Hualapai Valley Groundwater Basin Updated Report Presentation Date: 6/16/2025
Farm Observations
Hualapai Valley Groundwater Basin Farms
- Southern Gregg Subbasin – 1,826 Orchards Acres
- Hualapai Subbasin – 6,160 Orchard Acres– 383 Vine Acres
- Kingman Subbasin – 8,136 Orchard Acres
- 16,505 Total Active Farm Acres
Southern Gregg Subbasin
1,826 Total Active Orchard Acres Observed
Farm Owners:
- Arizona Series – 1,826 Acres
Approx. 1,242 Acres greater than 2019 (per page 22 of the USGS 2021 HVB Study Report)
Hualapai Subbasin
6,543 Total Active Orchard/Vine Acres Observed
Farm Owners:
- Hualapai Valley Farms – 2622 Acres
- Red Lake Ventures LLC – 38 Acres
- Route 66 Farms – 3883 Acres
Approx. 5,650 Acres fewer than 2019 (per page 22 of the USGS 2021 HVB Study Report)
Kingman Subbasin
8,136 Total Active Orchard Acres Observed
Farm Owners:
- Peacock Nuts LLC – 3358 Acres
- EF Family Farms LLC – 368 Acres
- SAIR Partnership 5 LLC – 1122 Acres
- Aminag LLC – 1843 Acres
- Rockview Farms LLC – 275 Acres
- R & R Farm Management/Moga Agri - 704 Acres
- Mohave Valley University LLC - 466 Acres
Approx. 6,800 Acres greater than 2019 (per page 22 of the USGS 2021 HVB Study Report)
Vegetation Observed
16,122 Acres of Orchard Trees
383 Acres of Vines
Orchard Trees ranging from New to Mature
USGS Orchard Tree water withdrawal rates:
- Orchard Trees: 2.42 to 3.02 Acre-Feet per Acre (Used the average of 2.72 ac/ft for this update)
- Vines: 1.01 Acre-Feet per Acre
Source:
https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/6674c309d34e3a6e5be0dfc1
COMPARISON CHART
| 2021 HUALAPAI VALLEY BASIN (HVB) USGS STUDY REPORT | 2024 HVB UPDATED FORECAST REPORT | DIFFERENCE | ||||||
| 2021 REPORT FARM OWNERS | CULTIVATED ACRES FOR 2019 | ESTIMATED WATER DEMAND FOR 2019 | ESTIMATED CULTIVATED ACRES FOR 2024 | ESTIMATED WATER DEMAND FOR 2024 | 2024 FARM OWNERS | OBSERVED CULTIVATED ACRES | ESTIMATED WATER DEMAND | DIFFERENCE OF 2024 WATER DEMAND ESTIMATED IN USGS REPORT AND CURRENT FORECAST |
| Gregg Subbasin | Gregg Subbasin | Gregg Subbasin | ||||||
| Arizona Series/Barbarich Farms - (Farm 6 in 2021 Report) | 584 | 1,080 | 640 | 1,728 | Arizona Series | 1,826 | 4,977 | 3,249 |
| Gregg Subbasin Totals | 584 | 1,080 | 640 | 1728 | Gregg Subbasin Totals | 1,826 | 4,977 | |
| Hualapai Subbasin | Hualapai Subbasin | Hualapai Subbasin | ||||||
| Kingman Farms/Harris Brunner Farms LLC/Sun Pacific Marketing - (Farm 1 in 2021 Report) | 0 | 0 | 13,600 | 36,720 | Not Active in 2024 | 0 | 0 | -45,976 |
| Stockton Hill Farms - (Farm 2 in 2021 Report) | 12,192 | 22,550 | 9,778 | 26,400 | Hualapai Valley Farms | 2,622 | 6,478 | |
| Red Lake Ventures LLC | 38 | 104 | ||||||
| Route 66 Farms | 3,883 | 10,562 | ||||||
| Hualapai Subbasin Totals | 12,192 | 22,550 | 23,378 | 63,120 | Hualapai Subbasin Totals | 6,543 | 17,144 | |
| Kingman Subbasin | Kingman Subbasin | Kingman Subbasin | ||||||
| Peacock Nuts LLC/Mohave Agrarian Group - (Farm 3 in 2021 Report) | 1,314 | 2,430 | 1,500 | 4,050 | Peacock Nuts LLC | 3,358 | 9,134 | 7,929 |
| Oasis Organics/Beards Quality Nut Co. - (Farm 4 in 2021 Report) | 0 | 0 | 2,360 | 6,372 | Mohave Valley University LLC | 466 | 1,268 | |
| Nazag LLC - (Farm 5 on 2021 Report) | 0 | 0 | 1,040 | 2,808 | R&R Farm Management - Moga Agri | 704 | 1,915 | |
| EF Family Farms LLC/Sair Partnership 5 LLC/Kingman Orchards/Ligenfelter - (Farm 7 in 2021 Report) | 0 | 0 | 360 | 972 | Rockview Farms LLC | 275 | 748 | |
| Aminag LLC | 1,843 | 5,013 | ||||||
| EF Family Farms LLC | 368 | 1,001 | ||||||
| SAIR Partnership 5 LLC | 1,122 | 3,052 | ||||||
| Kingman Substation Totals | 1,314 | 2,430 | 5,260 | 14,202 | Kingman Substation Totals | 8,136 | 22,131 | |
| 2021 Report Totals | 14,090 | 26,060 | 29,278 | 79,050 | 2024 Estimated Totals | 16,505 | 44,252 | Total: -34,798 |
| Withdrawal Avg 1.84 Acre-Ft/Acre | Withdrawal Avg 2.7 Acre-Ft/Acre | Withdrawal Avg 2.68 Acre-Ft/Acre | ||||||
USGS HVHM Update Results
Groundwater Budget Update
Water-budget component This study (acre-ft/yr) |
Other Studies |
||||
| Garner and Truini (2011) (acre-ft/yr) | Gillespie and Bentley (1971) (acre-ft/yr) | Freethey and Anderson (1986)1 (acre-ft/yr) | Other (see footnote 3) (acre-ft/yr) | ||
| Natural recharge | |||||
| Mountain-block recharge | 4,200 | 4,400 | - | - | - |
| Truxton Wash stream-channel recharge | 800 | 600 | - | - | - |
| Other ephemeral stream-channel recharge | - | 400 | - | - | - |
| Underflow at Truxton Wash | - | 2300 | 3-1,000 | 300 | - |
| Total recharge | 5,000 | 5,700 | 5,000 | 3,500 | 42,000-2,500 |
| Natural Discharge | |||||
| To Lake Mead | - | 5,700 | 5,000 | 3,800 | - |
| Phreatic ET | - | <300 | - | <1,000 | - |
| Total discharge | 5,600 | 5,700 | 5,000 | ||
| Groundwater Withdrawals | |||||
| City of Kingman municipal | 8,900 | 7,600 | - | - | - |
| CWS | - | 500 | - | - | - |
| SSD | 1,100 | 500 | - | - | - |
| Interbasin transfer | - | 1,200 | - | - | - |
| Agricultural pumping | 26,000 | - | - | - | - |
| Total withdrawal | 36,000 | 9,800 | - | - | 58,200 |
| Incidental recharge | |||||
| Infrastructure leakage | - | 500 | - | - | - |
| Septic systems | - | 3,000 | - | - | - |
| treated WWTP effluent | - | 800 | - | - | - |
| Total incidental recharge | 4,500 | 4,200 | - | - | - |
| Enhanced infiltration projects | 1,200 | - | - | - | - |
| Total inflow | 10,700 | 9,900 | - | - | - |
| Total outflow | 41,600 | 15,500 | - | - | - |
| Storage change | -30,900 | -5,600 | - | - | - |
| Total storage, in maf | - | 5 | 10.5-21 | - | 43.8-10.1 |
1Data are predevelopment values obtained from unpublished tabular data. Plates in report show only qualitative ranges of values
2From Freethey and Anderson (1986) pre-development conditions, as there are insufficient data to calculate a current-condition value
3Negative value indicates basin outflow, rather than inflow, because of large Truxton Canyon pumping withdrawals in the 1960s
4Inavich and Conway (2009)
5Tadayoa (2005), value as of year 2000
| Ground Water Budget Update | ||
| Basin Recharge | 2021 HVB | 2024 Update (acre-ft/yr) |
| Natural Recharge1 | 5,000 | 5,000 |
| Incidental Recharge1 | 4,500 | 4,500 |
| Infiltration Project Recharge2 | 1,200 | 0 |
| Total Inflow | 10,700 | 9,500 |
| Basin Withdrawals | ||
| Natural Discharge1 | -5,600 | -5,600 |
| City of Kingman Wells3 | -8,900 | -8,627 |
| Foothills Utilities Wells4 | 0 | -268 |
| Personal Wells5 | -1,100 | -1,227 |
| Agricultural Wells | -26,000 | -44,252 |
| Total Outflow | -41,600 | -59,974 |
| Total Deficit | -30,900 | -50,474 |
1These numbers are based on Table 2 (page 15) of the 2021 HVB and are considered the same for the purposes of this update
2This was included in the 2021 HVB but was not used in the 2024 update
3The 2024 number is pulled directly from ADWR well pumping date for the City of Kingman Wells in 2024
4These wells were not included in the 2021 report, but are included in the update with the ADWR well pumping data for 2024
5The same 2.3% annual increase assumption used for the municipal wells was used for this number in the 2024 update
Future Efforts and Conclusion
