Yuma Water Rights

Noble, Wade. "A Case Study in Efficiency – Agriculture and Water Use in the Yuma, Arizona Area." Yuma County

In the his brief but effectual article “The Wrong Way to Think about California Water”, the author Michael Hiltzik presents to the reader “a guide to the wrong ways to think about California water, and the glimmer of a better way”(Hiltzik). In the short piece, Hiltzik argues that the current debate on how California should be spending its meager allowance of water during the current drought is being thoroughly misguided. Hiltzik writes that people should stop criticizing businesses that consume “large” amounts of water, rather, the water already being used should be utilized more efficiently and effectively. “The only lasting solutions include creating a better-functioning water market with transparent pricing and transfers, so that water

There were many ways Yuma Arizona was changed by irrigation, without irrigation we wouldn't be able to grow crops, and sustain human life on earth. Back then Yuma was a small town, and was known as the wild west, but the era started ending when the U.S Reclamation service allowed Yuma to work on an irrigation project which was called the Yuma Project. The plan was to irrigate land throughout the towns of Yuma County,Somerton, and California. The water would come from the All American canal which then takes it to the Yuma main canal, then delivers it to the colorado river which then flows to different cities ,and irrigates land. Soon the project started changing Yuma in several ways with the new irrigation system Yuma started developing. One

For many years, Palo Verde Irrigation District has been a key player in the state’s water debate.

One person named Smith said it was a national debate. One person even said that it is not an easy fix and that it is very legal. California would not have any cutbacks dew to the agreement in 1968 with arizona. Also yamma was just an expansion but Arizona would keep their steep cuts. Farmers in Yamma have the oldest water rights in Arizona.

One of the main consumers of water are farmers, they account for 80 percent of water usage in California (Skelton). The problem with cutting water to farmers is money; the amount of money that California farmers generate is around 46.4 billion (Fox). Cutting water to farmers will cause unemployment to increase and a decrease in the amount of taxable income. Along with the loss of money and jobs an increase in the price for produce will be expected. Many of the smaller farmers will not be able to make ends meet with the increase price of water. Sure many of the mega farms will get by without a huge

Water scarcity is increasing worldwide and dramatically affecting first world nations such as Spain, Australia, and the United States. All nations are now starting to recognize that the world's water is a finite resource, and that resource is being drastically altered in both availability and quality by development, climate change and population growth. In the United States, the Colorado River is experiencing rapid declines in volume. Recent studies and data suggest that the changes in frequency, intensity, and timing of the availability of water will have substantial impact on the way we live our lives in the 21st century and beyond. As Letmathe Brakeck said, “I am confident that, under present

The upper basin states (including Colorado) were allocated a much greater percentage of the water than the lower basin states, while the upper basin states were developing at a much slower rate than those in the lower basin, notably California. Nevada (as of 1997) anticipated being unable to rely just on this water by 2015, while in 1997 California was already exceeding its originally allocated supply by diverting unused water from the upper basin states (Arizona.edu, 1997). It goes without saying that this legislation from the early twentieth century is not going to be sufficient in coming years as the development of these regions has progressed at a much faster rate than originally anticipated, and it is the responsibility of state and federal governments, water management companies, as well as appeals from farmers and non-farming residents alike to come to an agreement on how to apportion water and how to implement secondary hydration plans due to the rapidly declining resource that the once-magnificent Colorado River was able to supply us

With the Colorado River supplying 43% of all agricultural water consumption and 41% of all Municipal and Industrial water supply in the basin, losing access to this resource entirely for one year would cost $1.434 trillion in combined state GDP [2]. Just a ten percent decline in water availability will reduce combined basin states GDP by $143.4 billion, reduce employment in the area by 1.6 million job-years, and reduce labor income by 87.1billion dollars per year [2]. In addition to the shrinking economic production, the cost of living in the area would also start to increase. The water in the Colorado River provides inexpensive energy for the parts of the lower basin states, the cost of the power has doubled from the initial contracts, and if water levels fall to 1000', the costs could quintuple for customers that are bound to purchase the hydroelectric power until 2067 [8]. While the internal economy of the basin would suffer, the effects would also ripple into the rest of the country. The agricultural Imperial Valley in California, for example, provides two-thirds of the country's vegetables in the winter [9]. Without proper irrigation and water supply, production rates

Irrigation in Yuma is one of the biggest things here because half of our jobs depend on it. Describe in detail how irrigation changed Yuma/Southern Arizona. Irrigation has change Yuma and Southern Arizona half of our income is agriculture with help of irrigation.The Colorado River is the water source for Southern Arizona around 17 million people depend on the colorado river “Total population in the immediate area is estimated at 4,500 practically all dependent on agriculture” without it Southern Arizona would just a waste land. Irrigation projects in Arizona have been going since Theodore Roosevelt was in office he even turned an abandoned military fort into development of irrigation projects. Post construction for the Yuma irrigation projects the workers wages were about

Moving on, there are some issues with the legislation that has been passed in order to conserve the water, especially concerning the Clean Water Act. People are having opposition with the rules of the Clean Water Act. Small business owners feel that this act is restricting the way that they tend to their property. For example, several farmers use pesticides, herbicides, and other fertilizers to keep harmful insects and other animals off of their crops, so they can grow properly. These pesticides eventually end up in our local rivers, lakes, and oceans which are making humans and animals very ill. However, they make money by the crops they sell, and to them, the Clean Water Act has a very negative economic impact on them (Landers). Although

Irrigation was nothing new in Yuma, Arizona. Over the years irrigation had just gotten better, it did manage to change Yuma in some positive ways while irrigation improved. Many people and the developers of Yuma County had to overcome many challenges but it was not easy to do so. The project did have both some negative and some positive effects on Yuma County.

Texas, with its abundances of natural resources, is facing a new demon, one that doesn’t even seem possible, a shortage of water. Water, without it nothing can survive. Texas is the second largest state for landmass in the nation and ninth for water square miles. Within the borders of Texas are more than 100 lakes, 14 major rivers, and 23 aquifers, so why has water become such an important issue for the state? Politicians and conservationists all agree that without a new working water plan, the state could be facing one of the most damaging environmental disasters they have ever seen. The issues that shape the states positions are population growth, current drought conditions, and who actually owns the water.

Water resources in the state of California have deteriorated drastically as a result of the current drought event in the west coast of the United States. This has resulted in insufficient supplies of water to residents of southern California, as well as the devastation of wildlife and aquatic ecosystems that are characteristic of this area. This policy analysis will provide the context of the issue, as well as possible solutions, followed by a proposed policy plan to reach the policy goal of equitable and reliable water allocation in the state of California, drought resilience, as well as restoration of the destroyed ecosystems.

Now Arizona is not the typical state that has a lot of precipitation and rain yearly, but it depends off other reservoirs, lakes, and rivers located in other states to for their water supply. After searching and conducting research, it was found that the main impact Arizona is suffering from the drought is decreasing water levels is from Lake Mead (located in Nevada), and the Colorado River, which flows North to South through several U.S. states. Research and data found shows that the Bureau of Reclamation releases water into the Colorado River below Lake Mead to meet water demands of downstream users in Arizona and California, and also to satisfy treaty obligations to the Republic of Mexico. Findings by the Bureau of Reclamation show that Lake Mead water level’s peaked at 1,214.26 in January of 2000. Almost a decade and a half later, recorded in January 2014, the water levels of Lake Mead are now 1,108.75 (Smith, 2014). This findings show that Arizona is continually getting a decline in water from Lake Mead every month that passes, affects thousands of residents living in Arizona, which already lacks water to begin with. If this continues, this can cause many civilians to both stand by and bare the drought as long as they can, or decide to move out of Arizona to states with a better water supply, so they won’t be burdened with the continual burden of having to ration and conserve water. The state has