Alternative Use Plan for City of Tucson Land, Avra Valley, Arizona
Authors Karpiscak, Martin M.; Foster, Kennith E.; Cluff, C. Brent; DeCook, K. James; Matter, Fred
Publisher University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ)
Download date 05/10/2021 17:01:10
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/314313 #0267 / _ - gl-;; , ' /,,- A',.. ...411~.- ..11.4...... 11.111...... 11.4.11,WIl.11....-...... + 1 4spW.. .f - i Alternative Use Plan 4 for ; City of Tucson Laid Avra Valley, Arizona
Prepared by The University of Arizona Office of Arid Lands Studies Water Resources Research Center College of Architecture
for the
City of Tucson Real Estate Division
September1981 ALTERNATIVE USE PLAN FOR CITY OF TUCSON LAND AVRA VALLEY, ARIZONA
by Dr. Martin M. Karpiscak Dr. Kennith E. Foster Office of Arid Lands Studies University of Arizona
Dr. C. Brent Cluff Dr. K. James DeCook Water Resources Research Center University of Arizona -
Professor Fred Matter College of Architecture University of Arizona
A Final Report September 1981 City of Tucson Contract No. 0310 -81 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii
I.INTRODUCTION 1
U. RECOMMENDATIONS 5
Limit Soil Disturbance 5 Establish Experimental Water -Harvesting Systems 5 City and County Coordinate Land Use Plan 5 Fence and Secure All Points of Entry 6 Record Land Treatment Activities 6 Pre -retirement Revegetation 6 Maintain Existing Dikes and Flood- Control Structures 6 Pursue Use of City Land by Papagos Using CAP Water 7 Pursue Research Activities 7
III.HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 8
Changes in the Sources of City Water 9 Legal Considerations 10
IV. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND CONSTRAINTS 13 Weed Control 13 Vandalism and Theft 21 Trash Dumping 21 Overgrazing 21 Management Costs 22
V. FRAMEWORK FOR USE 23
No Groundwater Use 23 Minimize Environmental Impacts 24 Management for Public Benefit 24 Minimize Capital Costs 24 Development 25 Prohibited Uses 25
VI. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 27
Maintenance 27 Disking 27 Mowing 27 Pulvi- Muicher 27 Land Imprinter 28 Burning 28 Moth Release Program 28 Revegetation 29
i Experimental Management for Economic Return 30 Alternative Crops 30 Guayule 34 Jojoba 36 Buffalo Gourd 38 Russian Thistle 39 Other Plant Candidates 41 Adobe Production 41 Land -Water Tradeoffs 41 Avra Valley Irrigation District 41 Agricultural Use of City Land by Papago Indians 42 Water Harvesting 45 Water Catchment Methods 45 Compacted Earth 46 Salt- Treated Compacted Earth 46 Gravel- Covered Plastic 47 Wax Treated 47 Fiberglass Asphalt Chipcoated (PAC) 47 Asphalt- Rubber Chipcoated (ARC) 48 Polypropylene- Reinforced Mortar -Covered Plastic 49 Water Storage Methods 49 Water -Harvesting Agrisystems 50 Rainfed Urban Development 52 Rainfed Industrial Development 53 Summary 55 Other Proposed Uses 55 Travel Trailer Park 56 Wild Animal Parks 56 Off -road Vehicles 57 Sailport 57 Movie Location 58
VII.RECENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS 59 Current Land Status 59 Land Ownership 59 Land Use 59 Well Fields 59 Suitability for Urban Development 59 Flood Hazards 64 Electric Transmission Line 64 Social -Environmental Factors 68 Population Growth 68 Subsidence 69 Dust Storms 69
APPENDICES A. NAMES AND AFFILIATIONS OF AVRA VALLEY WORKSHOP ATTENDEES 72
B. CLIMATE OF AVRA VALLEY 75
il C. VEGETATION OF AVRA VALLEY 78
D. ESTIMATES OF RUSSIAN THISTLE PRODUCTION COSTS 81
E. ESTIMATED COSTS TO PROCESS RUSSIAN THISTLE INTO LOGS AND PELLETS 86
REFERENCES 95
111 LIST OF TABLES
1. City of Tucson Avra Valley Land Holdings 3
2.Manpower, Machinery and Equipment Used to Maintain City of Tucson Land in Avra Valley 22
3. Prohibited Uses of City of Tucson Avra Valley Land 26
4. Location of Introduction of Coleophora parthenica in Avra Valley 29
5. Water Withdrawn for Selected Crops in Pima County, Arizona 31
6. Acreage and Water Withdrawal in Avra Valley, Arizona, by Crop, 1978 32
7. Water Use in Avra Valley During 1978 33
8.Summary Table of Potential Arid -Adapted Agricultural Plants 35
9. Summary of Russian Thistle Production Costs 40
10.1981 Cost Estimates of Different Water -Harvesting Methods 46
11.Projected Population of Eastern Pima County 68
iv LIST OF FIGURES
1.Map of City Owned land in Avra Valley 2
2. Aerial photograph of Russian thistle growing on fallow City of Tucson fields in Avra Valley. 14
3. Ground -level photograph showing large Russian thistle plants and dense aggregations of emerging young seedlings in foreground. 15
4. A cotton field on the Gin Farm shortly after retirement. 16
5. The Gin Farm two years after retirement. 17
6.London rocket (Sisymbruim irio) and Mediterranean grass (Schismus spp.) are the most abundant plants in this former Gin Farm cotton field, 3 years after retirement 18
7. Mediterranean grass has succeeded London rocket in this Gin Farm field, 4 years after retirement 19
8. Spurges (Euphorbia spp.) scattered Russian thistle and other species cover the Gin Farm, cotton field, 5 years after retirement. 20
9. Map Showing Avra Valley Irrigation District 43
10.Map Showing Proposed Alignment of Central Arizona Project Aqueduct through Avra Valley. 44
11.Shape of Proposed Catchment Systems. 51
12.Water Harvesting Agrisystems Module for Retired Farmland Management. 54
13.Map Showing Land Ownership in Avra Valley 60
14.Map Showing Privately Owned and City Land in Avra Valley Outside the Cortaro -Marana Irrigation District 61
15.Map Showing Land Use in Avra Valley 62
16.Map Showing Location of City of Tucson Well Field and Pipelines in Avra Valley 63
17.Map Showing Areas Unsuitable for Urban Development in Avra Valley 65
18.Map Showing Flood Hazards for Avra Valley 66
v 19.Map Showing Proposed Alignment for 345 kV Transmission line through Avra Valley 67
20.Map Showing Location of Earth Fissures in Avra Valley 70
vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their appreciation to Mr. George Parker, Tucson Real Estate Division; Mr. Gene Cronk and Mr. Frank Brooks, Tucson Water Department; Mr. T.J.Harrison,City Attorney'sOffice,and Mr. Mike McNulty, Arizona Department of Water Resources for their guidance in the preparation of this report. We also thank the many other individuals who have assisted in the preparation of the report.
vii INTRODUCTION
Groundwater is the principal supply of agricultural, industrial and municipal water in Arizona.As a result of increasing demands, water table levels are declining rapidly.Importation of water through the Central Arizona Project and reuse of treated municipal waste water will reduce, but not eliminate, the need to allocate more water for urban use and less for agricultural use as the State continues to grow.
This reallocation in the Phoenix area is occurring progressively without undue conflict.Adjacent farmland is developed as the urban area expands, and water formerly applied to crops is used for domestic purposes.
The City of Tucson, which at present is entirely dependent upon groundwater purchased 13,000 acres of outlying irrigated lands in Avra Valley to secure water rights, then retired them from agricultural use (Figure 1, Table 1).This retired farmland now presents several surface management challenges that need to be addressed.
Most proposals that address farmland retirement have treated the question of "what to do with the retired farmland" superficially(Jacobs,1968;Staff Report,1974).There are constraints inherent in reclamation of disturbed lands in semiarid regions that have fragile desert ecosystems.The land reverts to an aesthetically pleasing natural desert growth only after considerable passage of time (Karpiscak, 1980).
Grasses could be established in Avra Valley, an area that has relatively low annual rainfall (10 inches) and relatively large evapotranspiration rates (Jordan and Maynard,1970),but supplemental irrigation would be required. Even after establishment, some supplemental irrigation would be needed to assure a permanent stand of grass.
The environmental consequences associated with retiring farmland are not well known to the general public, therefore little public opposition has been voiced. Farms that have been purchased by the City are in relatively secluded areas. More public interest is anticipated as additional farmland closer to urban areas is retired; thus innovative land reclamation and management procedures must be developed.
1 R. 12 E.
R. 0 E. PINA R. 10 E.R. 11 E. COUNTY R. 11 E.1 EXPLANATION , 2 - -1: t .2 9 11 9 .0 ' .2 - Southern Pacific Railroad 1.51
1.5 '14 'fr. Natural Gas Line r,,,,, Ls ,e .c. .0 '....ert'k..t.d. ' _...... -- 1 --,k, -T- Transmission Line ..,...... RIC 0. MAIRANA I RO 2' 23 2 4 N. 9 ,.../19 201 21 23 / ....,,.. IGRIER LRO I -. KtfM ,,, / -r- - Underground Telephone A- '..----'' -.,. I Marana F '- r,N Cable ,I .50 zs 21 28 30 , .....r. 25 . 1 - Unpaved Road '1 '° 'f {V).4 1" T:.,__ _ i_ - -... .4---26"N' -'...-5-\ - I 4 4. 1. ,. 33 " 1----...''I2 4:"4.....3-1.4 35 t 31;4, 3I ---- Paved Road
S. 1 ' 4 -.' * 4 ',..., t 6 ''.....,,,,Zz5 ell State Highway I .1',. ..; ,,, .6. 2 6 '5 4 I 3 WV 2 \ 2 ' . 44 % 0, 4 s. I .8 N .' 1 Interstate Highway idr N.. 4.12 IA tiV A 1. 1. E Y 7- 7 1 ov .0 .1 I ' s: 9 , '0 11 / r 9 1 .4 .../ -^ -- County Line J--1--, --It",.. ,..-- --- \ e.--r-----, ,. I 3 F1dr? 0 Airstrip(limited facilities) 1 / I 4 20 21 1 22 23 , A4 ,... 469 4 / 2 'al 22 IF ,23-* Airfield(limited facilities) "'.1- 2.0 - / ?-1 c.... Las______A v..1.._--__ _ __I_ / .fs ' .., 29 Z. i Zi 261 25 310 Land Owned by City of Tucson 26 25 I T. T. ft :I - TWIN PEAKS 12 FARM PROPERTY NAME 1 a V, 7. 35 36 32 33 s. S. c S. A Hill Farm T. B Growers Finance Farm ...... tczsmf . 1 ---7- , -A. i 13 C Flying 'V Bar Farm
1 -4- H-----!°° /-;-.L'S D Morse Farm -7 .,7f I _ _i_.2u_LAtill..,_ _Lim_j 1 E Comiskey Farm io.--.7 I O i 2 1 F Gin Farm . - --1....,,z ...... 4 ..MIPM .... G Weinstein Farm I ..1/4 /6 18 4 a i 15 3.. 13 H Trust No. 205 I SAGUARO. NATIONAL .___ MANVILLE RO ., I Hurst Farm f _t/ 4 J Lavkowit2 Farm 19 20 : e 1 I 2/2.-'...... 23),...... 9.4.- IC Davison Farm
II- et,'tti ...I/ MONUMENT L Double Z.S. Farm 30 . 23 I ?. 31...,,, 25 25 M John Kai Farm T. l al ,- ---1 N Edward Anway Farm ,13 31 7, O James Glover Farm \\,.2.2 I 36 I S. P 98 Farm Co. we '. no i....I: ... -r. 17.3113.. T oCatus Co.- Mile Wide Farm I I ''''="..3k 3 2 : 1 floi s',' 14 R Catus Co.- Avra Farm 14 ' -4 s. e I I - S. 3 Wallis Farm S 'N i\, TUCSON, T Simpson, Farm
10 ¡ 1 12 ,. 1 %''' I '2 U Anway Farm . NI =0. .0116...MIN. Mala ,74. =0 i ..1..., ,.. I mounrtni .7 ' 16 15 I l 13 j. ;.,.. : '3 I FIGURE 1. PApAGO .1. INDIAN 1 PARK Map of City Owned Land
.1 2., I t 9 MIN, ..n., p 9 20 21 23 20 21 ZZ : ln Aura Vailay I I * I . 0=0 041111/0 a =111, .0 RESERVATION; I July 1981.
; so 29 28 2? 26 I 25 30 29 tes 25 7. I N1. Tla...... mom. ..mm ..,...... wm...... 14 H 4 4 32 33 34 35 56 31 32 35 36 I, 3' S.
S. 1 A AS
i 3 2 I 5 5
S 8 9 I io 2
SCALE 2 3 5 , 1 3
R.11 E.1 R. 12 E. R. 10 E. R, 11 E. R. 10 E.
2 Table 1. City of Tucson Avra Valley Land Holdings
Total Cultivated Farm Property Name Acres Acres Date Last Farmed
Hill 317 307 1970 Growers Finance 1,580 1,428 1972 Flying "E" Bar 706 660 1972 Morse 310 303 1974 Comiskey 496 371 1974 Gin 477 437 1975 Weinstein 148 92 1975 Trust No. 205 349 261 1962 Hurst 463 296 1975 Levkowitz 160 152 1959 Davison 650 628 1975 Double Z.S. 494 453 1975 John Kai 633 470 1975 Edward Anway 640 469 1976 James .Glover 187 159 1976 98 Farm Co. 313 263 1976 Cactus Co. -Mile Wide 1,360 1,287 1976 Cactus Co. -Avra 1,604 1,540 1976 Wallis 1,278 811 1976 Simpson 636 221 1978 Anway 290 270 1978 13,091 10,878
3 The participants in this study considered and evaluated the potentials of Avra Valley land for various uses that may resultinalternative management and maintenance techniques and /or economic return.
The authors of this report: describe historical and existing land use in Avra Valley; discuss current management problems and alternative technologies; identify alternative management options for future considerations; and discussoptionstheCity might considerin promoting alternative management concepts.
A workshop was held 10 April, 1981, to invite comments and land -use ideas from the Tucson business, government, and academic citizenry. The attendees are listed in Appendix A.
4 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are suggested policies and uses that appear to fall within the City of Tucson framework for managing Avra Valley land.This framework is discussed in Chapter V.
1. Limit Soil Disturbance
Every effort should be made to limit activities on City-owned lands in Avra Valley that disturb the soil surface and create conditions that encourage the establishment and growth of Russian thistle (Salsola kali).These activities include grazing and mechanical weed control. Mowing appears to produce the least impact.
2. Establish Experimental Water - Harvesting Systems
Water harvesting and low- water -use crop demonstration and experimental farming areas should be established on newly acquired land in cooperation with Avra Valley farmers and University of Arizona Researchers.Experimental agrisystem research would demonstrate potential crops and farming methods to Avra Valley farmers that could lead to a reduction of the amount of groundwater being pumped.. The research also would provide the information needed by the City to evaluate possible uses of other City-owned land and of land purchased in the future.
As soon as population pressures warrant, urban and /or industrial water - harvesting demonstration systems should beinstalledonappropriateretired farmland near other urbanized areas, with the cooperation of private developers. All types of water -conservation techniques including greywater reuse should be incorporated to demonstrate that a community and /or industry can be established in a semiarid area using only rainfall to supply water.
3. City and County Coordinate Land Use Plan
Industrial development and population growth will demand water distribution in Avra Valley and will increase service requirements by the City and other
5 government agencies. A coordinated land -use plan for Avra Valley could produce orderly development on non -City land that will impact favorably upon City -owned land.
4. Fence and Secure All Points of Entry
City land in Avra Valley should be fenced. Each point of entry should have a gate and lock.Fencing would not be needed between land parcels owned by the City, where other bariers to trespass already exist (irrigation ditches, dikes, etc.) or where trespass by humans and animals is minimized because of protection provided by neighboring landowners.
5. Record Land Treatment Activities
All land treatment activities including disking, mowing, planting, grazing, should be recorded for each farm.These data should include the date, duration, location and type of management practice or other soildisturbances. This information would assist greatly in developing future land management practices that would yield maximum benefits.Presently, the lack of detailed, historic information about farm management makes evaluation of the current status of revegetation difficult.
6. Pre - retirement Revegetation
The City should plan to revegetate Avra Valley land acquired in the future before the land is retired.The farmer who sells the land could enter into an agreement with the City to participate in the planting and establishment of the plants selected.
7. Maintain Existing Dikes and Flood -Control Structures
All existing dikes and flood -control structures should be maintained to prevent flooding of lands adjoining City -owned areas.Failure to maintain these structures may subject the City to flood damage liability.Any dikes that exist for the sole purpose of protecting City land need not be maintained.
6 8. Pursue Use of City Land by Papagos Using CAP Water
The use of CAP water for irrigation by the Papago Tribe on retired City - owned land in Avra Valley has the potential to:(1) solve many of the problems associated with managing retired farmland, (2) stimulate the agricultural economy of Avra Valley and of the reservation, and (3) minimize ecological problems associated with clearing new cropland on the reservation.This concept, however, will require changes in the new groundwater law and agreements with the Papagos.
9. Pursue Research Activities
Research activities to develop and use retired cropland in Avra Valley for agricultural and nonagricultural purposes should be explored with interested federal, state and local agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Fish and Game Department and various departments at the University of Arizona. These activities should be undertaken on a cooperative basis.Funding for programs could be pursued jointly.
7 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Indians, Spaniards, Mexicans and Anglo- Americans sucessively have been the dominant inhabitants of the Santa Cruz Basin.
European explorers entered the Basin during the 17th century A.D.They reported that Papago and Pima Indians were cultivating corn and beans on the alluvial plains so that summer floods might irrigate their crops (Bolton, 1919).
In 1700 A.D., the Spanish priest Eusebio Kino sent 700 cattle to the newly founded mission of San Xavier del Bac near the present site of Tucson (Bolton, 1919). For the next 200 years, ranching was the major agricultural activitiy in the Basin. By 1903, however, farming had begun and about 10,000 acres of crops were being irrigated (Turner et al, 1943).
Food or fodder crops were the main farming products in the Tucson -Avra Valley area until 1924 (Gelderman, 1972).These crops included alfalfa, cotton, hegari ( a grain sorghum), barley and pasture grasses, as well as peaches, apricots, figs and grapes (Youngs et al, 1936).
In 1943, Turner et al (1943), noted that Avra Valley was sparsely populated because the washes were too deep to divert flood waters to irrigate crops and the water table was too low for economic development of irrigation wells. Two small settlements in Avra Valley were Robles Ranch (Three Points) and Avra, the latter established in 1925.Andrews (1937) reported a dozen families in 1934 at Avra where cattle grazing was the major agricultural activity.
From 1900 to 1951, only about 160 acres were cultivated in Avra Valley, but in the following years several thousand acres were cultivated and irrigated from deep wells (Gelderman, 1972).
Cotton soon became the major cash crop.The acreage of upland cotton in Pima County reached 47,000 acres in 1953 and American -Egyptian, or long -staple, cotton covered 7,000 acres in 1952. The combined acreage of cotton decreased to 25,000 acres from 54,000 acres by 1966 (Gelderman, 1972).
8 The City of Tucson began to assess Avra Valley as a potential source of water in the late 1940s. A consultant recommended that land be purchased in Avra Valley while it was still inexpensive; however, the City of Tucson decided not to purchase land at that time.But farmers acquired land at very little cost under the Desert Land Act (Southwest Environmental Service, 1977).
Agricultural development reached a peak in Avra Valley during the 1950s. More than 30,000 acres of farmland were irrigated by more than 100 wells. In 1954, Avra Valley was declared a Critical Groundwater Area under the Arizona Revised Statutes and the development of land for irrigated agriculture was essentially halted.
Changes in the Sources of City Water
The Santa Cruz River flowed continually in 1900 and only shallow wells were required to provide a dependable water supply to Tucson. Within 20 years, however, the flow of the River became intermittent.
Tucson is in the Upper Santa Cruz Basin and relies totally upon groundwater for its water. Tucson, however, shares the groundwater in the Basin with farming and mining users.Pumpage has exceeded natural recharge since the 1940s. As a result, groundwater levels have been declining. Of the estimated 260,000 acre -feet withdrawn in 1975, farming and mining accounted for 200,000 acre -feet (Arizona Water Commission, 1978).
The total annual recharge for the Basin does not exceed 100,000 acre -feet per year; therefore, the difference, 160,000 acre -feet per year, must come from storage as aquifer overdraft.
Avra Valley is a separate groundwater basin west of Tucson and supports a predominantly agricultural economy.Groundwater development began in the late 1930s and in 1954 supported about 30,000 acres of irrigated agriculture.
9 The City has invested $15 million to $20 million to acquire land, drill wells and construct a pipeline to convey water from Avra Valley to Tucson.Construction of the pipeline began in 1967 and became operational in 1969.
The City has 10 cable tool holes and 14 rotary holes in the southern part of Avra Valley and imported 11,687 acre -feet of water in 1978 from Avra Valley (Bruce Johnson, personal communication).
Legal Considerations
The City of Tucson adopted a policy and issued bonds to finance the purchase of farmland.Plans were begun in the late 1960s to drill wells in Avra Valley and then to pump the water through the Tucson Mountains into the metropolitan area in the Santa Cruz Valley.
Until 1948, the State of Arizona had no laws regulating percolating ground- water. In that year the State Land Commissioner reported to the Legislature that there were nearly 3,000 wells in central and southeastern Arizona registered with his office and that several hundred more unregistered wells existed (Journal of the Senate, 1948). On the basis of increasingly rapid depletion of Arizona groundwater supplies and the demand for groundwater law from the federal government as a condition precedent to funding construction of the Central Arizona Project (CAP), the Groundwater Code of 1948 was enacted (Arizona Revised Statutes, Sec. 45 -301). The Code provided guidelines to determine areas where the available groundwater was not sufficient to supply a reasonable, safe amount of water for irrigation purposes. The Avra Valley Basin was designated as one of ten such areas in Arizona.
In 1953, the State Supreme Court ruled that groundwater was the property of the owner of the land overlying the aquifer, thus reversing itself from a previous ruling that percolating groundwaters were to be public propertyBristorv. Cheatham, 75 Arizona 227, 225 p. .2d 173 (1953) .The Court, however, did adopt the reasonable use variation that states that an owner is restricted to the amount of groundwater he may use to "reasonably" benefit his land if such use does not harm neighboring owners having similar rights.
10 The meaning of "reasonable use" and the status of Tucson well ownership in Avra Valley were topics of Arizona court decisions related to groundwater.Plans developed by the City of Tucson to pump water from Avra Valley into the metropolitan area in the Santa Cruz Valley were challenged by Avra Valley landowners in the late 1960s.
In the first of three cases on the issue, commonly referred to as Jarvis I, the Arizona Supreme Court held in 1969 that "reasonable use" precluded the well owner from transporting the water off the land from beneath which it was drawn, at least where neighboring landowners would be adversely affectedJarvis v. State Land Department, 104 Arizona 527, 456 p. .2d 385; (1969) . The Court further stated that by definition neighboring landowners in a Critical Groundwater Area would be adversely affected and ruled that the City of Tucson could not move water from basin to basin, even for domestic purposes.
The Jarvis I decision, however, was modified in 1970 in the findings of Jarvis II
Jarvis v. State Land Department, 106 Arizona 506, 479 p. .2d 169, (1970). The second case stemmed from the fact that while not pumping groundwater from one basin to another, Tucson was pumping groundwater from its wells to other locations within Avra Valley, some of which were inside and some of which were outside the Critical Groundwater Area boundaries. The Court decided that if the City retired land from farming use within the Critical Groundwater Area, it then could export the quantity of water previously used to irrigate the retired lands.The Arizona Supreme Court later ruled in Jarvis III that each year Tucson could pump up to 2.4 acre -feet of groundwater per acre of retired farmland.The City purchased and retired 13,000 acres of farmland so that almost 30,000 acre -feet per year could be pumped to Tucson from Avra Valley.
These Court decisions form the basis of the policy under which Tucson has purchased Avra Valley agricultural land, retired it from farming and imports the allocated water.
Major groundwater law reform was passed by the State Legislature in 1980 that will have significant impacts on future management of Avra Valley land.
11 Some aspects of this legislation are of immediate concern to the City's management of the retired farmland. These include the provisions outlined below.
Areas where groundwater levels are critical,to be called "Active Management Areas" (AMA), were created. The four AMAs are Phoenix, Tucson, Prescott and Pinal County. Grandfathered rights to pump groundwater would be created for existing users.All agricultural grandfathered rights would legally follow from and accompany land rights. Allcities, towns, private water companies, irrigation districts and agricultural improvement districts withdrawing groundwater as of Janu- ary 1, 1977, would have the right to pump and transport from within their service area as much groundwater as needed, subject to water conservation requirements.
12 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND CONSTRAINTS
The need for an overall plan for the management of retired cropland was not recognized when the City first acquired land in Avra Valley.Information from similar experiences in the arid Southwest was lacking, and management techniques needed to control weeds and encourage transition to a natural desert setting were not known to planners.
Additional management difficulties stem from the ownership of land that has no permanent tenants, thus vandalism, theft,trash dumping and overgrazing increase City management costs.
Weed Control
Current management policy focuses on the City's desire to promote weed control and encourage a natural succession of plant species. Particular plant species such as Russian thistle grow readily on disturbed land and create a management problem.After the summer growing season ends, the plants tend to be blown by winds into adjacent homesites and agricultural fields (Karpiscak, 1979) (Figures 2 and 3).The dry Russian thistle plants blown onto adjacent property drop seeds and complicate mechanical harvesting of cotton and other crops. Disking was employed during the late 1970s in an attempt to control the plants; however, this treatment only enhanced spring growth.
The City now uses a combination of burning and mowing to control weeds. This approach has reduced significantly the extent of soil disturbance, which is the major factorcontributing to Russian thistle establishment and growth. The following series of photographs (Figures 4 thru 8) taken at the Gin Farm illustrate the successional trends in vegetation that are taking place under the minimum soil disturbance management policy (Karpiscak, 1980).
Weedcontrolproblemshaveresultedinthelargestexpenditureof maintenance funds.
13 FIGURE 2.Aerial photograph of Russian thistle growing on fallow City of Tucson fields in Avra Valley. September 1978. Courtesy USGS.
14 FIGURE 3.Ground-level photograph showing large Russian thistle plants and dense aggregations of emerging young seedlings in foreground.February 1979. Courtesy USGS.
15
FIGURE 5.The Gin Farm two years after retirement.The remains of the previous year's crop of Russian thistle can be seen in this photograph. In addition to Russian thistle, numerous globemallow (Sphaeralcea) plants can also be seen. April 17, 1978. Courtesy USGS.
17 FIGURE 6. London rocket(Sisymbriumirio)and Mediterranean grass (Sehismus spp.) are the most abundant plants in this retired Gin Farm cotton field, three years after retirement. April 23, 1979. Courtesy USGS.
18 FIGURE 7.Mediterranean grass has succeeded London rocket in this Gin Farm field, four years after retirement. April 25, 1980. Courtesy USGS.
19 FIGURE 8. Spurges (Euphorbia spp.) scattered Russian thistle and other species cover the Gin Farm, cotton field, five years after retirement.August 11, 1981. Courtesy USGS.
20 Chemical herbicides have not been used to control Russian thistle because of the proximity to cotton and other crops and because of continued interestin returning these properties to natural desert growth.
Vandalism and Theft
The City removed most pump equipment for storage and ultimate disposal. Nonetheless, the Avra Valley improvements that could not be removed have been subject to extensive theft and vandalism.Some buildings were reduced to shells only weeks after becoming vacant. The City has reduced the opportunities for such acts by recycling construction materials and well pumping equipment for which it could not provide security.
Trash Dumping
City lands in Avra Valley are extensive and scattered. The lack of fencing and long distances to the nearest County dump sites (Ina Road, Tangerine Road or Ryan Field Transfer Station) have encouraged illegal dumping of trash on City land. Filling in pumpback pits and errecting fencing appear to have mitigated this problem to some extent. Trash dumping will continue, however, even if all the property is fenced.The increasing population of the Valley will promote additional trash dumping, especially since proper disposal facilities are not available nearby and those that are available are not always open or cannot receive all forms of trash.
Overgrazing
Weed control by grazing cattle has been attempted on City land in Avra Valley.The carrying capacity of recently fallowed farmland is only a few animal units per section.Extensive overgrazing has created conditions favorable to establishment and growth of Russian thistle.
Potential income from leasing such land for grazing is limited.Recently, after extensive discussion with the Ü.S. Department of Agriculture, the City decided to stop grazing on its land in Avra Valley (George Parker, personal communication).
21 Management Costs
The City of Tucson spends about $75,000 per year to maintain and manage its Avra Valley land holdings, or about $5.73 per acre. Table 2 lists the categories that are included in the annual management cost of managing City -owned Avra Valley land.
Table 2. Manpower, Machinery and Equipment Used to Maintain City of Tucson Land in Avra Valley
i Full-time resident field manager 1 Half -time coordinator 1 100 -Hp tractor 1 Small tractor Misc. vehicles Fuel Fencing Misc. expenses
Some attempts have been made to manage City land for economic return. The limiting factors to producing income from Avra Valley land are City policy, lack of water, and legal constraints.
22 FRAMEWORK FOR USE
The City of Tucson is establishing a framework within which recommended uses of Avra Valley land can be evaluated.The framework is based on legal, political and economic considerations, as well as experience gained from onsite management since 1972.
No Groundwater Use
Uses of the land that do not require groundwater are of primary interest to the City because Avra Valley land was purchased and retired from farming to provide water for domestic use in the Santa Cruz Valley.Water revenue bonds were used for this purchase and are being paid through City water -user fees.
Under the new Arizona Groundwater Management Act, grandfathered rights are available to the City (Groundwater Management Act of 1980).In Active Management Areas (AMA) such as Avra Valley, a " grandfathered right" is a right to withdraw groundwater based on historic withdrawals.
The Groundwater Management Act established two categories of grand - fathered rights.A grandfathered right to irrigation water is the right to irrigate land for commercial, agricultural production, although it is not a right to use a specific amount of water.A grandfathered right to use groundwater for non - irrigation purposes is a right to withdraw a specific amount of groundwater. Two types of non -irrigation grandfathered rights were established.A type 1 right concerns retired irrigated agricultural land.Retired land that can be irrigated legally entitles the owner to withdraw up to 3 acre -feet of groundwater per acre per year. A type 2 right is based on a user's historical withdrawal of groundwater and is equal to the greater of: a. The quantity of water noted on an application for a certificate of exemption, to the extent that amount exceeds the amount of any type 1 right; or, b. The maximum amount withdrawn and used in any one -year period of the five years preceding the establishment of the AMA, to the extent that amount exceeds the amount of any type 1 right.
23 The Groundwater Management Act also permits rights to be sold to new users. In general, a farmer may sell the right to use the maximum amount allowed by his grandfathered irrigation right to another farmer to use for irrigation; or, the farmer can sell the right to up to 3 acre -feet per acre per year for non -irrigation usage. The farmer, however, must sell his land to transfer his grandfathered right.The holder of a grandfathered non -irrigated right may sell his right for a non -irrigation use.Type i non -irrigation grandfathered rights must be sold with the retired irrigated land they are based on; however, type 2 rights that are not appurtenant to any land may be sold apart from the sale of land.
It appears that the City is entitled to both grandfathered irrigated and non- irrigated rights on some of the parcels of land it owns in Avra Valley.
Minimize Environmental Impacts
Possible uses for Avra Valley land must not contribute to pollution of the air by dust or pollen, promote growth of weeds, increase the potential for flooding downstream or contribute to noise and visual pollution.
Management for Public Benefit
Activities permitted on City land should result in public benefit.Benefits could include reduction of maintenance costs for the property and /or the generation of potential income from the property to offset management costs on other City properties. Other benefits may include recreational activities for Tucson residents, new employment opportunities and reduced costs to water rate payers.
Minimize Capital Costs
Little or no cost should be incurred by the City for any program developed on its land. Budgetary restrictions have curtailed the City's ability to provide needed services for the people of Tucson; therefore, any suggestions for uses of Avra Valley land that necessitate large expenditures of funds would not be acceptable.
24 Development
Development, either residential or industrial, on City -owned Avra Valley land would require water, sewer and other services to be extended beyond the existing service area.
A primary constraint to controlled management of City land is the mixed pattern of land ownership in the area.Other private landisavailable for development, and development will occur regardless of City plans for its land.If growth is to occur in Avra Valley it may be preferable to plan development on retired farmland while maintaining native desert plant cover to control erosion, dust and weed growth. The possibility of development on City land without groundwater use is discussed in the section on water harvesting.
Although residential or industrial development of City-owned land in Avra Valley would reduce some management problems, such development would increase problemsassociatedwithurbansprawlandcouldexacerbatetheexisting management problem because of the increased population of the Valley. Neverthe- less, continued population growth in the area will result in increasing demand for urban /industrial development of the retired land.
Prohibited Uses
Several categories of land use should be prohibited from consideration in regard to City land in Avra Valley due to potential hazards or to water require- ments. Table 3 presents a listing of prohibited land uses.
25 Table 3. Prohibited Uses of City of Tucson Avra Valley Land
Nuclear Wastes Disposal Toxic Wastes Disposal Dumping of Organic Wastes Dumping of Non -organic Wastes Construction of Chemical Plants Construction of Nuclear Power Plants Construction of Nuclear Processing Facilities Construction of Manufacturing Plants That Would Use Radioactive Materials Construction of Manufacturing Plants That Would Use Potentially Toxic Chemicals Construction of All Facilities that Would Require Large Amounts of Water For Their Operation
26 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
City -owned land in Avra Valley can be left idle or managed for economic return.Various management options and the constraints associated with each are outlined in this chapter.
Maintenance
Disking
Disking was the ,primary method of weed control during the first years following purchase of much of the land in Avra Valley.Although disking removed growing Russian thistle plants, it also provided an ideal seedbed for a new crop. Sometimes several crops of Russian thistle were produced in one year on the same fields. The cost of disking was approximately $5 per acre for each treatment. As a method of weed control, disking has the disadvantage of requiring repeated, expensive treatments in perpetuity.
Mowing
Mowing has proven to be the least expensive and most appropriate method to control Russian thistle on City land in Avra Valley. The purchase of a tractor and related equipment enables City personnel to mow the plants when necessary. Mowing produces minimum soil disturbance, minimizes seed production if done prior to seed maturity and leaves the material on site.
Pulvi-Mulcher
The use of a pulvi- mulcher on City land in Avra Valley has had some success. This tool crushes Russian thistleplants so that they cannot be blown into neighboring fields. The pulvi- mulcher also can create a compacted shallow furrowed seedbed.
The furrowed seedbed prepared by the pulvi- mulcher promotes an even distribution of moisture over a field and produces a compacted soil surface that
27 reduces but does not eliminate establishment of Russian thistle. The result of pulvi- mulcher treatment depends upon the length of time since retirement of the farmland, the species composition of established plant cover and other factors such as soil type. In general, the use of the pulvi- mulcher should be limited to areas that have an extensive Russian thistle population and that must be treated to prevent the plants from being blown off City land.
Land Imprinter
Experiments were conducted on City -owned Avra Valley land with a prototype land imprinter. The imprinter was designed to imprint rainwater -irrigated seedbeds on the soil surface and performed up to specifications.
However, successful establishment of perennial grasses was limited except for blue panic and bermuda grass.Limiting factors were competition from broad -leaf weeds and the below normal rainfall during the years when these experiments were conducted (R.M. Dixon, personal communication).
Burning
Burning was tested as a method to control Russian thistle plants on City - owned Avra Valley land.This method of control has some disadvantages:the control of the fire once it is ignited and the ease with which Russian thistle re- establishes itself.Burning should be limited to areas where large numbers of dry plants have accumulated and where lives and property are not threatened.
Moth Release Program
The use of insects to control the growth of Russian thistle has shown very little, if any, promise in Avra Valley.
Coleophora parthenica, a moth, was released in March 1978, at various locations (Table 4) on City-owned retired farmland in Avra Valley to attempt biological control of Russianthistle; however, these attempts did not prove successful.It appears that several species of introduced insects would be required to control the plants (Robert Pemberton, personal communication).
28 Table 4. Locations of Introduction of Coleophora parthenica in Avra Valley
Amount of Material Used Farm for Release (yd3)
Hurst 3 Gin 7.5 Weinstein 2.5 Comiskey - Levkowitz 5 John Kai 5.5 Amway 5
Cactus Avra 1 Davison 7.5 Wallis 4.5 98 0.75 Growers Finance 2 Double Z.S. 5
Revegetation*
Most of the land the City now owns in Avra Valley has been retired for at least five to six years.Natural succession (revegetation) since retirement has occurred on some of the City lands and has produced areas in which Russian thistle is no longer the dominant plant.Instead, numerous other species have become estab- lished, especially Mediterranean grass. Russian thistle remains in these areas but in greatly reduced numbers.Some areas continue to be disturbed, however, and Russian thistle continues to be a problem.
Supplemental irrigation water usually is required to establish vegetation on abandoned agricultural land or on barren, overgrazed rangeland if it is desirable to
*Some understanding of the climate and natural vegetation of Avra Valley is needed to evaluate revegetation possibilities for City -owned farmland. This information is presented in Appendices B and C.
29 accelerate the rate of natural revegetation or to establish species that have economic potential.
Range imprinting and furrowing level soil before retirement of the farmland would aid in establishing plants. These treatments would encourage rain water to infiltrate more uniformly into the soil and would reduce runoff.Little natural revegetation has occurred, however, on flat, clay lands near the Eloy - Casa Grande area even after 30 years of abandonment (Karpiscak, 1980).
It is suggested that the City require the farmer to leave his field planted in alfalfa or a desirable range grass as a condition of purchase in the future to help reduce the establishment of Russian thistle on the retired farmland.Without irrigation the alfalfa and /or range grass probably would die, but the soil surface would not be disturbed much and probably would not support Russian thistle establishment to the same extent as would a retired cotton field.
Experimental Management for Economic Return
Alternative Crops
Many crops have been suggested as having economic potential for cultivation on retured City agricultural land in Avra Valley.All of these plants would require some supplemental water during establishment.
The current interpretation of the Groundwater Management Act of 1980 by the Department of Water Resources is that the application of any water including groundwater, treated effluent or repumped surface -harvested rain water used for irrigation to establish plants on retired farmland would appear to be in violation of the law,, although nothing inthe law appears specifically to exclude water harvesting.
If the present Department of Water Resources interpretation is permitted to stand unchallanged, it would limit potential use of City land for cultivating new crops.City purchases of land in the future could specify establishment of long-
30 lived, high -value crops with groundwater irrigation before retiring the land and water -harvesting system irrigation for maintenance after retirement.This plan could be developed from research on experimental plantings on City -owned land that has an irrigation grandfathered water right.
The number of acres farmed in Arizona, particularly in Pima County, will continue to decline if land acquisition to preserve the groundwater for future municipal and industrial use remains the policy. An alternative approach would have farmers retain land ownership and continue agricultural production, but using harvested rainfall for irrigation and /or cultivating new arid -adapted crops that require substantially less water than conventional agricultural crops.The water saved by adopting this alternative could be made available for municipal and industrial needs. Putting this alternative into practice would require action by the State Legislature.
Table 5 shows amounts of water applied to selected crops in Pima County, Arizona, without regard to the type or efficiency of the irrigation systems used.
Table 5. Water Withdrawn for Selected Crops in Pima County, Arizona
Seasonal Water Withdrawal Crop Inches
Alfalfa 72 Corn 38 Cotton 48 Lettuce 42 Pasture 78 Pecans 78 Sorghum 38 Jojoba 18
Source: Hathorn, S., 1978; and N.G. Wright, 1978.
31 Table 6 shows the 1978 allocation of irrigated acres by crop type and total water withdrawal per crop in Avra Valley.
Table 6. Acreage and Water Withdrawal in Avra Valley, Arizona, by Crop, 1978*
Water Withdrawal Crop Acreage Acre -Feet
Alfalfa 1,521 9,126 Corn 30 96 Cotton 14,923 59,692 Lettuce 3,501 12,253 Pasture 484 3,146 Pecans 18 117 Sorghum 2,030 6,496
TOTAL 22,507 91,000**
* Unpublished data from 1978 Crop Survey, Department of Soils, Water and Engineering, University of Arizona. * * Rounded off.
Table 6 shows that about 91,000 acre -feet per year are used to irrigate about 22,000 acres in Avra Valley, slightly more than 4.0 acre -feet per year per acre.If water use could be reduced to 1.5 acre -feet per acre per year by introducing new crops or developing water -harvesting irrigation systems, total water withdrawal (use) would be reduced nearly 50 percent to 58,000 acre -feet per year. The difference less any recharge now occurring from agricultural return infiltration would remain in storage for future use. This would increase the water that could be pumped into the Tucson area and would decrease the amount of water requied to sustain agriculture. Plantings on City land could serve to demonstrate the applicability of new crops to local farmers. 32 The Arizona Water Commission (1978) estimates natural recharge in Avra Valley to be 4,000 acre -feet per year.In 1978, groundwater overdraft in Avra Valley (Table 7) was 103,000 acre -feet per year (use minus recharge) for agricul- tural, mining, domestic and export purposes.If exports to the Tucson area are 20,000 acre -feet per year or less in the foreseeable future and agricultural uses decline to 34,000 acre -feet per year by introducing new crops, the total aquifer depletion will be 54,000 acre -feet per year, a 48 percent reduction from the current overdraft.
Table 7. Water Use in Avra Valley During 19781
Water Use Alternative Water Sector (AFY)2 Use AFY
Agriculture 91,000 34,000 Urban and Mining 4,000 4,000 Exports 12, 000 20,000 TOTAL 107,000 58,000
1 The difference between use (107,000 acre -feet per year) and natural recharge (4,000 acre -feet per year) represents basin overdraft (103,000 acre -feet per year).
2 Acre -feet per year. The Arizona Water Commission (1978) estimates that in 1975 the quantity of groundwater stored but not necessarily in the upper 700 feet of the Avra Valley aquifer was 9.5 million acre -feet. An additional 6.2 million acre -feet is estimated to be stored between 700 and 1,200 feet. The annual reduction in the depletion rate of up to 54,000 acre -feet per year, if this new -crop selection alternative were implemented, amounts to about 0.6 percent of the groundwater stored above 700 feet in the aquifer.These estimates do not take into consideration the actual amounts of recoverable water nor the high cost of pumping from great depths.
33 Although overdraft would remain a reality, farmers could continue crop production and Tucson would have access to additional water and still save more than $12 million by not purchasing land (Frank Brooks, personal communication).
To realize such a water savings will require a change from traditional crops to those requiring much less water. Such crops can be divided into five general groups: 1. Food for man and forage for livestock; 2. Wood products for fuel, construction and manufacturing; 3. Fiber for various uses; 4. Extracts that may provide a variety of materials such as gums, waxes, rubber and pharmaceuticals; and 5. Biomass for energy production.
Extensive research is being conducted on the economic potential of arid- adapted plants from the perspectives of economic botany and control of deserti- fication. Four plants are discussed here because of their adaptability to cultivation in the southwestern United States and their potential for commercial development. These plants are listed in Table 8.
Guayule: Guayule (Parthenium argentatum) is an arid- adapted plant with substantial history of commercial production. Guayule is native to the Chihuahuan Desert of northern Mexico and southwestern Texas in areas that have annual precipitation of 10 inches or less. A bushy, perennial shrub, guayule grows naturally to about 2 feet in height.It has an extensive root system that may spread 10 feet laterally and penetrate to depths of more than 20 feet.It is well adapted to desert conditions.
The primary product derived from guayule is rubber.By- products include resins that may prove to have substantial economic value in processing rubber. The bagasse, or plant residue from processing, has sufficient estimated energy values to power a processing facility, making it energy self- sufficient (Nivert, Glymph and Snyder, 1978).
Guayule rubber was first commercially produced circa 1900 by the Intercon- tinental Rubber Company; first in Mexico, then in Arizona and later in the Salinas
34 Summary Table of Potential Arid- Adapted Agricultural Plants* Table 8. Level of GuayulePlant PartheniumScientific Name Life Cycle WholePartsUsed ProductsRubber, MechanizedOperationsCultural Significance Potential Large Relatively Advanced DevelopmentCommercial w Jojoba Simmondsiaargentatumchinensis PerrenialPerennial PlantSeed LiquidHard andWax Resins Hand Labor Large DemonstrationExperimental/ TumbleweedBuffaloGourd foetidissimaCucurbita Salsola PerennialAnnual Above- Seed "Tumblelogs"Protein andEdible Oil MechanizedMechanized Large Experimental/Experimental *Adapted in part from Theissen, Knox and Mann (1978). kali PortionGround for Energyor Pellets Demonstration Valley of California. U.S. Forest Service Emergency Rubber Project (ERP) personnel planted 32,000 acres of guayule during World War II to offset wartime loss of Hevea brasiliensis (rubber tree) rubber imports (McGinnies, 1977).The ERP survey of the Southwest indicated that 37 million acres in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas were suitable for guayule production.
Guayule rubber production ceased between World War II and the 1970s because of the development of cheaper synthetic elastomers and the reinstitution of open international trade of Hevea natural rubber.The recent escalation of crude oil prices is rapidly increasing the costs of synthetic rubber since oil is the primary feedstock for synthetic rubber.Hevea rubber prices are increasing also.These combined factors have caused guayule rubber production to be economically competitive with Hevea natural rubber.It was forecast that guayule rubber could compete on the rubber market when costs of Hevea rubber reached $.65 per pound. Currently, natural rubber is fluctuating between $.70 and $.80 per pound on the New York market.Yields from guayule should be about 500 pounds of rubber per acre per year with a three- to four -year harvest cycle with the use of current guayule technology (Foster, et al 1980).
Unlike the rubber tree, which can be tapped, the entire guayule plant must be removed to extract the rubber.Experimental evidence indicates that mowing may be a successful means of harvesting guayule for rubber production.Plants then regenerate from the remaining root stock. Guayule is hardy, and may survive 30 to 40 years under desert conditions (National Academy of Sciences, 1977a).
The level of guayule development technology is relatively advanced; however, rubber extraction requirements indicate that planting guayule for commercial purposes must be coordinated with development of a processing facility. For optimal rubber production, in southern Arizona, 18 to 24 inches of combined precipitation and irrigation is necessary.
Jojoba: Jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis) is the arid- adapted crop plant that has received the most public attention in recent years.At maturity jojoba is a shrub that ranges in size from 10 to 15 feet in height and approximately 10 feet in
36 diameter.It is native to the Sonoran Desert of the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico.It grows in areas that receive 5 to 18 inches of annual precipitation, but can subsist with as little as 4 inches of precipitation (Theisen, Knox and Mann, 1978).Wild jojoba is common in the Tucson area.It occurs on rocky slopes of the Tucson, Rincon, Catalina and Tortolita mountains.
Seeds of the female jojoba plant are approximately 50 percent liquid wax (oil) by weight (Johnson and Foster, 1980).The liquid wax is similar in physical properties to the oil of the endangered sperm whale. The liquid wax is being used by the cosmetics industry and has potential for use as a chemical feedstock; as a non- digestable replacement for vegetable oil (since it does not become rancid), in foods and hair oils; as an antifoaming agent and high -pressure lubricant; and as a culture medium for the penicillin industry.The hydrogenated wax isa hard, white crystalline wax with potential uses as a floor and car wax, and in other applications.
Liquid jojoba wax sells for about $25 per pound, may times the value of stockpiled sperm whale oil; however, the price is the result of the poor 1981 harvest and the high demand for planting seed. As plantation grown seed becomes available the price for liquid jojoba wax will decrease. Harvesting is entirely from wild stands and the market for jojoba products is highly specialized.Plantings of jojoba are expected to take five years before seed harvesting can begin.The National Academy of Sciences (1977b) estimates an annual market for 275 million pounds of jojoba wax if the price stabilizes between $.40 and $.75 per pound. Midwest Research Institute (1980) estimates a U.S. market for approximately 15 million pounds of liquid jojoba wax by 1990, with a cost range of $1 to $1.50 per pound.
Young jojoba seedlings require protection from temperatures below 20F and substantial amounts of water during the first few weeks after germination to promote rapid root development.Jojoba has a high salinity tolerance but needs coarse, well -drained soils.Seed production is highly sensitive to flucuations in climate, particularly winter temperatures and precipitation timing.Jojoba plants can survive from 100 to 200 years and with little maintenance necessary to produce a valuable crop, the harvest of which does not disturb the plant.Under present levels of development, harvest is highly labor intensive.However, some nut -crop
37 harvesting equipment, pistachio harvesters for example, may prove to be adaptable to harvesting jojoba.
Jojoba technology is at the experimental, demonstration stage. Although more information is needed on variety selection, male- female planting ratios, nutrition and optimum water requirements, jojoba plantations are being established. Johnson and Foster (1980) found in 1979 that 3,700 acres in California, 1,700 acres in Mexico and 1,000 acres in Arizona had been planted with jojoba.In addition, there are plantings of jojoba in Australia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt plus Florida, New Mexico and Texas in the United States.
Buffalo Gourd:Buffalo gourd (Cucurbita foetidissima) occurs as a "weed" in the U.S. Southwest where rainfall is low (10 to 12 inches per year).It is an asexual perennial that is dormant during frost seasons.Buffalo gourd generally has a 120 - day growth period during summer months.The plant occurs as a spreading, prostrate vine with enormously extensive root systems.The fleshy roots, which grow to a mass of 100 pounds, store large quantities of water and nutrients that can sustain the plant through periods of drought.
The primary harvested crop would be the seeds that are produced in the yellow and green striped gourds. The vines may have forage value, and there is potential economic value from the root starch, although commercial use of the latter would require destruction of the plant.
Estimates of seed production range from 1,000 to 2,700 pounds per acre per year (Bemis, 1979; Theissen, Knox and Mann, 1978). The seed contains 30 percent to 35 percent protein, with nutritionally essential linoleic acid predominant. The seed also is high in unsaturated fatty acids and contains up to 35 percent oil. Seed meal, subsequent to processing, is comparable in quality to soybean and cottonseed meal.
Assuming 800 pounds per acre of vegetable oil and 400 pounds per acre of protein valued at $.25 perpound and $.08 per pound, respectively a product value of nearly $250 per acre might be realized from buffalo gourd production (Johnson and Foster, 1980).
38 A major effort to domesticate the buffalo gourd and to industrialize its production is being conducted at the University of Arizona; however, buffalo gourd production is largely experimental and substantial research is required before it is commercialized.
Russian Thistle: Studies exploring the potential use of Russian thistle (Salsola kali) as an energy resource are underway at the University of Arizona under the sponsorship of the Arizona Solar Energy Research Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy. Researchers have demonstrated the use of the biomass as an energy resource.Commercially available machines (swathers, rakes, balers and tubers) can be used to harvest the biomass. Seeds for planting can be harvested by combine and cleaned.
Coarsely, ground Russian thistle, either as the only feedstock (Tumblelogs) or in combination with other material (pecan hulls, jojoba meal), can be compressed into dense, stable synthetic logs for use in fireplaces or wood -burning stoves. Russian thistle biomass in the form of cubes may be a suitable boiler fuel for small- scale facilities.
Cost estimates have been generated for producing and processing Russian thistle biomass into synthetic fireplace logs (Table 9 and Appendices D and E). Production costs per ton of dry material range from $33.85 to $59.39. These costs include a profit to the farmer, assumed to be 6 percent of the land value. Production costs, per million British thermal units (MBtu), range from $2.69 to $4.71.
Estimated costs to grow and process Russian thistle into synthetic fireplace logs (Appendix E), using a 10- machine plant operating at 85 percent efficiency, ranges from $5.09 per MBtu with a raw material cost of $33.85 per ton to $6.30 per MBtu with a raw material cost of $48.80 per ton.The current retail price of synthetic logs for fireplaces made from pine sawdust is approximately $13 per MBtu.
On the basis of information from pelletizing machinery manufacturers, the cost for pelletizing is $15 per ton. Therefore the total production processing costs
39 Table 9. Summary of Russian Thistle Production Costs Dry -Land and Irrigated Production, Arizona and West Texas
Dry -Land Irrigated Arizona High PlainsCentralWestern New MexicoWest TexasArizonaArizona
Annual rainfall, inches 10 18 8 4 Annual irrigation water, inches none none 14 18 Cost of irrigation water, $ /acre -ft. - - 40 6 Russian thistle harvest, tons /acre yr. 1.5 3.0 6.0 6.0 Russian thistle harvest, MBtu /acre yr. 18.9 37.8 75.6 75.6
Land value, $ /acre 500 1000 835 835 Annual Costs and Charges, $ /acre yr. Land rental charges' 30.00 60.00 50.00 50.00 Property taxes 8.00 8.00 8.00 - Irrigation water - - 46.67 9.00 Seed @ $20 /lb. 10.00 10.00 15.00 15.00 Fertilizer (NH3 @ $175/ton) 4.38 4.38 8.76 8.76 Machinery depreciation2 4.18 4.18 4.47 4.47 Water -well depreciation3 - - 18.58 - Labor and Machine Operation for Planting and fertilizing 8.66 8.66 9.46 9.46 Irrigation - - 8.77 11.25 Cutting 2.50 2.50 5.83 5.83 Harvesting 15.00 15.00 75.00 75.00 Overhead and management4 5.00 5.00 10.00 10.00 Interest on production costs5 1.37 1.37 5.38 4.33 Total annual costs 89.07 119.09 265.92 203.10 Product Cost
$ /ton 59.39 39.70 44.32 33.85 $ /MBtu 4.71 3.15 3.52 2.69
'Annual land use or rental charges are assumed to be 6.0 percent of the land value. 2Machinery includes tractor, disks, fertilizer rig, drills, etc. 3Water wells and pumps. 40verhead and management costsincludedepreciationon truck andtools, maintenance on fences and bookkeeping charges.
5lnterest . charges are assumed to be 12 percent per year for three months on all production costs including overhead and management.
40 for Russian thistle pellets would vary from $48.85 per ton using $33.85 -per -ton raw - material costs to $74.39 per ton using $59.39 -per -ton raw -material costs. Costs per MBtu would range from $3.88 to $5.90.Most other fuels fall within the range of coal and oil which are $2.07 and $6.32 respectively.
Tumbleweed has a high energy content.Tests conducted by Meinel, et al (1979), indicate that energy levels in field -dried tumbleweed range from 6,500 to 6,800 Btu /lb. These values are comparable with the calorific value of lignite, which varies from 5,580 to 7,920 Btu /lb (Foster, Rawles and Karpiscak, 1980).
Other Plant Candidates: Researchers at the University of Arizona, the Arizona -Sonora Desert Museum and other organizations are actively pursuing the use of other species as potential crops for arid areas.
The development of desert broom, halophytes, agave, mesquite or eucalyptus plantations are all in the early stages of study and information is very limited.
Adobe Production
The use of soil as a building material has been receiving increasing attention either in the form of compacted earth or adobe brick.
The City has leased a quarter section of the retired Comiskey Farm for the production of adobe brick. The current lessee has expended considerable time and money in setting up the facility for adobe production; however, the lessee has thus far failed to produce a marketable product after more than two years of effort.
Land -Water Tradeoffs
Avra Valley Irrigation District
The Avra Valley Irrigation District was formed in 1980 to distribute the Central Arizona Project (CAP) allotment of 40,000 acre -feet to farmers in Avra
41 Valley.The district encompasses most of the retired farmland held by the City north of Mile Wide Road (Figure 9).
It would be relatively easy for the new district to use treated effluent in conjunction with CAP water in its distribution system, particularly in the northern part of Avra Valley.Treated effluent could be substituted for CAP water as the demand for CAP water by the City of Tucson increases.Such use of treated effluent and CAP water by the Avra Valley Irrigation District should reduce the rate at which the water table is being lowered. Figure 10 shows the proposed alignment of the CAP aqueduct through Avra Valley.The selection of an Avra Valley alignment for the CAP aqueduct instead of an alignment east of the Tucson Mountains would greatly facilitate delivery of CAP water to the Avra Valley Irrigation District.
Agricultural Use of City Retired Land by Papago Indians
The Papago Indians will receive a CAP allotment that will be used in part to meet the irrigation requirements for the small amount of San Xavier District farmland; however, additional desert areas in the district would have to be cleared and leveled to use the entire allotment. An alternative would be to lease the City land in Avra Valley to the 7'apago Indians, thereby allowing them to use additional portions of their CAP allotment on that land. CAP water could be delivered to the retired farmland through the yet -to -be -built delivery system of the Avra Valley Irrigation District.It would be possible also to supply CAP water to the 6,000 acres of Papago Reservation land already extending into the middle of Avra Valley.This land, combined with the city retired land, would permit beneficial use of much of the Papago Indians' allocation of CAP water.
This possible alternative was not contemplated at the time the Arizona Groundwater Law was enacted.Some provision would have to be made whereby City land leased by the Indians could be served by the Indian CAP allotment, ;ardless of its previous status. This probably would require a special amendment the Arizona Legislature. The Indian lease arrangement could be made compatible th contemplated legislative settlement of Papago water rightsclaims,as
42 R.(T 12 E. R. IO E. P I N AL R.10 E.R.11 E. C O U N T Y R.IE. T-_-- 6 EXPLANATION ! 3 --7-1-1-7* A ! - -a--I Southern Pacific Railroad
B 17 1--y 1--4Natural Gas Line /f(- __--1 I - T- Transmission Line TRICO- MARANA IR02 -I 22 23 24r N. 19 /19 201 I DRIER L 913 -T- - -7- Underground telephone Marana Cable 29 I 26 21 I 30 291 I , /y ® Unpaved Road T. T. , I 34 1i 11 -=--:1 312- 33I ...At, 4=1.oPaved Road --. 3s S. S. T. T. (9- State Highway' 6 le' w 4 3 2 12 12 1 áIF S. S. Interstate Highway 31 I 7 l'6 County Line
> ?8 7 0 g Airstrip(limited facilities)
Q AWfield(limited facilities)
- -1 - " ' - ' ' ' . . . ' / / 9 28 I 27 261 25 310 ---e Irrigation District Boundary
1 T WI PEAK ® Preliminary Distribution System 12
S. I Irrigated Land to be Served T 13 Land owned by City of Tucson S. i///
e le 17 13 MANVILLERO NATIONAL
19 FIGURE 9. Map Showing Avra Valley T Irrigation District. T. % 13 13 31 1 1 S. 33 /I 34 = 36 S. RO -4 ' T 1 _I; .. T 3 2 : `q0/ ' 14 14 I'41 `S. : TUCSON., I 12
: h.s.-4,,,..O I MOUNToNi
13 18 17 16
PAPAGO PARK 19 19
30
T 14 S.
T.
15
S.
SCALE 0 2 3 4 3 ..I _.. mil es R. 10 E.R. IIE. R.IIE. R.12E. R.10 E. 43 R. 12 E. R. ,0 E. PINAL R.10 E.R. II E. COUNTY R. II E. -7."77". 6 EXPLANATION 3 ''''17.1 2 -7' 477 ------9 3 rr'l 9 ,2 ------Southern Pacific Railroad MAROI
6 113 '3 ro 17 ''. Ls 16 Natural Gas Line
. L . .;\.,...,,, ... '/1 , "'RICOOAARANA I R021 -r-Transmission Line ,-.° l ..40 23 .9 .49 201 .0 21 23, y i 1 I GRIERL RO /4- -r- Underground Telephone 1-- .1 30 Cable Z91 r..N. 29 :I 28 30 26N,_ 4. T 1 'C Unpaved Road ,,,.___ _ t . __L_ _....._ 1. - -
312 313 ... 34ia'F. k...N.'s1, 3, I I 1_1,------Paved Road S. I .`Xnko C * * T I T State Highway 12 s....._... 12 'R - S. L- - 7 li S. \ IAVAIL "/VALLIT Interstate Highway 44 7 ,41_, , County Line !, 1- -)07- \ '9 % i TWIN Airstrip(Iimited facilities) -... ,----- r * r..0.19-- A. 2!al 22 / 11 Airfield(limited facilities) 1- ro 214
.1''''.' 26 25 Land Owned by City of Tucson T. I
12 Aqueduct Corridor 34 35 36 S. Feeder Corridor T. mmii 2 1 13
1 59-Vss 1 s.
RUOASI LL RO 9 _ 9 I 10 12 Adapted from U.S. Department of Interior, 1981
113 re 0 .5 .4 E fel 1;\,.1/4. 13 1 -X.7°Tj SAGUARO. NATIONAL-
1 9 is 2 21 I 2/2 23?,,,..]1,4 01 / L/ ".' f' MONUMENT 3C 29 28 27 3 26 25 4141 4r FIGURE 10. Map Showing Proposed Alignment I 3i I
?. 35 \ 32 3 44 33 34 V.41.,..oe. 3 6 S. of Central Arizona Project Aqueduct o 01.0, T. through Aura Valley. 2 3 2 \4; 14 I '1 s TUCSON 7 12
LI MOUNTAIN
, .. , ,6 15 14 13 ie 4. 17 16 is 14 PAPAGO INDIAN 4 1., PARK N i9 '9 20 21 2¿ 1 2? F....7 .44 20 21
, -4 _ I...... =...... 9.....i...... RESERVATION4 33 29 28 2? ., 26 1 25 30 29 7 I T. 14
32 33 34 '1 35 36 31 32 35 I 36 31 S.
1
6 4 I 3 2% 6 3 .1, 2 15
ri S.
e I 10 9 i0 11 ,2
SCALE 15 4 6 5 3 2 3 -1
-4 eS R. 10 E. R. 11 RIlE. R. 12 E. R 10E. E.
44 resolution of the lawsuit filed by and for the Papago Tribe against the City of Tucson and others.
As the demand for CAP water grows in the Tucson area, the Papago Tribe could increase the income derived from its CAP allotment through an arrangement with the City of Tucson whereby some of the Tribe's CAP allotment could be exchanged for money and /or treated sewage effluent.
Institutional feasibility of such a plan obviously would include policy consi- derations such as (1) willingness of the Indians to use CAP water and effluent outside the Reservation, and (2) willingness of the City to give favorable long -term leases of the retired farmland to the Papagos.
Water Harvesting
Water harvesting is defined as the creation of artificial catchments and reservoirs to collect an store precipitation for beneficial purposes. These purposes can range from livestoqk, recreation, domestic and industrial, as well as agricultural uses.
Annual precipitation in Avra Valley averages from 10 inches to 12 inches. This amount is equivalent to 270,000 gallons to 325,000 gallons of water per acre per year. Domestic water prices are $2 per 1,000 gallons; therefore capturing precipitation in Avra Valley would constitute a harvestable product worth $540 to $650 per acre per year.
Water Catchment Methods
Various economical methods of treatment of water catchments have been developed at the Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, and elsewhere (Cluff and Frobel, 1978). The leading methods are listed in Table 10, in order of increasing cost.
45 Table 10. 1981 Cost Estimates of Different Water- Harvesting Methods*
Cost/ Expected Acre ($) Effie. ( %) Life (Yrs.)
1. Compacted Earth 110 15 -20 3 -5 2. Compacted Earth, Sodium Treated 300 40 -60 10 -15 3. Gravel- Covered Plastic 2,200 60 -80 30 -40 4. Wax Treated 2,650 80 -90 5 -10 5. Fiberglass Asphalt Chipcoated 4,925 85 -95 15 -20 6. Asphalt Rubber Chipcoated 5,460 85 -95 20 -25 7. Polypropylene -Reinforced Mortar- 11,400 90 -95 50 -60 Covered Plastic
* Cost and efficiency estimates are based on installing a 40 -acre system on retired farmland in Avra Valley.
Compacted Earth:This is the simplest treatment.It consists of shaping the land into a series of troughs and ridges using a road grader. Generally, a 5 percent slope is used iwth a trough depression every 50 feet.Thus, a 4 -inch cut would be made to form the trough and a 4 -inch fill would be made to form the ridge.On cleared, retired farmland a grader should be able to complete treatment of an acre every two hours. By equipping the grader with a laser, excellent slope control could be achieved.
After the catchment is shaped with a grader and smoothed using a rotary rock rake, it is compacted after a rainstorm has occurred.The catchment can be recompacted periodically as needed to maintain efficiency.The compacted earth treatment has a relatively low efficiency and requires considerable weed control compared with the systems described below.
Salt -Treated Compacted Earth:The addition of 5 tons per acre of sodium chloride to a compacted earth catchment before compaction greatly increases
46 efficiency and reduces weed growth dramatically.It also eliminates the need for a reservoir liner on most soil types. The water from a salt- treated catchment is of excellent quality, generally lower than 200 ppm dissolved solids.The harvested water will carry dispersedclay,however, making coagulation and filtration necessary before domestic or industrial use.
This method is particularly well suited for direct agricultural uses. The land can be readily reclaimed at any time by disking or plowing the catchment area.
Gravel- Covered Plastic:This treatment starts with a salt- treated, com- pacted -earth treatment; then a 6 -mil polyethylene liner cover with gravel is installed, using a plastic- dispensing, self -propelled chip spreader.This treatment provides water of excellent quality for all types of uses.It could be used for domestic purposes with very little treatment. A system installed in 1965 is still in excellent condition. The system's average efficiency has been 70 percent.
Wax Treated: This treatment is made following a compacted -earth treatment. Wax is applied molten, using an asphalt boot truckThe wax treatment should be made in the summer when the sun will remelt the wax and cause it to move into the soil profile.This treatment was developed at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Tempe.It works well on some soils but does poorly on others, so it would have to be tested on a small scale on Avra Valley soils before treating large areas.
Water from wax treated soils is of high quality.It contains some sediment that is removed before it is used for domestic or industrial purposes.
Fiberglass Asphalt Chipcoated (FAC):This is a high efficiency, long -lasting treatment that is suitable for most soil types. The FAC treatment was developed at the University of Arizona. Itdiffers from earlier work done at the Water Conservation Laboratory in Tempe, where a heavier fiberglass was used and the catchments were not chipcoated.
A relatively thin (10 mil) fiberglass matting is used to reduce costs.The fabric is dispensed by a roller mounted just ahead of the spray bar on an asphalt boot
47 truck.Asphalt is sprayed through the material, bonding it to the ground to form a reinforced asphalt membrane. The membrane then is covered with a layer of 3/16 - inch to 3/8 -inch gravel chips. Gravel spreaders on the backs of dump trucks or self - propelled chip spreaders are used to apply the chips.The treatment will support occasional light -vehicle traffic in contrast to gravel covered plastic, which should not be driven on.
The water will have some oxidation products from asphalt and has to be passed through a charcoal filter. There is relatively little sediment in the water.
The largest application of this treatment was on a 9 -acre area at the Black Mesa Water Harvesting Agrisystem. Thisisprobably the largest impervious catchment for harvesting water outside Australia, where several towns are using water from asphalt- concrete water -harvesting systems.
Asphalt- Rubber Chipcoated (ARC): The ARC method also was developed at the University of Arizona. About four years ago three experimental 8 -by -16 -foot plots were installed using 0.5 gallons of asphalt per square yard. Two of the three plots were chipcoated; the third was coated with sand. The sand coating has eroded but the underlying material is in good conditionThe chipcoated treatments are working very well.
The process consists of pulverizing used rubber tires and mixing the product into asphalt at a temperature of 350 F.About 25 percent of the asphalt- rubber mixture is rubber.
Although no largerscale ARC water -harvesting catchments have been installed, it has been used for seepage control. The material has been selected to line a 250 -acre pond at the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant.
The water quality from this type of catchment is about the same as the FAC catchment. The material costs are higher but it is easier to apply since no fabric is needed; the pulverized rubber provides the reinforcement. The membrane remains flexible so that it can be placed on most soil types, including expansive clay.
48 Polypropylene- Reinforced Mortar- Covered Plastic:This type of treatment consists of laying down 10 -mil polyethylene plastic. A polypropylene mesh is then laid down and covered with a thin layer of mortar. The treatment is untried on a large scale, but has sufficient potential that it should be considered.The method has been tested using wire reinforcement for about 20 years on the side of a reservoir.It has held up well except for the wire which has rusted in some areas. Using polypropylene reinforcement would eliminate this problem.In the past, the material has been placed using hand labor or guniting. The cost given in Table 10 is the cost of guniting the thin concrete mortar layer onto 10 -mil black polyethylene plastic.These costs could be reduced by developing specialized equipment for application.The use of specialized equipment would probably involve more land preparation, but with the development of laser controlled graders and scrapers, the cost of precise shaping may not be formidable.
The resulting catchment would be a durable source of water that is free from contamination.If properly stored, this water could be used for domestic purposes with very little treatment.
Water Storage Methods
Collecting water with a treated water catchment reduces spillway and sedimentation problems generally associated with water reservoirs in a semiarid environment. However, seepage and evaporation from reservoirs are problems that need to be addressed.
Seepage from reservoirs can be reduced by various methods, including some of those developed for treating the water -harvesting catchments shown in Table 10.If a salt treatment were used on the catchment, the reservoir would be self -sealing. For an impervious treatment, the reservoir would have to be lined unless seepage could be pumped from the groundwater aquifer.In Avra Valley most of the seepage from a large reservoir system could be recovered.Thus, surface ponds could be unlined; however, evaporation would need to be controlled.
Water could be concentrated in smaller compartments (compartmented reser- voirs) to reduce surface area and thus greatly reduce evaporation (Cluff, 1977).
49 Three to four compartments per reservoir system would be recommended for a 40- acre water -harvesting system.If a higher storage efficiency were needed one or two compartments could be protected with a floating cover.A floating solar collector also could furnish both electrical and thermal energy to development (Cluff, 1980). A computerized model has been developed to optimize the compart- mented reservoir system design.
Water -Harvesting Agrisystems
A basic water -harvesting agrisystem utilizes a shaped water catchment with plantings in the drainageways, and has been demonstrated at Page Ranch, Arizona (Cluff et al, 1972; Dutt and McCreary, 1974). The retired farmland would be shaped into a ridge and flattened configuration using a road grader, as indicated in Figure 11. The ridged areas would be treated to shed rainwater onto the adjacent flatlands, which could be planted with various range grasses, agronomic crops, high -valued horticulture crops, or with non -traditional crops such as jojoba, guayule and buffalo gourd. Excess water would be collected and stored in a covered or compartmented reservoir to irrigate planted areas during the dry season.
Current groundwater law interpretation by the Arizona Department of Water Resources would not allow storage and irrigation (Michael McNulty, personal corn munication).
The width of catchment area relative to the planted area would depend on the crop, use of water by the plant and aesthetic considerations. One set of configurations is shown in Figure 11. Other constraints are the width of equipment used during construction, cultivation and harvesting. The minimum width of planted rows should approximately 12 feet to accommodate four -row planting, cultivating and harvesting equipment. In addition to grazing, range grasses could be harvested by cutting and baling, or green chopping for feedlot feeding.
The Compacted Earth Sodium Treatment (CEST) is recommended for the water -harvesting agrisystem. The catchment to planted area ratio, as indicated in Figure 11, could be increased to maximize water production for domestic use, recharge to groundwater, establishment of a fishery, or other recreational use.
50 5% slope Natural L5 in. Surface j-1 3.9 in. H---9 ft`l_ 12 fte ---H---9 ft-H Catchment Plantedto Catchment area range grass area
Natural Surface 4.0 in.
-15 ft--"d 1-4 15 ftr-----4-1 Catchment area Catchment area
Grapes, jojoba, guayule, fruit and nut trees
Natural Surface 9 in.
24 ft
Planted Catchment area Catchment area row crops
FIGURE It, Shape of Proposed Catchment Systems
51 CEST water -harvesting plot should be established on forty acres:1) to determine cost; 2) to determine efficiency and water quality; and 3) to demonstrate the utility and aesthetics of the system. Range grasses, desert oil plants, buffalo gourd, guayule, jojoba and agronomic crops should be emphasized. With the exception of jojoba and guayule production data could be obtained in a two -year period.
Rainfed Urban Development
Tucson's present per capita water use is 1,50 gallons per day or 54,760 gallons per person annually.At this rate, the rainfall occurring on Avra Valley land could provide water for five to six people per acre annually.The "rainfed population" could be doubled if greywater from urban residences were used to irrigate landscape vegetation.
Theoretically, by using water harvesting techniques with water conservation measures, both inside and outside the home, the retired farmland owned by the City could support a population of 65,000 to 78,000 people.Practically, if people occupied the retired farmland the population supported by in situ water harvesting would be reduced by an estimated 25 to 50 percent Rooftops, parking lots, driveways and roads could all feed into an in situ water -harvesting system.In addition, open areas could be treated to shed water using a treatment indicated in Table 10. Vegetation with gravel- covered plastic or chipcoated asphalt would be an acceptable landscape treatment to aesthetically improve the water -harvesting system. Surfaces coated with reinforced mortar would be very durable and could also be tinted to a soil tone or other color to fit any landscaping decor.
Very little of the retired farmland in Avra Valley is suitable for dense urban development, because of its location in the floodplain. These low -lying lands could be used as a water catchment to provide water for urban development outside of the floodplain.
"Gentleman farms" of various sizes, which could be supported using water harvesting systems could be established. These farms could be set up as individual
52 units or in modules as shown in Figure 12 and each module would be operated by the families living thereon. The density should be high enough to repay the cost of each module through resale of the property after development.The resale would be important to return the property to the tax rolls.Groundwater law probably would require modification to allow the City to sell land without losing its water rights. Deed restrictions might be placed on the land at the time of the sale to control the use of groundwater.
The water supply of each module would be self -supporting. Each module could be tied into the City of Tucson's supply system, which would remove the risk of running out of water during drought; however, an arrangement whereby water would be trucked to the development in case of drought might be more cost effective. Recharging excess water during wet periods would minimize net groundwater withdrawal. A substantial part of the module's food requirement also could be met, particularly if food -producing greenhouses were incorporated into the system.
Inititally, mobile homes could be used for housing, and then could be replaced with permanent housing after a prescribed period of time.
The module, as illustrated in Figure 12, would contain a 70 -acre desert landscape area that would allow floodwater passage and a habitat for small game. This area also would reinforce the "island" configuration of each module. Homes could be further protected from floodwaters if they were built on the soil excavated from the water storage reservoir. The inner area under the plan outlined in Figure 12 would consist of approximately 90 acres, divided into 10 -acre parcels, where a variety of crops could be grown.
Deed restrictions could be placed on the land to preserve the system for a given period of time, thus the total amount of groundwater use on a given parcel of land could be controlled.
Rainfed Industrial Development
The University of Arizona's Water Resources Research Center and the Office of Arid Lands Studies (OALS) have studied the use of a water -harvesting system that was constructed at the IBM manufacturing plant east of Tucson.
53 2640 ft. (1/2 mile)
Range grass and desert scrub (established with groundwater prior to retirement)
® M' Agronomy >. ca row crops o = co o o D w m m E ® ó cai c -. Z 2 0 ...,Equipment cif ti Óa storage .1- Garden 6- Covered storage -*- Corrals D. a 200 100 300 ft. ft. ft. o Agronomy a= 03 row crops á tA Housing o o e o o ® ç °` . z7 « 2 Equipment u., storage m cow' '0 Garden 6 c? Covered - _ - - storage orrais Collector o channel Q o
FIGURE 12. Water Harvesting Agrisystem Module for Retired Farmland Management
54 Rainfall, harvested by using rooftops and parking lots and stored in a compartmented reservoir system, will support the planned vegetation on the plant site, including a grassed recreation area. By modifying the landscaped area, water harvesting could be used to provide 100 percent of the water needed to operate the plant.
In situ water harvesting could provide sufficient water for any light industry, including small airfields, wanting to use retired farmland in Avra Valley. The groundwater basin could be used for storage a) if sufficient safeguards assured no contamination; and b) if equal amounts of water were recharged and withdrawn during a given period of time. The recharge /withdrawal period would be set using a computer program that would take into account the variations in rainfall.
Summary
Retired farmland could be used for agricultural farms or industrialized urban areas using water -harvesting technology.The cost of water from this type of development could exceed the cost of groundwater, but probably would compete with the cost of treated CAP water.Any increase in water cost could easily be offset by a reduction in land costs.It should be relatively easy to let contracts to private investors to minimize the City's financial burden in developing the land. The City could allow development on their lands if rainfall use and other self- supporting water conservation practices were instituted that would not reduce the amount of water that could be exported from Avra Valley to Tucson. This approach would be compatible with the original purpose of farmland retirement and should be acceptable to City water customers in the Tucson Basin.
Other Proposed Uses
Before this study most proposed land uses involved human activity on Avra Valley land. The following discussion provides an overview of those activities.
55 Travel Trailer Park
Since the end of World War II travel trailers have become major recreational vehicles. Campgrounds specifically designed for travel trailers have become increasingly more sophisticated and often include parking facilities, running water, electrical outlets, sewage dumping stations, pools and landscaping. The petroleum shortage and rapidly increasing prices for fuel, however, have sharply decreased sales and use of recreational vehicles.
Although some City land is relatively close to Saguaro National Monument and Tucson Mountain Park, the lack of diverse natural landscaping would require a full- service travel trailer camping area thus requiring a substantial capital investment.
The lack of major nearby highways means that such a park on City land would depend on the overflow from the County- operated park within Tucson Mountain Park; therefore, use of the park would be limited primarily to visitors during the winter tourist season.Moreover, if the City operated such a facility it would be subject to questions concerning competition with privately owned parks outside Saguaro National Monument and Tucson Mountain Park.The travel trailer camp would need water, for domestic use and landscaping maintenance, that might be supplied from a water -harvesting system.
Wild Animal Parks
An exotic wild animal park would require extensive capital investment and water for grass, landscaping and maintenance of the animals.Water harvesting could possibly provide the needed water.
The use of City land by native wildlife should be explored cooperatively with appropriate federal, state and local agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arizona Game and Fish Department and various departments at the University of Arizona.
56 Off -road Vehicles
The use of City land in Avra Valley for off -road vehicles would destroy plant cover where such activity occurred.It also would require capital expenditures for earth movement.The retired farmland is flat, and does not provide topographic diversity to persons interested in off -road vehicle activities.Establishing such a facility would attract large numbers of persons to Avra Valley, which could ultimately increase trespassing, dumping and theft.
Sailport
Using City land for sailplanes and motorized hand -gliders, "sailport," may benefit the City if provisions in the lease require: 1) fencing the area; 2) controlling weeds in actively used areas and re- establishing vegetation in other areas; 3) holding liable the party or flying club for resultant sailport activities;4) transporting required water or harvesting water from runways or roofs; 5) paying fair market rental for the land; 6) making the facility available for public use; and 7) re- establishing vegetation in disturbed areas after lease expiration.
Potential constraints for a sailport include:1) public acceptance by local Avra Valley residents and residents of the City of Tucson; 2) conflicts with proposed CAP aqueduct routing;3)conflicts with proposed Tucson Electric Power Company overhead powerlines; 4) availability of adequate water to support the facility; and 5) inability of the flying club to pay adequate rental fees.
A surface water -harvesting system requires a treatment system and a certi- fied water oparator.Construction and installation of the necessary treatment system, pumps, and storage tanks would require a substantial capital expenditure for a limited -use facility.The cost of the treatment system, per unit of water delivered, would depend primarily on the method of water collection.
Rainwater collected from a runway /roadway collection system after a period of little or no rainfall probably would not be useable because of the oil, grease or fuel that would be washed in.In addition, a backup system such as transporting
57 water by tanker truck would provide water during periods of drought.If only a limited amount of water were needed, it might be less expensive to use a separate water- harvesting system, such as graveled plastic, that would require limited treatment.
Although a water -harvesting system would probably cost more than drilling and equiping a well, it would tap a renewable source of water rather than worsen the water problem in Avra Valley.
Movie Location
Several City -owned areas in Avra Valley have been used by film companies for filming television commercials and movies during the past few years. While the film industry contributes to the economy of Tucson, its activity disturbs the soil surface on retired farmland and contributes to management costs.Filming should be limited to designated areas on isolated retired farms in floodplains, and disturbance to native desert areas should be kept to a minimum, one or two areas could be set aside.If these areas were isolated from developments or other farms, any weed problem associated with their use would be minimal. An appropriate fee should be charged by the City to cover maintenance and to provide a return based on value.
58 RECENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
Current Land Status
The following discussion provides information on land ownership, land use, well field location, suitability for urban development and electric transmission line routes.
Land Ownership
The land ownership map (Figure 13) shows the distribution of public and private land.Approximately 25 percent of the land within the study area is privately owned.
The American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) is also a major owner of retired farmland near the intersections of Anway and Avra Valley Roads.
Land Use
Figure 14 shows that almost 11,000 acres are currently irrigated in Avra Valley outside the Cortaro -Marana Irrigation District.The distribution of current owners of these properties also is shown in Figure 14.
A map showing five categories of land use within the study area is presented in Figure 15. Agricultural production is concentrated in the northern part of the Avra Valley while much of the southern part remains desert.
Well Fields:Although City lands are scattered throughout the Avra Valley, the City of Tucson well field is located in the southern portion of the Valley (Figure 16).
Suitability for Urban Development:Approximately 75 percent of the City - owned land in Avra Valley was classified as unsuitable for urban development in the Comprehensive Plan (CPP, 1975), for the following reasons:1) excessive slope
59 R. 12 E. R. 10 E. P I N AL R.10 E.R.11 E. C O U N T Y R. II E. /77' EXPLANATION \i 3 I 2 - `' i V. \\ I T- B 9 O I i2 1 + .Southern Pacific Railroad aM - NAROIÑ 1 RO --Natural Gas Line
r -r- Transmission Line TRICOMÁI RANA ROI NiI 21 ` -r - - -r-Underground Telephone Cable
I ` T. -- - Unpaved Road T. \ 11 il `` ` -- Paved Road S. S.
T. T. \\ -emsState Highway , ` 12 12 i!>\\\,\A` `.w er b. S. - - Interstate Highway -- County Line ! aAirstrip(limited facilities) Airfield(limited facilities)
Patented Lands 30 T 12 Patented Lands (ASARCO)
I
S. i State Lands T T. 13 Public Lands (Administered by 5214Bureau of Land Management) ..®....RUDA SI Land Owned by City of Tucson Indian Lands IS f6 Ì f! t MANVI . -SAßUANATWNAL National Parks and Monuments "1- _.i--^. m Iz ae vJp 1111 ° County, City Park ,:'° 3m ze zr as¡ ,-? 24 ' es, \ T ..Mined Lands MONUMENT . T l.. °i\7 :sssssss. 13 13 `*`'y . 34,%%,.. S. S.
//I . Rs- - N.Nr4M e. . .,. T ® \ , 3 4 sWk.òï\%//.'i//r. FIGURE 13. 11L\..Eit%ri'W\\\\\\,\\\\ Map Showing Land Ownership \\\.\ \\\.\,\\\.. In Avra Valley ..,,...... ,...... I July 1981. .. PAPAßO . , ja ,INLiIAN\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\, eft.,*PAW a_ aa z;` ` `; \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\?9,.\, RESERVATION7 .1I\ " \\-`" rA , IMO.i1 3C+ ., 25 , ..... 14 14 s
T T. 15 15
S. S.
SCALE \ i 2 3 4,
! R. 10 E.R. IIE. R.11 E.R. 12 E. R.10 E. .6 0 FIGURE 14 cont.
MAP TOTAL FARM CULTIVATED NON -CULTIVATED DESIGNATION FARM PROPERTY ACRES ACRES ACRES
1 Santa Cruz 1279 799 480 2 Martin 240 173 67 3 Lupori 320 312 8 4 Jarvis 638 601 37 5 Thomasson 156 150 6 6 Bowden Ranches 1020 1014 6 7 Bench S Cattle 1044 124 920 8 J.B. White, Jr. 320 286 34 9 Levkowitz 60 57 3 10 Martinette 240 224 16 11 Reeves 400 270 130 12 Potter 309 220 89 13 Tucker 608 577 31 14 Nichols 801 781 20 15 Buck Sam Chu 311 211 100 16 Tom Glover 215 197 18 17 Jim Glover 140 50 90 18 JMK Ranches Inc. 470 271 199 19 John & Mamie Kai 219 217 2 20 Transamerica Title Ins. TR RH 27312 591 266 325 21 Transamerica Title Ins. TR RH 27312 245 229 16 22 Transamerica Title Ins. TR 27546 640 578 62 23 Avra Plantations 347 322 25 24 Transamerica Title Ins. 164 147 17 TR 27312 25 Avra Plantations 156 154 2 26 Lorena Chan How Trust 643 412 231 27 Avra Plantations 56 29 27 28 Avra Plantations 212 182 30 29 Avra Plantations 58 10 48 30 BK Wong Farms 593 268 325 31 BK Wong Farms 635 70 565 32 BK Wong Farms 612 423 189 33 James (Sc Evelyn Wong 155 140 15 34 Bink K. & Lyn Ying Wong 158 30 128 35 Bink K. & Lyn Ying Wong 318 19 299 36 Earley 30 10 20 37 ASARCO 1909 1162 747
TOTAL 16,312 10,985 5,327 R.12 E.
R.10 E . P I N AL R. 10 E.R. II E. C O U N T Y R. 11E
1 v EXPLANATION . 5 a.N 3 2 I " ..:ÿ: --I}- 2 ' ` 1 ...... o > I T-- y \o z...a. :0 'I 12 r 12
II __ Southern Pacific Railroad ...r MAROIN re- i6 5 '3 18 Natural Gas Line 13 i -- --
r r TRI CO-M4RANA -r- Transmission Line 22 23 19 201 ko_L*.. 24 9V lo ; Nr 1 GRIER1_RO -r- - -7 Underground Telephone A Marana ;I ry y,A Cable - 30 28 2 29 21 \\ 30 9 '1\( 26 I ¡I I / ®- - Unpaved Road L _ `._. - T. y- 11 I 34 IrcÌ : 34J ®I_12 .013 75 = 36\,< --Paved Road 3. s s. i N LC ó >..w ,T. -"°19°- State Highway 6> 12 - u . S. ÄVRA VALLE Interstate Highway +e 21.*** if _ .. . . -.- County Line 1 1 .I 21 ,13 4' ;;':... .,__° 27 I TM w ..14152. 7..c e Airstrip(Iimited facilities) . i, 9 . - á i A 2 25 I 22 23 /164 .9 22i1 \_° _... 17i9 Q Airfield(limited facilities) .°i 1 , ° RO ríiTi%O iririi .rr 28 11 27 261 25 310 Land Owned by City of Tucson .v29 28 ..... - __ viA 0 I 9 1 TWIN. PEAK T. MAMMY. 12 I...Private Irrigated Agricultural Land 34 35 36 31 32 33 I 38 31 S. TUCK R ti - State Leased Irrigated Agricultural Land T. 6 ' 2 I 8 e I I 13 ROC1t S.
i0 RYOA3ILL
1 -RI t 8 9 10 II 12 s Adapted from City of Tucson' Water e _ ia l7 !f f IS I6 13 and Sewers Department, 1979 !\ -MAwVILL[ R0 SAGUARO. NATIONAL- - V 1 - 19 36 '9 20 i 21 1 2/2 //.k- oI , I -r' MONUMENT ó1 30 30 29 28 27 I 29 I 2s 26 25 FIGURE 14.. 1 27
--- 13 Map Showing Privately Owned and 31 1 32 33 34 35 ' 2 I i 33 34 `-E ' 36 I S. City Land In Aura Valley Outside r IN.II 21 MILE o[ = . the Cortaro -Marana Irrigation District 1V"'" T. r6/r/ 3 2 : I401 !` 14 July 1981. ti TUCSON7 IC 12 °"' /4 12 t-,. MOUNTIIN
,6 15 'I 14 . 13 18 ? 17 16 I 15 T. PA PAGO - INDIAN N I -- j PARK
_I 9 19 20 21 22 9 232 ¡ 20 21 23 244 ti ä RESERVATION ti I 30 29 28 27 :1 26 i 25 30 29 28 25 er
32 33 34 !I 35 ' 36 31 32 35 3s 31
jf 1
4 3 I I 3 I 2\
I
RYA
B 9 I Io 12 9 0 ¡' IE1. 0 I SCALE 13 18 7 16 5 3 8 2 3 5 15 . 16 fI R.IIE. R.12E. 10 E. R. I0 E.R. IIE.
61 R. 12 E.
P I R. 10 E. R . II E. C O UN T Y R.IIE. 1 EXPLANATION / 5--7`,7-1- -3 - tltr ///.///,///// //// //i7/ //r//i.Y//K//Y/,1y/I////// I . Southern Pacific Railroad 7T/ 1---Natural Gas Line -T-Transmission Line
- r - - -T- Underground Telephone Cable -- Unpaved Road T. II -- -- Paved Road S. T. State Highway I2 S. Interstate Highway
County Line
13 i 2r Airstrip(Iimited facilities)
1 e 21 I 22 23 Airfield(limited facilities) aEM1lMÌ-°_ RQ 29 I 27 .., Desert i :5:.'. T Irrigated Farmland 12 S. rRetired Farmland T T. 6 q 2 I 1 I 13 Urbanized Land - Housing, 13 K®- Industry, Airfields, Schools S.
_-L_ RYÓA9t6 , I / PiiiiiiiiiiMined Land 9 I IO T I I i 12 .,¡ 1OM OD s AD®®®Iv 15 14 'I I 18 SAGUARO NATIONAL, Oy/. 19 Ig 21 , 22 23 '7.4,1,3.4. QI I .60°°
30 FIGURE 15. 1/ al m ./ . 29 2fÑn 25 Map Showing Land Use T .0' /' I 13 13 31 in Avra Valley 31 32 33 34 .I 35 36 IS. s. 33 34 July 1981. 1L! Mt0- RII I F°1.°21 T T 3 . 2 . 2 I ` 14 14 L S. I TUC30Ñ S 1 t/ A e la n 2 ro 7 ------MOUNTAIN I 16 IS 16 I7 l6 15 'I 14 13 16 17 16 '3 i? -4- PAPADO INDIAN --- PAIA( 19 ' 23 19 20 21 22 I 23I1-- 19 ! 20 21 L RESERVATION1
30 i 29 29 2? I¡r 26 30 i 29 T. ------ma /7 r 31 14 31 i 32 33 34 35 S. //
T.
15 S.
9 10
SCALE 16 15 2 5 6 1 mdes R. 10 E. R.IIE. R. I I E. R.12 E. R.IO E. 62 R. 12 E.
R. 10 E . P I N AL R.10 E.R.11 E. C O U N T Y R. II E. - ;'-1-3 -T- Z -1 EXPLANATION , i 5 4 3 1 2 I 1 . \ CI
> \. T-- ., 9 141 9 9 0 I i2 Southern Pacific Railroad 21 I - --- r- MAROINI RO l ` á 8 18 ------. Natural Gas Line ,8 017^ .. 16 /.C 14 13 76-1 L. ---- TRICO-MARANA R02f - r- Transmission Line /19 201 go 21 23.t/ GRIER L RO a I--Marana *- - -7- Underground Telephone /- OITa 1 30 29¢I 28 Cable 30 `\T 25 I 2, I 26w I I . T I vRv ' gl - -- Unpaved Road T. 4-- ° - - 33 i 3_°Jy3S II a -®- Paved Road 1 S. .11 \ 1. T. State Highway 12 s. Io Interstate Highway 7 /fi - -- County Line
-*\r 14 ! 13 .17 rr II*`r - ---t----TMIN I PlAK! Ó r Airstrip(limited facilities) 9 20 I 21 I 22 23 %t4 Airfield(limited facilities) EMI 6N RO I ----' / 29 28 I 27 25 310 Extedng City Production Wells 25 26i TWIN.PEAKS T. 12 City Owned Wells, Dread 31 32 33 3+ 34 1 35 36 1_ -, +...17-1 36 Not Equipped S. ® City Owned Wells, Purchased% -r T. Not Equipped 2 2 13 6--4-- 1 1 I 13 Storage Tank and Booster Plant S. Ìe6 - --_- RUDA31LL R1 O City Owned Farm Wells 9 I 10 1 12
. -- - -.---1 1 * Avra Valley Monitor Test Holes !8 !fEl 15 %` 14 13 Ro 4SAGUARO. NATIONAL- O Awe Valley °W' Zone Wells 19 21 19 ; 21 Ç, 20 I 2/2 --- 01' o Wells and Test Holes Owned i I ó 'r MONUMENT or Controlled by Tucson Water 30 29 28 29 I 29 Z 26 25 .sKI 27 1 __ 3 Existing Pipelines , j1 I 32 33 I2 33 1 34 v`=h 36 S. RO°-----=--/ - - Future Pipelines 1 _ -r 6 4 3 I 2 3 2 I: I` *GI 14 7. *1 Land Owned by City of Tucson 1 S l TUCSON, 9 10 12 2 '1 Adapted from City of Tucson Water and --1 Sewers Department, 1980 I MOUNTIN
1
16 1 13 I° 16 IS I 14 13 18 .r '7 Is FIGURE 16. I - PAPAGO - -- INDIAN PARK Map Showing Location of City of 19 19 20 21 22 II 23 i 2 I 194 20 21 Tucson Wall Flsld and PIp.Iins .. -,1 In Avra Valley RESERVATION F+ 30 30 29 28 27 ¡ 26 1 25 30 2 July 1981. T .._>-.--_-. -mI. =1_I..- Z. T. ti 14
14 31 31 31 S. 32 33 I 34 I 35 36 32 s. i " - --? t b T. 6 4 a 15 15 S. S. II 6 9 IO 1Ì
SCALE 8 2 5 I S I 4 13 3 Ga
22 23 22 23 24 19 19 20 2I C ..... R R. I I E. R. 12 E. R.10 E. 10E. R. I I E. 63 (greater than 15 percent); 2) presence of a floodplain; 3) unsuitable soil type for septic tank filter fields or sewage lagoon impoundments; 4) presence of a primary wildlife or endangered species habitat; and 5) presence of an open -pit mining operation (Figure 17).Of those listed above, the primary limiting factor is the presence of City-owned Avra Valley land within a floodplain.
Urban development would require raised floors or protective dikes. Moreover, problems associated with urban sprawl also would be created and some management problems could be exacerbated.
Flood Hazards: Approximately 55 percent of the land controlled by the City of Tucson in Avra Valley is subject to flooding (Figure 18).If areas protected by dikes were included, the percentage of land subject to flooding would increase to about 65 percent. Only 35 percent of the City -owned land is not within the 100 -year floodplain.
Electric Transmission Line
Tucson Electric Power Company has received approval for constructing a 345 kV transmission line. Approved alternative route alignments are shown in Figure 19. Each of the approved alternatives would cross City land. The preferred route would traverse the least amount of City of Tucson land.An alternative route crosses almost four times as much City land (Tucson Electric Power Co., 1980).
For aesthetic reasons, such as preserving the view from the Arizona -Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson Electric Power Company believes that 80 -foot tall K -frame wood poles spaced at approximately 800 feet intervals with in 175 -foot right -of -way width would be preferred.
64 P I N AL R.1O E . R. 10E. R. II E. C O UN T Y R. I I E. EXPLANATION 2 1 3 _-_-p`0,l _-,.._2
-11.T 9 `9 9 10 I I 1 , Southern Pacific Railroad , `1 \ MAR 01N `---_- --1'Natural Gas Line
-r Transmission Line /19
-r -- r Underground Telephone Cable ® ® Unpaved Road
11 31 s. -- Paved Road State Highway 12 S. Interstate Highway ® °® County Line
0 Airstrip(limited facilities)
d Airfield(limited facilities)
Areas Unsuitable for T. Urban Development
12 S. Land Owned by City of Tucson
T T. 3 13 S. S.
Adapted from Comprehensive Plan, 1975
cc., 29 IA_ -r FIGURE 17. T. ! __ °l., --- 7 N?..y 13 Map Showing Areas Unsuitable for 13 32 33 S S. 3s ...... Urban Development in Avra Valley . R6 ®_ / N` T I 3 ' 2 : ` 14 I -i\S. i TUCSON7
:2 1J "s-, ., 1---''-'`',,,,,, y MOUNTAIN 8 19 17 16 i IS ;l 10 13 i4\I 13 PAPAGO -- 4INDIAN 7S1".'''.. s 19 20 21 22 if23 ,`- 23 20 t ~ - ; RESERVATION
29 ' 27 I 2
14 4 31 S.
3 ® 15 -- ` i S. SCALE 2 3 5
R. 10 E.R.11 E. R. II E.R.12 E. R10E.
65 R. 12 E.
R.10 E. P I N A L R.10 E.R. I I E. C O U N T Y R. I I E. EXPLANATION 3 1 2 T-- u 1 iz Southern Pacific Railroad .- ¡.¡ .Qf' Natural Gas Line -o.b ..".z TRICO-NARANA 20 ROÌ -r- Transmission Line - 'f¡ r I 9 o1` mien RO L__ -T -- -T-Underground Telephone Naraná:I °J' Ì 29 I 29 I Cable *it1/4, ' y I - T. \ 01 - Unpaved Road
I' I I I 310 312 31 111 Paved Road S. T -31® State Highway 12j 6 12 S. 1 Interstate Highway Y 1`6 County Line
Flood Plain Not Delineated Beyond This Pont 19 Airfield(Iimited facilities)
ALand Owned by City of Tucson T 12 Approximate Area Inundated S. by 100 -Year Flood
T Area Protected by Dikes 13 S.
Adapted from Roeske. 1978 and Additional Data USGS 1979
T. FIGURE 18. 13 Map Showing Flood Hazards S. ---r=r--^r.a.e>PRO 1 - for Avra Valley .
I 3 2 I -Nr° / ¡ 14
S ITUSON ` \ S 1JS T ' 12 1-66ke MOUNTAIN 19 \ 13 (PARK' 24\ 19
T 14 S.
T
15
S,
SCALE 2 3 5
mass R. 10 E.R. II R. II E. R.12 E. R.10 E. E. 66 R. 12 E.
P I N A L R. 10 E. R.10 E.R. II E. C O U N T YT/-'R.IIE. 4 EXPLANATION 5 aj 3 I 2 1 Z-7-7-7" -T- v
WI' T-- \O 10 I 1 12 Southern Pacific Railroad
`O - I--1 Natural Gas Line
-T-Transmission Line o /f9 20),s -r- - -r- Underground Telephone Cable --- Unpaved Rofid y \ I 31- ----31.2 }- 3I3rrT---34 35 36 - -® Paved Road S. w < s T. State Highway 12 I 6 Ì ' :4 3 2 12 II I ,* S. -r-- a S. uv ao t Interstate Highway I 7 8 ;N 9i I 10 :IL s IÌ 12 , í k I r ' 1 -{{"r- -- County Line
7 6 I 15i/ llv 01 i 0 Airstrip(limited facilities) 0-11---r-,---04+b 19 21 I 22 If 23. 1 O Airfield(limited facilities)
'1111 I
V o Approved Route 29 ' 28 =1. 27 l 26 25 T. 4
12 12 Approved Alternate Route 31 S. S. Land Owned by the City. j//of Tucson T. T.
1 6 I 13 13 óu13KS2 I ' ` S. Courtesy Tucson Electric Power Co.
_ eoaa n° I 71 ï 1 0 12 I 1
ie
19 17 leÓI IS 14 ¡ 13 , YYIViL- ja..e`. FIGURE 19. SAGUARO TAj/IONAI Map Showing Proposed 19 20 21 I 2/P 23).4.,,1,4. Alignment for 345 kV Transmission Line through 30 as I -4 29 25 T. Aura Valley. T. ç\ i7 MONUMENT -1 13 13 31 I
33 1 34 36 S. S. _I RO 'L..1° T v 14 14 S. S I- TUCSON -.4\
9 12 'IL I r------I MOUNTAIN.. I 17 16 13
PAPAGO PARKi 19 20 21 24 - i9
T 14 S.
T.
15 S.
SCALE 2 3 4 5
R. II R. II E.R. 12 E. R.10 E. R.10 E. E.
67 Social- Environmental Factors
Population Growth
The population of Pima County has been growing at a rate above the national average for communities of comparable size.Depending on the particular method of population projection used, the projections vary from .64 million to 1.4 million people in eastern Pima County by the year 2000 (Table 11).The Comprehensive Plan projected 800,000 persons for the year 2000 (CPI', 1975) and the currently adopted Department of Economic Security projection is 818,614. The populationof Pima County as of November 1981 is 558,000 and a significant increase in the projected population for the year 2000 is to be issued within a few months (David Taylor, personal communication).
Table 11. Projected Population of Eastern Pima County (Modified from Comprehensive Plan, 1975).
1980 1990 2000 Arithmetical Method 456,891 562,117 667,342 Geometric Method 563,511 902,970 1,446,919 Ratio Method 455,305 563,010 643,230 Cohort -Component Method 484,794 666,447 902,786 Economic Analysis Method 550,800 795,240 1,046,750 CPP 513,688 617,891 752,165
The town of Marana, the largest community in Avra Valley, incorporated in 1977. In 1980, 1,574 persons lived in Marana (Bureau of the Census, 1981).
68 Subsidence
One consequence of groundwater withdrawal has been the occurrence of earth fissures in portions of the Lower Santa Cruz Valley.Groundwater removal is accompanied by consolidation of the fine -textured alluvium. This results in a build- up of tensile stress around the peripheries of the heavily pumped areas and ultimately the rupturing of the valley alluvium, which causes disruptions in the natural drainage patterns, damage to buildings, irrigation canals and wells, and misalignment of railroads and highways (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1978a).
The first reported earth fissure in areas close to the study area occurred on or about September 11, 1927, approximately 3 miles southeast of Picacho. The fissure disrupted to a depth of 15 ft.In 1961, Peterson (1964) reported that the length of this fissure increased from 1000 ft to 8 miles.Similar cracks were observed elsewhere in the area in 1935 and again in 1949 (Robinson and Peterson, 1962; Leonard, 1929).
Several cracks developed along the southeastern edge of the Casa Grande Mountains, 3 miles southeast of Casa Grande, between 1958 and 1960. These fissures ranged from a few inches to 8 ft deep and to 3 ft wide (Pashley, 1961).
Subsidence in the Eloy area from 1905 to 1934 was only 0.1 ft but the extent of subsidence increased from 0.39 ft in 1948 to 1.61 ft by 1952 and to 3.61 ft in 1960 (Robinson and Peterson, 1962). By 1974, subsidence in the area near Eloy exceeded 6.89 ft in some places (Schumann, 1974).
The first known incident of earth fissure development in the Avra Valley - Tucson area occurred near Ryan Field in July 1981 (Figure 20).However, these fissures have not been studied and the cause for their development is subject to interpretation (E.J. McCullough, H.H. Schumann, personal communication).
Dust Storms
Marcus (1976) reported a strong locational association between dust- related accidents occurring on Interstate Highway 10 and abandoned farmland in Pinal County.
69 R. 12 E.
R.10 E. P I N AL R.10 E.R.11E. C O U N T Y R. II E. }-,...... ,-.-- -,-...--..- EXPLANATION 6 A . 5 3 3 1 2 i I ¢1 - T-- 9:I 9 2 -- Southern Pacific Railroad Ro 1 it- 1 -h- -1 Natural Gas Line Ie N,017 A. ,16 13 1 - ./I1. '1 TRI Co- Mutau -7- Transmission Line / 9 /19 201 11 21 23 1 !y / I BRIaR I RO I '0 ! íí /i -T- - -7- Underground Telephone I I I 1 --- Maraná - -- 29 % 28i 2 '; Cable ,>11.',74>. 25
1 -- - Unpaved Road I y\
\ N, 31 I 33 i 34 * Y 35 O 36 \<)4.1.0.1,,e, C äl \ I - - --Paved Road MW . f1 : 6\05í=¢ii 4j I2.I` -°°State Highway l `i s > I Interstate Highway ,aj vtt9 '"lvllttr` RO T ' -- County Line
16°Sir=; I 13 TMtM (vtuws á Airstrip(limited facilities)
19 20 i 21 I 22 2 3 A4 21 22 èif a°cI II f 23-+ 24 p Airfleld(limited facilities) MOM Ro I r ,---r---L_-- > - / r/// A2s 28 I 27 1 261 25 r30 tl29 28 ;1 27 i 26 25 Land Owned by City of Tucson T. QI f I TWIN PEAK T.
' * Earth f=issures 12 I 12 I 32 i 33 3d 32 35 38 _ ; 1 36 31 S. y1 i J I T fveTi 1 T s fJ11( : 1 6 3 6 -.- . 2 13 5 ate L 1 1 I I 13 __«. I-----1---"...r., S. Ruoasal 1 Ro I1----/71 '2 7 -±--- 9 I 10 9 -- 11 -12 J 1 FIGURE 20. I ,_ i -- ase ame oe 1 6 Map Showing Location of 15 3 18 17 18 á e.i 14 I 13 I i Earth Fissuras in Aura Valley M1NVillR Ro ;, NATIONAL------° - ' July 1981. 19 21 4 19 20 1 21 I 2/0 23/%4;...9. A
30 29 , 2B 27 29 28 r 26 T. T. I _ N. I13 13 31 31 32 33 34 .I 35 \\.32i 33 36 ( S. S. L34 y./RA
I :®..Je Y -T`,- T.
6 s 3 2 I 3 i 2 : IAO/1` 14 14 ' '4,1 s. S -- TUCSON 9 12 I I[ y Net.o
I r I MOUNTAIN I
18 17 16 i 15 1 14 13 18 17 16 I 15 14 13
I PAPADO I INDIAN 4 PARK 19 19 el I 20 21 22 I 23 ;-1- 20 21 23 24 I 4I
I8ER1/ATION I i i O 30 29 28 27 23 30 29 26 25 1 1 I
i I I-1 Toesooo.a:w 14 31 32 33 34 I 35 38 431 32 -1 S. v I I
T 6 5 1 4 s I 13 2\ 5 4 3 I 2 Í 15 S. 7 e 9 I 10 11 12 7 9 9 10 I 0 SCALE r I 8 6 I 15 '3 5 15 14 13 .9 2 3 4 le 16 (
R. IO E.R.IIE. R. IIE.R. 12 E. R. 10 E.
70 Idso (1976) noted that haboobs (dust storms that form over a desert during periods of convective instability), not only cause poor visibility leading to accidents, but also are known to be vectors for spreading pathogens such as Coccidioides immitis (the causal agent of valley fever) and Cryptococcus neoformans (a deadly disease of the central nervous system, lungs and skin).Haboobs also are a major factor in causing soil erosion.
The summer rainy season is the most common period for dust storms in Arizona. In late June, upper level moisture begins to enter Arizona from the Gulf of Mexico and for several weeks it alternately advances and retreats.Usually after the first week of July it is well established. Surges of lower level, moist tropical air from the Pacific Ocean move up the Gulf of California augmenting the upper level moisture.These surges often generate long- arcing squall lines.Haboobs fan out below and ahead of each cell in the line; individual outflows often merge to form a wall of blowing dust (Idso, 1976).
These storms often develop south and east of the study area over the Sierra Madre Occidental of Mexico.Just after noon the cloud masses form rapidly as single cells that move slowly northwest.Thunderstorm activity appears to be generated by converging moist air.The moist air is lifted by rising winds on east - facing slopes in the late morning and on highly heated west -facing slopes during the afternoon. An arcing squall line usually forms then near Tucson and intensifies as it moves north down the Santa Cruz Valley towards Phoenix with clouds in the line rising 40,000 to 50,000 ft.The dust raised by and in front of the density currents rises to the cloud base 8,000 to 14,000 ft above the ground. Haboobs advance at a mean speed of 30 miles /hour with gusts approaching 60 miles /hour. With the coming of a haboob, the air temperature drops as much as 27F; the relative humidity increases and visibility can decrease to zero (Idso, 1976).
71 APPENDIX A
NAMES AND AFFILIATIONS OF AVRA VALLEY WORKSHOP ATTENDEES
72 NAMES AND AFFILIATIONS OF AVRA VALLEY WORKSHOP ATTENDEES
Name Affiliation
Bonnie Alin Tucson Airport Authority James Anderson Plant Sciences, U of A Stuart Bengson ASARCO Inc. John Beimfohr Arizona State Land Department Garrett Blackwell Cooperative Extension Service Gary Blanford Landscape Architecture, U of A Mike Blenkush Trico Electric Coop. Inc. Lynn Blinn Office of Arid Lands Studies Maurice Bossuyt Soil Conservation Service Richard Brittain Mine Reclamation Center Frank Brooks City of Tucson John Coley Real Estate Developer Willis Campbell City Planning Hal Coss Saguaro National Monument K.J. DeCook Water Resources Research Center, UofA Robert Dietrich Burke, Hansen and Homan Inc. Rosemary Elkins Tumamoc Hill, U of A David Esposito Pima Association of Governments Richard Felger Arizona -Sonora Desert Museum and Environmental Research Laboratory Ken Foster Office of Arid Lands Studies Andy Gordon Tucson Soaring Club T.J. Harrison City of Tucson - Asst. City Attorney Bob Johnson Environmental Analyst - Tucson Electric Power Jeff Johnson Program in Landscape Architecture, UofA Martin Karpiscak Office of Arid Lands Studies Jimmy LaBaume U of A
73 Name Affiliation
R.G. McDaniel Plant Sciences, U of A Michael McNulty Arizona Department of Water Resources David McWhirter Bureau of Land Management Sean Mannion U of A Fred Matter College of Architecture, U of A Aden Meinel Optical Sciences Center, U of A Marjorie Meinel Optical Sciences Center, U of A Richard Melick Coidwell Bank Eugene Mielke Plant Sciences, U of A Kim Mortensen Office of Arid Lands Studies Matts Myhrman Mine Reclamation Center Melvin Norvelle Avra Valley Land Owner Les Rawles Office of Arid Lands Studies Geo Richard Pima County Planning Department Eric Scharf U of A John Steiger Watershed Management, U of A William Tatom Bureau of Education Affairs Bill Watson Farmer Don Wilkin Department of Landscape Architecture, UofA
74 APPENDIX B
CLIMATE OF AVRA VALLEY
75 CLIMATE OF AVRA VALLEY
Climatic elements, particularly temperature and rainfall, have important impacts upon plants of the area.
Temperature
Although during the winter, the mean minimum air temperatures in the Avra Valley - Tucson Area are at or below the freezing point, ranging from 39.5F at the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum to 37.7F at the Weather Service Office at the Tucson Ariport, extreme lows for these two stations are 16F and 13F respectively (Sellers and Hill, 1974).
The mean maximum July temperatures recorded at the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum and at Tucson are 100.4F, with extreme maximum temperatures of 116F and 111F, respectively (Sellers and Hill, 1974).
In addition to the more than 60- degree temperature variation between summer and winter,daily fluctuations of20to 30 degrees are common because of atmospheric aridity.
Precipitation
The Avra Valley -Tucson area is subject to two "rainy" seasons:the summer season concentrated in July and August and the storms of winter.Mean annual precipitation ranges from 8 inches in the valley to more than 30 inches in the higher mountains of the Santa Cruz Basin. The valley floors receive from 8 to 12 inches of precipitation.
Precipitation in the summer occurs because moisture enters the area from the southeast as large high pressure cells extend into the central United States from the Atlantic Ocean bringing moist air into the area from the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. Thermal heating and orographie uplift of this moisture -laden air abruptly initiates storms.Thunder and lightning often accompany these brief,
76 intense storms, but the total rainfall is usually light and, in many instances, strong winds precede the storm. Sporadic surges of tropical air enter the basin from the Gulf of California and the Pacific Ocean. Frequently these storms, which usually originate as tropical hurricanes, come in late August or September (Sellers and Hill, 1974).
During the cooler portion of the year the prevailing westerlies and their accompanying storms typically pass through Washington and Oregon. Winter storms in Arizona, under these conditions, seldom produce anything more than cloudy skies and strong winds; however, a southerly shift in the easterly storm track can channel cyclonic storms into the area with the prevailing westerlies. These extensive storms bring precipitation to large areas and can last several days (Sellers and Hill, 1974).
77 APPENDIX C
VEGETATION OF AVRA VALLEY
78 VEGETATION OF AVRA VALLEY
In the Avra Valley - Tucson Area of the Santa Cruz Basin of southern Arizona, the Sonoran Desert ranges in altitude from approximately 1,000 ft at the confluence of the Gila and Santa Cruz rivers to about 4,000 ft on the slopes of the surrounding mountain ranges. Differences in soil and altitude make possible variable and diverse plant communities.
Plants adapted to survival during long periods oflittleor no rainfall characterize the vegetation; moreover, the perennial shrubs that dominate the area are widely spaced and, in some instances, succulent. Areas between the perennials are barren most of the year but if given adequate moisture during the winter or summer rainy seasons, annuals will cover these areas with dense short -lived aggregations (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1978b).
The Paloverde- Saguaro Community
The paloverde- saguaro(CereidiummicrophyllumandCereusgiganteus) community occupies the coarse soilsof the higher altitudes of thedesert. Differences in soil, aspect, slope, altitude, precipitation, temperature and other factorsresultin numerous variationsinthevegetational structureofthis community. In some areas, ironwood (Olneya tesota) may be the dominant tree.
Individuals of white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa) and burrobush (Ambrosia deltoidea) are found within the study area and both are major species in the paloverde- saguarocommunity;however,thepopulationofwhitebursageis concentrated in western Arizona whereas burrobush is more abundant in the eastern portions of the state.Numerous other species may be found including teddybear cactus (Opuntia bigelovii), staghorn cholla (Opuntia versicolor) wolfberry (Lycium spp.), Acacia spp., and brittle bush (Encelia farinosa).Conspicuous winter annuals include filaree (Erodium cicutarium), Wooly plantain (Plantago insularis), Gordon bladderpod (Lesquerella gordoni) and Arabian grass (Schismus arabicus), while six - weeks grama (Bouteloua barbata), and needle grama (Bouteloua aristidoides) grow rapidly following the summer rains (Nichol, 1952).
79 The Creosote Bush Community
At lower altitudes creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), saltbush (Atriplex spp.) and mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) constitute the dominant members of the community.These communities develop on the lower, more level terrain of the shallow valleys and mesas between the mountain ranges. Variations in soil including texture, permeability, salt content, caliche or other factors, influence the distribution of these plants (Nichol, 1952).Creosote bush typically flourishes on the basal sections of bajadas near the mountains with saltbush occupying the lower adjoining lands characterized by heavier soils. The very gentle gradient of the valley, however, results in extensive mixing of the two communities, obscuring the lines between them (Shantz and Piemeisel, 1924).
Creosote bush plants grow from 3 to 12 ft tall, the largest plants growing on deeper, more open soils (Nichol, 1952).The soils are low in salts and even areas with poor stands of creosote bush have stony infertile or shallow soils with low salt content.Annuals including sand pepper grass (Lepidium lasiocarpum), comb bur (Pectocaryaspp.),fiddleneck(Amsinckiaspp.),narrow -leaved cryptantha (Crypthantha angustifolia) as well as those noted previously and numerous others grow well on these light, porous soils (Shantz and Piemeisel, 1924).
The Saltbush Community
In the past, desert saltbush (Atriplex polycarpa) covered large areas in almost pure stands; however, because of their deep, loamy soils many such areas have been converted to agricultural fields.Saltbush plants grow 3 to 5ft tall and form thickets with scattered mesquite, cholla or creosote bush. The denser canopy and higher salt concentrations of these areas may explain the impoverished nature of their annual flora following the rainy seasons, as compared to creosote bush areas (Nichol, 1952).Additional saltbush species found in various combinations growing with or without desert saltbush are narrow- leaved wingscale (Atriplex linearis), fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) and Atriplex fasciculata, a summer annual (Shantz and Piemeisel, 1924).
80 APPENDIX D
ESTIMATES OF RUSSIAN. THISTLE PRODUCTION COSTS
81 ESTIMATES OF RUSSIAN THISTLE PRODUCTION COSTS
ESTIMATED COSTS TO PRODUCE ONE ACRE OF RUSSIAN THISTLE (DRYLAND) IN CENTRAL ARIZONA, WEST TEXAS, SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO AND HIGH PLAINS, TEXAS
Central Arizona, Southern New Mexico High Plains Variable Costs and West Texas Texas
1. Growing $23.04 $23.04 2. Harvesting 17.50 17.50 3. Overhead and Management' 5.00 5.00 4. Interest on Production Costs2 1.37 1.37 TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $46.91 $46.91
Fixed Costs
1. Machinery3 $ 4.18 $ 4.18 2. Water -0- -0- 3. Taxes 8.00 8.00 4. Rent Value of Land4 30.00 60.00 TOTAL FIXED COSTS $42.18 $72.18
TOTAL PRODUCTION COSTS $89.09 $119.09
Yield per Acre (Tons) 1.5 3.0 Yield per Acre (MBtu) 18.9 37.8 Cost per Ton $59.39 $39.70 Cost per MBtu $ 4.71 $ 3.15
'includes truck, bookkeeping, fencing, tools 212 percent interest for 3 months of 1 +2 +3 3machinery depreciation (tractor, disk, fertilizer rig, drill) 4Profit assumed to be 6 percent of land value
82 ESTIMATED COSTS TO PRODUCE ONE ACRE OF RUSSIAN THISTLE (DRYLAND) IN CENTRAL ARIZONA, WEST TEXAS, SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO AND HIGH PLAINS, TEXAS Operation Machine(Hours) Time MachineHourly MachineCost ($) TotalCost (5) Required(Hours)Labor HourlyWageRate ($) LaborTotalCost Amount($) and Material Type UnitCostper Material TotalCost (5) Subtotal ($) PlantGrowing Disk /Fertilizer .05.40 11.8015.00 6.00.59 .10.45 3.75 1.69.38 1/2 # Seed50 #NH3 $20.00/# 175/T 10.00 4.38 $ 12.07 10.97 'co Harvesting SwathCube Custom - 6.59 - - - 2.07 - - - 31.8815.002.50 40.5415.00 2.50 ESTIMATED COSTS TO PRODUCE ONE ACRE OF IRRIGATED RUSSIAN THISTLE IN CENTRAL ARIZONA (GROUNDWATER) AND WESTERN ARIZONA (COLORADO RIVER WATER)
Variable Costs Central Arizona Western Arizona
1. Growing $88.66 $53.47 2. Harvesting 80.83 80.83 3. Overhead and Management' 10.00 10.00 4. Interest on Production Costs2 5.38 4.33 TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $184.87 $148.63
Fixed Costs
1. Machinery3 $ 4.47 $ 4.47 2. Water4 18.58 -0- 3. Taxes 8.00 -0- 4. Rent Value of Lands 50.00 50.00 TOTAL FIXED COSTS $81.05 $54.47
TOTAL PRODUCTION COSTS $265.92 $203.10
Yield per Acre (Tons) 6 6
Yield per Acre (MBtu) 75.6 75.6
Cost per Ton $44.32 $33.85
Cost per MBtu $ 3.52 $ 2.69
'includes truck, bookkeeping, fencing, tools 212 percent interest for 3 months of 1 +2 +3 3machinery depreciation (tractor, disk, fertilizer rig, drill) 4pump and well depreciation 5profit assumed to be 6 percent of land value
84 ESTIMATED COSTS TO PRODUCE ONE ACRE OF IRRIGATED RUSSIAN THISTLE IN CENTRAL ARIZONA (GROUNDWATER) AND WESTERN ARIZONA (COLORADO RIVER WATER) Operation Machine Time MachineHourly Machine Total Required Labor HourlyWage LaborTotal Amount and Type Costper Material Total Subtotal ($) Growing (Hours) .40 15.00Cost ($) Cost6.00 ($) (Hours) .45 Rate3.75 ($) Cost1.69 ($) Material50 #NH3 $175/T Unit Cost4.38 ($) ArizonaCentral Arizona12.07 Western 12.07 PlantBorderDisk /Fertilizer .05 11.8010.15 .59.50 .10.08 3.75 .38.30 3/4 #seed $20/# 15.00 15.97 .80 15.97 .80 Irrigate (CentralArizona) .67 3.75 . 2.51 .33 ac-ft $40/ac-ft 13.33 15.84 Harvesting SwathIrrigate (WesternArizona) Custom - - - 1.00 3.75 3.75 .5 ac-ft $6/ac-ft 3.002.50 2.50- 6.752.50 Growing IrrigateCube (CentralArizona) Custom 1.67 3.75 6.26 $40/ac-ft - 33.3430.00 39.6030.00 30.00 IrrigateFertilizer (WesternArizona) - - - 2.00 3.75 7.50 0.8 ac-ft50#NH31 ac-ft $6/ac-ft$175/T 4.386.00 4.38 13.50 4.38 Harvesting CubeSwath Custom - - 7.09 - - 13.6211.14 - 113.59151.2645.00 3.33 169.4945.00 3.33 134.3045.00 3.33 APPENDIX E
ESTIMATED COSTS TO PROCESS RUSSIAN THISTLE INTO LOGS AND PELLETS
86 ESTIMATED COSTS TO PROCESS RUSSIAN THISTLE INTO LOGS AND PELLETS
PERSONNEL FOUR -MACHINE PLANT
Fringe Benefits Management Salary (15% of Salary) Yearly Total
General Manager $25,000 $3,750 $28,750 Assistant Manager 18,000 2,700 20,700 Secretary 8,000 1,200 9,200
$58,650 Maintenance Maintenance /Welder $12,000 $1,800 $13,800 Custodian 7,000 1,050 8,050
$21,850 Warehouse Shipper $7,500 $1,125 $8,625 $ 8 625
TOTAL MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND WAREHOUSE $89,125
Production (Number of Employees per Shift) Foreman (1) $12,000 $1,800 $13,800 Raw Material Handler (1)7,500 1,125 8,625
Machine Operators(2) 7,500 1,125 17,250 Packers, Warehouse (2) 7,500 1,125 17,250
TOTAL PRODUCTION PER SHIFT $56,925
87 PERSONNEL 10- MACHINE PLANT
Fringe Benefits Management Salary (15% of Salary) Yearly Total
General Manager $ 25,000 $ 3,750 $ 28,750 Assistant Manager 18,000 2,700 20,700 Secretary 8,000 1,200 9,200 $ 58,650
Maintenance Maintenance /Welders (2) $ 12,000 $ 1,800 $ 27,600 Custodian 7,000 1,050 8,050 $ 35,650
Warehouse Shipper (2) $ 7,500 $ 1,125 $ 17,250 $ 17,250
TOTAL MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND WAREHOUSE $111,550
Production (Number of Employees per Shift) Foreman (1) $ 12,000 $ 1,800 $ 13,800 Raw Material Handler (1) 7,500 1,125 8,625 Machine Operators (3) 7,500 1,125 25,875 Packers, Warehouse (3) 7,500 1,125 25,875
TOTAL PRODUCTION PER SHIFT $ 74,175
88 RAW MATERIAL
Production Central Arizona, Western Cost Southern Arizona Arizona (Modified) and West Texas
Cost per Ton from Farmer $ 33.85 $48.80 $59.39
Cost per Pound $ 0.017 $ 0.024 $ 0.030
MACHINE
Mod -Log Machine Produces 4.5logs /minute 1,350pounds /hour 1,147.5 pounds /hour (85% efficiency)
Machine Rental $650/month
Royalty $3.20 /ton
89 ENERGY COST
Amount of Energy Required to Produce 2,000 lb. 117 kWh Cost per kWh $0.054
OVERHEAD
Assumptions 4- Machine Plant - $10,000 /month if operating at 2,000 hrs /year $12,000 /month if operating at 6,000 hrs /year 10- Machine Plant - $20,000 /month if operating at 6,000 hrs /year
TRANSPORTATION
Assumptions Truck transports 10 tons of material at a cost of $0.40 per mile with driver and a 40 -mile round trip.
90 ESTIMATE BASED ON $33.85 PER TON RAW MATERIAL COST AND OPERATING AT 85 PERCENT EFFICIENCY
Cost Per Log ($)
4- MachinePlant 10- Machine Plant 2,000 hrs /year6,000 hrs /year 6,000 hrs /year
Raw Material 0.084 0.084 0.084 Royalty 0.009 0.009 0.009 Machine Rental 0.017 0.006 0.006 Energy (Electrical) at $.054 /kWh 0.016 0.016 0.016 Labor Production 0.031 0.031 0.016 Labor Management, Maintenance, and Warehouse 0.049 0.016 0.008 Overhead 0.065 0.026 0.017 Transportation at $.40 /mile 0.004 0.004 0.004
TOTAL PRODUCTION COST PER LOG 0.275 0.192 0.160
Number of Logs per MBtu (31.8)
TOTAL PRODUCTION COST PER MBtu 8.745 6.106 5.088
91 ESTIMATE BASED ON $48.80 PER TON RAW MATERIAL COST AND OPERATING AT 85 PERCENT EFFICIENCY
Cost Per Log ($) 4- Machine Plant 10- Machine Plant 2,000 hrs /year 6,000 hrs /year 6,000 hrs /year
Raw Material 0.122 0.122 0.122 Royalty 0.009 0.009 0.009 Machine Rental 0.017 0.006 0.006 Energy (Electrical) at $.054 /kWh 0.016 0.016 0.016 Labor Production 0.031 0.031 0.016 Labor Management, Maintenance, and Warehouse 0.049 0.016 0.008 Overhead 0.065 0.026 0.017 Transportation at $.40 /mile 0.004 0.004 0.004
TOTAL PRODUCTION COST PER LOG 0.313 0.230 0.198
Number of Logs per MBtu (31.8)
TOTAL PRODUCTION COST PER MBtu9.953 7.314 6.296
92 PELLETIZING (Based on Manufacturer's Information)
Cost per Ton from Farmer $ 33.85 $ 48.80 $ 59.39 Pelletizing 15.00 15.00 15.00 COST PER TON $ 48.85 $ 63.80 $ 74.39
COST PER MBtu $ 3.88 $ 5.06 $ 5.90
MOD -LOG (Based on Manufacturer's Information)
Cost per Ton from Farmer $ 33.85 $ 48.80 $ 59.39
Mod -Log (Compaction) 20.00 20.00 20.00
COST PER TON $ 53.85 $ 68.80 $ 79.39
COST PER MBtu $ 4.27 $ 5.46 $ 6.30
93 ANNUAL LOG PRODUCTION centWeekOne 8Efficiency for-hour 50 Shift,Weeks Five at 85 Days/ Per- Four -Machine Plant 85DaysThree Percent /Week 8 -hour Efficiency for Shifts, 50 Weeks Five at DaysThree85 Percent/Week 8 -hour for Efficiency Shifts, 50 Weeks Five at 10- Machine Plant LogsPoundsOperating /Year /Year Time /Machine/Plant /Machine /Year (Hours) 1,836,0002,295,000 459,000 2,000 5,508,0001,377,0006,885,000 6,000 13,770,0001,377,0006,885,000 6,000 co PercentAmount of ofProjected Land Required 1983 -84 (3.0Market Tons /Acre) 1,530 1.4 4,590 4.1 11,475 9.7 REFERENCES
Andrews, D.A.1937. Ground water in Avra -Altar Valley, Arizona. United States Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 796 -E, pages 163 -180.United States Government Printing Office, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Arizona Water Commission.1978.Project water uses, supplies and groundwater conditions in selected basins in Arizona, a baseline conditions draft report to the Groundwater Management Study Commission, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Bemis, W.P. 1979. The buffalo gourd: A potential arid land crop.Pages 65 -88 in G.A. Ritchie, ed., New Agricultural Crops. AAAS Selected Symposium No. 38, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA. Bolton, H.E. 1919. Kino's historical memoir of Pimeria Alta. Volume 1. Arthur H. Clark Company, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1981.Advance Report for Arizona on Population and Housing, March 1981. City of Tucson, Water and Sewers Department. 1979. Map of Northern Avra Valley. City of Tucson, Water and Sewers Department.1981.Map of Avra Valley Well Field. File #81 -09.
Cluff, C.B.1977.The compartmental reservoir:A method of effective water storage, Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Cluff, C.B.1980. Intermediate concentration systems for terrestrial photovoltaic panels. AS /ISES 1980 annual meeting, June 2 -6, 1980, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Cluff, C.B., G.R. Dutt, P.R. Ogden and J.K. Kuykendall.1972.Development of economic water harvesting systems for increasing water supply, phase II. OWRR Proj. B-015-Ariz., completion report, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA.
Cluff, C.B. and R.K. Frobel. 1978.Water harvesting catchment and reservoir construction methods. Water Resources Contribution No. 2, Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA. Comprehensive Plan:For the City of Tucson, Pima County, the City of South Tucson, and Pima Association of Governments: A draft for community review. 1975.
Dutt, G.R. and T.W. McCreary.1974.Multipurpose salt treated water harvesting systems.In Water Harvesting Symposium Proceedings, Phoenix, Arizona, March 26 -28, 1974.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, ARS W -22, 329 pp.
95 Department ofSoils,Water and Engineering,University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 1978. Crop survey. Unpublished data. Foster, K.E., R.L. Rawles and M.M. Karpiscak. 1980. Biomass potential in Arizona. Desert Plants 2(3):197 -200. Foster, K.E., W.G. McGinnies, J.G. Taylor, J.L. Mills, R.R. Wilkinson, F.C. Hopkins, E.W. Lawless, J. Maloney and R.C. Wyatt. 1980. A technology assessment of the commercialization of guayule:Final report. An OALS /MRI Report submitted to the National Science Foundation.University of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies, Tucson, and Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, USA.
Gelderman, F.W.1972.Soil survey of Tucson -Avra Valley area, Arizona. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station.United States Government Printing Office, Washington, District of Columbia, USA. Hathorn, S.1976 -1978. Arizona field crop budgets. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA. Idso, S.B. 1976. Dust storms. Scientific American 235(4):108 -114.
Jacobs, J.J.1968.An economic supply function for the diversion of irrigation water to Tucson. M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA. Johnson, J.D. and K.E. Foster.1980. The potential for arid lands to produce food, fiber, natural products and energy from plants.Paper presented at the 1980 Annual AAAS meeting, San Francisco, USA. Jordan, G.L. and M.L. Maynard.1970. The San Simon Watershed:Revegetation. Progressive Agriculture 22:4 -7, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Journal of the Arizona Senate.1948.Sixth Special Session of the Eighteenth Legislature.
Karpiscak, M.M. 1980.Secondary succession of abondoned field vegetation in southern Arizona. Ph.D.Dissertation. University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Karpiscak, M.M. and O.M. Grosz.1979.Dissemination trails of Russian thistle (Salsola kali L.) in recently fallowed fields.Journal of the Arizona- Nevada AcademyTScience 14:50 -52.
Leonard, R.J.1929.An earth fissure in Southern Arizona.Journal of Geology 37:765 -774.
Marcus, M.G., editor.1976.Evaluation of highway dust hazards along Interstate Route 10 in the Casa Grande -Eloy region. Arizona State University Center for Environmental Studies, Research Paper Number 3, Tempe, Arizona, USA.
96 Meinel, M., et al.1979.Biomass conversion using weed species.In Proceedings First International Symposium on Non -conventional Energy, Trieste, Italy.
McGinnies, W.G.1977.Overview of guayule programs.Pages 15 -25 in Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia Centro de Investigacion en Quimica Aplicada y Comision Nacional de las Zonas Aridas, Guayule:Reencuentro en el desierto. Second International Guayule Conference, Saltillo, Mexico, August 1 -5, 1977. Proceedings. Midwest Research Institute.1980.Investigation of the development of an Indian reservation -based jojoba industry:Economic analysis. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Kansas, USA. National Academy of Sciences.1977a. Guayule: An alternative source of natural rubber. National Academy of Science, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
National Academy of Sciences.1977b. Jojoba: Feasibility for cultivation on Indian reservations in the Sonoran Desert region.National Academy of Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Nichol, A.A. 1952.The natural vegetation of Arizona.University of Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 127, Tucson, Arizona, USA. Nivert, J.J., E.M. Glymph and C.E. Synder.1978. Preliminary economic analysis of guayule rubber production.Pages 357 -374 in Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Technologia, Centro de Investigacion en Química Aplicada y Comision Nacional de las Zonas Aridas, Guayule: Reencuentro en el Desierto. Second InternationalGuayuleConference,Saltillo,Mexico,August1 -5,1977, Proceedings. Pashley, E.F., Jr.1961. Subsidence cracks in alluvium near Casa Grande, Arizona. Arizona Geological Society Digest 4:95 -101.
Peterson, D.1964.Earth fissuring in the Picacho area, Pinal County, Arizona. United States Department of the Interior,Geological Survey, Open -file Report, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Robinson, G.M. and D.E. Peterson. 1962. Notes on earth fissures in Southern Arizona. United States Geological Survey Circular 466, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, District of Columbia, USA. Schumann, H.H. 1974. Land subsidence and earth fissures in alluvial deposits in the Phoenix area, Arizona. United States Geological Survey, Folio of the Phoenix area. Map I- 845 -H. 1:250,000. MiscellaneousInvestigationsSeries, Washington, District of Columbia, USA. Sellers, W.D. and R.H. Hill, editors. 1974. Arizona Climate, 1931 -1972.University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Shantz, H.L. and R.L. Piemeisel. 1924. Indicator significance of the natural vegetation of the southwestern desert region. Journal of Agricultural Research 28:721 -802.
97 Staff Report. 1974. The Central Arizona Project. Metropolitan Utilities Management Agency Board, Pima County and City of Tucson. Southwest Environmental Service. 1977. The Water Workshops Workbook.
Theissen, A.A., E.G. Knox and F.L. Mann.1978.Feasibility of introducing food crops better adapted to environmental stress, Volumes I and II:Report prepared for National Science Foundation, Contract No. AER 77 -19462 by Soil and Land Use Technology Inc., Columbia, Maryland, USA.
Tucson Electric Power Company. 1980. An Application forCertificate of Environmental Compatibility:Proposed 345 kV Transmission Line System from Tortolita Substation to Existing 345 kV Transmission Line Corridor Terminating at South Substation.Prepared for State of Arizona Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee.
Turner, S.F. and others.1943.Ground -water resources of the Santa Cruz Basin, Arizona. United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Open - file Report, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1978a.Santa Cruz -San Pedro River Basin, Arizona. Main Report.Soil Conservation Service, Economic Research Service, Forest Service in cooperation with the Arizona Water Commission, August 1977, Portland, Oregon, USA.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1978b.Santa Cruz -San Pedro River Basin, Arizona.Resource Inventory.Soil Conservation Service, Economic Research Service, Forest Service in cooperation with the Arizona Water Commission, August 1977, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Wright, N.G. 1978. The overall economic potential for growing jojoba under cultivationintheSouthwest. ThirdInternationalJojobaConference, Riverside, California, USA. Youngs, F.O., A.T. Sweet, A.T. Strahorn, T.W. Glassey and E.N. Poulson. 1936. Soil survey of the Tucson area, Arizona. United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, Series 1931, Number 19,United States Government Printing Office, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
98