Jun 1, 2022Pay Attention To Summer Insect ActivityTo contact John Palumbo go to: jpalumbo@ag.Arizona.edu
Figure 1. The Colorado River watershed that includes seven western U.S. states and 2
Mexican states, supports >40M people, >5.5M acres of farmland, and 22 Native American
tribes. Source: USGS.
Table 1. Drought Contingency Plan reductions in Arizona’s allocation from the Colorado River.
FAS = feet above sea level; KAF = thousand acre-feet; MAF = million acre-feet
Figure 2. General outline of reductions in water allocations by general source associated
with the Drought Contingency Plan.
So, this translates to nearly 480KAF less water moving through the Grand Canyon and into Lake Mead in FY22 and it puts the lower basin (the region below Lake Powell, Figure 1) one step closer to Tier 2 reductions.
The BoR periodically runs a series of model projections regarding the water levels at the dams for both Lakes Mead and Powell. Results from these models recently projected future water levels at the dams for the end of calendar year (CY) 2022 and 2023. For Lake Mead the end of CY 2022 projections include a most probable level of 1,049.37 FAS and the lowest probable level at 1,047.10 FAS. These results project the need for a Tier 2a level declaration by the end of CY 2022.
For the end of 2023, Lake Mead projections include a most probable level 1,035.63 FAS, which would trigger Tier 2b reductions in Colorado River water allocations to Arizona and a most probable minimum level of 1,020.63 FAS, which would necessitate Tier 3 reductions.
Due to the recent changes in river management plans that have been announced by the BoR associated with Lake Powell, these model projections for the end of CY 2022 and 2023 are probably high and probably project an overly optimistic condition. But we can see that the probability of moving into the Tier 2a, 2b, and Tier 3 reductions are very likely to occur by the end of 2023, if not sooner.
The warnings of John Wesley Powell, the famous one-armed Civil War Veteran who first directed an expedition down the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon in 1869, are certainly very prescient in the face of the circumstances we are dealing with today. In an address to the Montana Congressional Convention in 1889 he offered the following statement: “All the great values of this territory have ultimately to be measured to you in acre feet”. That is incredibly prophetic and certainly true in the reality of conditions that we are dealing with on the Colorado River today.
Essentially what we have today on the Colorado River is a supply and demand problem. Very simply, our demand and extractions from the Colorado River have been greater than the supply and what the river can provide. As a result, the great reservoirs on the river system, the savings accounts so to speak, have been depleted. We must come to grips with that reality and decide how the allocations of Colorado River water must be adjusted to bring them into an appropriate balance with the water we do have in the river.
The overall situation with the Colorado River offers some good news and some bad news for all of us depending on this water to live, work, and survive in this desert. The average annual flow of the Colorado River between 2000 and 2018 has been approximately 12.4MAF, which is 16 % lower than the 1906-2017 average of 14.8MAF/year. So, the good news is with the recognition that we have ~ 12MAF average annual flow in the Colorado River under these megadrought conditions. The bad news is that the Colorado River system is budgeted for 16.5MAF of allocated water between the U.S. and Mexico. Thus, there is a functional difference of >4MAF and the fact is that we must reconcile that difference and fast action is needed, much faster than our water governance systems normally operate.
Arizona agricultural is responsible for ~ 70% of the water diversions on the Colorado River and agriculture is taking the reductions now with Tier 1 and will carry much of the responsibility for the Tier 2 reductions. How agriculture fares in this process of Colorado River management in response to the water shortages is critical for the future of Arizona agriculture and the overall complexion of life in the desert Southwest.
I believe agriculture will prevail, but a lot of hard work, difficult decisions, and changes are ahead of us in the near future. Agriculture has some strong and effective groups working in this decision-making arena for water governance on the Colorado River and we need to be sure that practical agricultural considerations are being made in the process with both short and long-term implications.
On both crops, initial symptoms of bacterial leaf spot are water-soaked lesions on leaves. The lesions develop into spots that are varying shades of tan or brown (see picture ‘B’on parsley whereas advanced spots on cilantro can be black (see picture ‘A’ on cilantro). The lesions are usually limited by leaf veins and thus have an angular, square, or rectangular appearance, a typical feature of bacterial infection. Lesions tend to be relatively small about 1/8 to 1/4 inch (3–6 mm) in diameter and are visible from both the top and bottom of leaves. Under favorable conditions, free moisture from rain or sprinkler irrigation, leaf spots may coalesce and cause considerable blighting of the entire foliage.
Pseudomonas syringae pv. apii (Psa) and P. syringae pv. coriandricola (Psc). cause bacterial leaf spot on parsley and cilantro. Pseudomonas syringae pv. apii (Psa) can cause leaf blight in celery and fennel as well. Though the problem is documented as more of a problem in cilantro and less in celery, in severe condition the disease can result in unmarketable produce in any host. The bacteria are likely seedborne in both crops. However, water from rain, sprinkler irrigation, and heavy dews and fogs will splash bacteria from infected plants onto adjacent healthy foliage resulting in heavy infestation.
To manage the disease, always use tested/treated seeds, rotate crop with non-host to reduce inoculum level, switch from sprinkler to furrow irrigation to limit secondary spread, avoid excessive use of nitrogen fertilizer. Copper spray/copper based fungicide provide limited control against the pathogens.
Hairy fleabane grows about 4 feet, branches from the bottom and leaves are pubescent also stems are covered with stiff hairs. The growth habits of horseweed (marestail) are different in that they grow up to 10 feet tall and branches from the upper half of the plant.
You can find Fleabane flowering right now in the Yuma area especially the Yuma Mesa. The IPM Team has received calls from our friends PCAs and growers stating that the Fleabane survives the application of Glyphosate, which has been reported for both conyzas. So, we got some trials in progress looking for options to control Fleabane as well as other weeds that have shown tolerance to Roundup such as White sweet clover or malva in different crops.
The results from the evaluations will be shared in this newsletter.
1. UC/IPM Retrieved from http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/WEEDS/hairy_fleabane.html