4.3
Average acre-feet applied per irrigated acre in Arizona. This is the statewide default when no crop-specific value is entered.
SIM Research Model
Public Record -> Operational Constraint -> Field Usability Score.
This layer turns public Arizona water and irrigation metrics into transparent engineering estimates. It does not claim that a water unit is available, transferable, or legally usable.
SIM does not broker or determine water rights. It measures the gap between water on paper and water that can actually reach a crop.
401 ft
Average Arizona depth to bowls or impellers for pumped irrigation wells in the USDA survey.
$82.4M
Reported Arizona pumping energy expenses for powered irrigation pumps.
Calculated Engineering Estimate
Translate public benchmarks into hydraulic burden.
Defaults start with public data anchors. Adjust the scenario to see how applied water, lift, pressure, efficiency, and operating window change field usability.
Beneficial water proxy2.15 AF/ac
Delivery gap proxy2.15 AF/ac
Total dynamic head481.9 ft
Energy burden759.1 kWh/AF
Energy cost$106.27/AF
Conventional rate12.97 GPM/ac
Continuous rate5.41 GPM/ac
Peak window reduction58.3%
Energy burden score75.6
Field usability score70.2
Nano Flow opportunity score63.5
Energy uses pressure head = PSI x 2.31, total dynamic head = lift + pressure head, and kWh/AF = total dynamic head x 1.024 / pump efficiency. Scores are scenario indices, not legal findings or stamped engineering documents.
Score Architecture
Use public records to identify the operational constraint, then score the receiving-system fit.
Water Reliability Score
Combines source type, legal or administrative class, shortage exposure, and reporting confidence.
Delivery Burden Score
Uses delivery dependency, distance proxy, district relationship, and infrastructure constraint flags.
Recovery Burden Score
Flags stored or recharge-linked water that needs recovery wells, agreements, or exchange assumptions.
Energy Burden Score
Uses lift, pressure, field flow rate, pump efficiency, and energy cost to estimate kWh per acre-foot.
Field Usability Score
Connects crop demand, irrigation method, operating window, field efficiency, and storage buffering.
Nano Flow Opportunity Score
Prioritizes places where public water pressure and field-level peak demand make measured pilots useful.
Metric Anchors
Research values currently seeded into the model.
Each anchor keeps its agency, table, geography, year, confidence label, and model use so public facts remain separate from SIM extrapolation.
Crop ET benchmark
| Metric | Value | Source | Model use | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recent Yuma lettuce water requirement lower bound Yuma, Arizona / 2025 | 12 inches per acre | University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Water requirement discussion Source | Crop-specific demand floor for lettuce scenarios. | Observed Public Data |
| Recent Yuma lettuce water requirement upper bound Yuma, Arizona / 2025 | 16 inches per acre | University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Water requirement discussion Source | Crop-specific demand ceiling for lettuce scenarios. | Observed Public Data |
Distribution method baseline
| Metric | Value | Source | Model use | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona open-field drip, trickle, or low-flow micro acres Arizona / 2023 | 92,828 acres | USDA NASS Table 31 and Table 34 Source | Observed baseline for low-flow adoption and Nano Flow comparative framing. | Observed Public Data |
| Arizona open-field gravity-system acres Arizona / 2023 | 693,836 acres | USDA NASS Table 31. Method of Water Distribution in Fields in the Open Source | Identifies where conventional distribution methods dominate and where peak-demand redesign has a larger contrast. | Observed Public Data |
| Arizona open-field sprinkler-system acres Arizona / 2023 | 182,162 acres | USDA NASS Table 31. Method of Water Distribution in Fields in the Open Source | Benchmarks pressure-dependent field delivery acreage. | Observed Public Data |
Energy baseline
| Metric | Value | Source | Model use | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona total energy expenses for pumping Arizona / 2023 | 82,372,000 dollars | USDA NASS Table 16. Energy Expenses for Pumps by Type of Energy Used Source | Economic energy burden benchmark for pumping-intensive regions. | Observed Public Data |
Groundwater data currency
| Metric | Value | Source | Model use | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADWR GWSI tabular data update date Arizona / 2026 | 20,260,414 YYYYMMDD | Arizona Department of Water Resources ADWR TABULAR Data Download Source | Data currency flag for groundwater stress and pumping-burden imports. | Observed Public Data |
Groundwater pumping baseline
| Metric | Value | Source | Model use | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona average depth to bowls or impellers for pumped wells Arizona / 2023 | 401 feet | USDA NASS Table 14. Characteristics of Pumped Wells and Irrigation Well Pumps on Farms Source | Default pumping-lift proxy for statewide groundwater energy burden scenarios. | Observed Public Data |
| Arizona irrigation wells used on farms Arizona / 2023 | 4,066 wells | USDA NASS Table 11. Irrigation Wells Used on Farms Source | Groundwater pumping intensity and monitoring readiness proxy. | Observed Public Data |
Lower Colorado validation baseline
| Metric | Value | Source | Model use | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona Lower Colorado River mainstream agriculture CUL Arizona Lower Colorado River System / 2024 | 1,006,460 acre-feet | Bureau of Reclamation Mainstream / Total Lower System, 2024 agriculture Source | Validation-zone weight for Yuma and Lower Colorado pilot prioritization. | Observed Public Data |
| Arizona Lower Colorado River tributary agriculture CUL Arizona Lower Colorado River System / 2024 | 1,943,960 acre-feet | Bureau of Reclamation Total Lower System, 2024 agriculture Source | Regional water-accounting visibility benchmark. | Observed Public Data |
USDA irrigation baseline
| Metric | Value | Source | Model use | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona average water applied per irrigated acre Arizona / 2023 | 4.30 acre-feet per acre | USDA NASS Table 7. Estimated Quantity of Water Applied By Source Source | Default applied-water depth for Arizona field scenarios when crop-specific data is absent. | Observed Public Data |
| Arizona irrigated acres Arizona / 2023 | 921,013 acres | USDA NASS Table 7. Estimated Quantity of Water Applied By Source Source | Statewide denominator for regional demand and benchmark comparisons. | Observed Public Data |
| Arizona water applied from all sources Arizona / 2023 | 3,927,853 acre-feet | USDA NASS Table 7. Estimated Quantity of Water Applied By Source Source | Conventional demand benchmark; computes 4.3 AF/ac statewide applied-water baseline. | Observed Public Data |
Water-use methodology
| Metric | Value | Source | Model use | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| USGS Arizona irrigation-withdrawal estimation method Arizona outside AMAs / 2026 | Method | U.S. Geological Survey Irrigation method description Source | Supports SIM extrapolation using acreage, crop water requirement, and irrigation efficiency where metered data is unavailable. | Observed Public Data |
Yuma crop and irrigation benchmark
| Metric | Value | Source | Model use | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yuma field-crop budget flood-irrigation efficiency assumption Yuma County, Arizona / 2026 | 50 percent efficiency | University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Irrigation assumptions Source | Yuma conventional field benchmark for storage-buffered and low-flow comparison. | Observed Public Data |
| Yuma field-crop budget irrigation water cost Yuma County, Arizona / 2026 | 45 dollars per acre-foot | University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Irrigation assumptions Source | Cost context for Yuma field scenarios. | Observed Public Data |
The score measures operational fit, not entitlement.
Nano Flow improves only the receiving-system demand profile. It does not change legal class, ownership, recovery authority, water quality requirements, or provider agreements.
Next research imports
- ADWR GWSI depth-to-water records and well registry geometry.
- ADWR recharge/LTSC account and facility records where public.
- CAP allocation/service-area layers and subcontract reports.
- Reclamation Water Accounting Report user-level diversions and returns.
- Crop-specific ET and field trial measurements for Yuma and Pinal pilots.