit of a <br />Colorado River water lease may prove sufficiently attractive to WMIDD farmers to overcome <br />present-day objections. <br /> <br />An additional cost savings toWMIDD of a water lease would include reduced operation and <br />maintenance costs associated with retirement of WMIDD hinds, which could total millions of <br />dollars annually. Energy required for the pump lift stations and maintenance on the 108 miles of <br />conveyance canals and tunnels is significant. The six pumping plants in the Wellton-Mohawk <br />Division comprise more than 35,000 horsepower.31 The energy cost to convey irrigation water' <br />uphill and across the entire district for' the year 2000 was approximately $1 million.32 . A 25% <br />reduction in water use by WMIDD could result in decreased power costs to WMIDD of up to <br />$250,000 annually. . <br /> <br />One significant consequence of reducing consumptive use of Colorado River water at WMIDD ' <br />will be the reduction of drainwater flowing mto the MODE. If water use at WMIDD decreases <br />by 25%, the bypass flow in the MODE will be reduced by the same percentage, approximately <br />30,000 acre;..feet of water annually.33 As discussed above, MODE water sustains an important <br />ecosystem in the Cienega de Santa Clara, and its reduction or elimination would cause <br />unacceptable harm. One way to address this impact to MODE flows is to supplement them with <br />, 25,000 acre-feet of water pumped from the Yuma Mesa groundwater J,llound. <br /> <br />Securing Federal Credit for Pumped Yuma Mesa Groundwater <br />In order to sustain the Cienega de Santa Clara ecosystem, the present-day quantity and quality of <br />flows in the MODE must at minim1.im be maintained. It may be acceptable to replace MODE <br />flows diminished by the lease of water from WMIDD with 25,000 acre-feet per year of <br />groundwater pumped from the Yuma Mesa'area. <br /> <br />Extraordinarily high rates of irrigation in the Yuma Area Irrigation Districts have created a <br />mound of groundwater below the Yuma Mesa. Under some 8,700 acres of land the depth to <br />groundwater is less than 6 feet, despite extensive pumping in the region.34 Groundwater salini~ <br />in the Yuma area averages 1400 ppm.35 The Yuma Area Water Resources Management Group 6 <br />(Y A WRMG) has proposed a $2.2 million upgrade of the region's groundwater pumping <br />infrastructure in order to reduce groundwater levels. under 6,200 acres in the Yuma Valley. <br /> <br />3Q There are various methods of determining this price incentive. This paper refrains from discussing alternatives to <br />avoid any premature biasing of the pricing process. <br />31 See U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Gila Project, Engineering Data, available at <br /><htto:lldataweb.usbr.~ovlhtm1llcl!:ilengdata.htm1> <br />32 Summary of Revenue and Program expense for the Parker Davis Project, Schedule No. 26, September 30. 2000. ' <br />33 Note this assumes a linear relationship between WMIDD diversions and MODE flows. <br />34 Yuma Area Water Resources Management Group (May 2. 2001, fmal draft prepared for approval). Project <br />Eropsal: Improvement of drainage operations in the Yuma Valley. ' <br />S US Bureau of Reclamation (1996). Ground Water Status Report, 1994. Yuma Area, AZ and CA, p~ AJO. <br />36 The Y A WRMG agencies include the Yuma County Water Users' Association, Unit B Irrigation ~d Drainage <br />District, North Gila Irrigation and Drainage District, Cocopah Tribe, City of Yuma, Arizona Department of Water <br />Resources, Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage District, Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, Yuma <br />Irrigation District, Yuma County, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the International Boundary and Water <br />Commission. <br /> <br />9 <br />