Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Colorado River water, increased by a sufficient incentive.30 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 to WMIDD of a water lease would include reduced operation and <br />maintenance costs associated with retiremeIlt of WMIDD hinds, which could total millions of <br />dollars annually. Energy required for the pwnp 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 cOIlsumptive use of Colorado River water at WMIDD <br />will be the reduction of drainwater flowing into 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 hann. 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 mound. <br /> <br />Securing Federal Credit for Pumped Yumll Mesa Groundwater <br />In order to sllstain the Cienega de Santa Clara ecosystem, the present-day quaIltity and quality of <br />flows in the MODE must at minimum be mllintained. It may be acceptable to replace MODE <br />flows diminished by the lease of water ftom 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 tile 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 />(YAWRMG) 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 />30 There are various methods of determining this price incentive, This paper refmins from discussing alternatives to <br />avoid any prem~ture biasing of the pricing process, ' <br />31 See U,S. Bureau of Reclamation, Gila Project, Engineering Data, available at <br /><hUo:lldataweb usbr,eovlhtml/lceilenedata,html> <br />)2 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, 200 I, final dmll prepared for approval). Project <br />p,ropsal: Improvement of drainage operations in the Yuma Valley, <br />'US Bureau of Reclamation (1996), Ground Water Status Report, 1994, Yuma Area, AZ and CA, p. A30, <br />36 The Y A WRMG agencies include the Yuma County Water Users' Association, Unit B Irrigation and 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 ofRechunation, and the International Boundary and Water <br />Commission. <br /> <br />9 <br />