Yuma County has 23 farm broadband towers built, but service is still out of reach

The county's latest update shows major construction progress, but 11 more towers need funding, and growers still have no confirmed date for service.

By Dan Bustard | Yuma Informed

Yuma County has substantially completed construction of 23 agricultural broadband towers, but the network meant to connect farms across the region is not yet ready for widespread service.

The towers reached substantial completion September 11, according to an October 5 presentation to the Board of Supervisors. Connecting them to fiber-optic lines and electrical power remains unfinished, and the county has not announced when growers will be able to sign up.

There is also the matter of the remaining 11 towers. The planned network calls for 34, but county officials estimate another $4.7 million will be needed to construct those not covered by the current funding.

For a project intended to bring reliable internet connectivity to Yuma's agricultural fields, the distinction matters. A completed tower is progress. A working connection that farmers can actually use is the result.

The October presentation was an informational update, not a new funding approval. It also covered the county's separate middle-mile fiber network, which is much closer to completion.

A network taking shape across Yuma County

The agricultural project is designed to support technology that requires dependable wireless connectivity in farm fields.

Its planned uses include monitoring soil moisture, controlling irrigation equipment remotely, tracking machinery and transmitting data from sensors. Such systems could eventually help growers make more precise decisions about water use, equipment and production.

The county's design calls for 34 towers, each approximately 50 feet tall, distributed among Yuma-area irrigation districts.

Of those, 23 have been constructed. The county reports that the structures reached substantial completion September 11, but the fiber connections and electrical service required to operate them remain unfinished.

ALLO began its fiber-to-towers work with a September 24 kickoff. The presentation identifies Arizona Public Service and Wellton-Mohawk as the electrical providers involved, but it gives no confirmed dates for energizing the sites.

The county also has not published an agricultural subscription price, guaranteed service speed, enrollment procedure or date for activating the full network.

Some technology is already being tested locally. KYMA reported September 15 that researchers and growers were using a smart-farm network at the University of Arizona Yuma Agricultural Center to explore applications such as remote irrigation controls and field monitoring.

Those demonstrations show what the technology could do. They do not mean the countywide network is already available to every grower.

Nearly 169 miles of fiber, but construction is not finished

The agricultural towers depend partly on another major public investment: Yuma County's middle-mile fiber network.

Middle-mile fiber connects larger telecommunications networks with local service providers. It is infrastructure that can make internet service possible, but it does not automatically deliver a connection to a particular home, business or farm.

Yuma County owns the network, while ALLO operates and markets it to carriers under their public-private partnership.

The October 5 presentation lists three construction phases:

• Phase 1: Yuma, Somerton and San Luis. Complete, with 69.93 miles of fiber and a listed project figure of $12,319,855.
• Phase 2: The Foothills, Dome Valley and Tacna areas. 96% complete, covering 68.78 miles, with a project figure of $11,819,465.
• Phase 3: North Gila Valley, Roll and Texas Hill. 95% complete, covering 30.12 miles, with a project figure of $5,271,921.

Together, those figures represent 168.83 miles and approximately $29.4 million in planned project expenditures.

The mileage describes the three phases, not necessarily the amount of fiber already completed or activated.

County staff expects Phase 3 to finish approximately $1 million under budget, although that is a projection rather than a final accounting.

There has been considerable progress since February. At that time, county officials reported Phase 3 was only 10% complete. It now stands at 95%.

Phase 2 is a different story.

It was 96% complete in February and remains at 96% in October. Staff previously described delays involving a cultural site and coordination with the Arizona Department of Transportation near the Gila River Bridge. Those earlier issues were reported resolved, but the latest presentation does not explain what is holding up the remaining work.

ALLO's online construction charts identify portions of the network as completed and available for lease. However, the charts use different segment descriptions and are not clearly dated to the county's October report.

They should not be treated as confirmation that every address along those routes can receive service.

Where the money stands

The county has assembled funding from federal pandemic-relief allocations, state grants, program income and interest earnings.

For the middle-mile network, the October presentation identifies:

• $18.7 million in county American Rescue Plan Act funding.
• $10 million from an Arizona Commerce Authority grant.
• $234,000 in additional ARPA funding.
• $30,000 in program income.
• $788,000 in interest.

Those amounts total approximately $29.75 million.

That is project funding, not a statement of how much has been paid to contractors.

The county's audited financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025 recorded $21,132,063 in middle-mile expenditures to date, along with $742,049 for agricultural wireless infrastructure.

Those numbers provide a historical accounting benchmark. They do not reflect all construction activity since June 2025.

The agricultural tower project has a separate $6 million Governor's Office grant using state ARPA funds.

The October presentation breaks that funding into $46,410 for administration, $438,192 for engineering and $5,418,578 for construction.

Those listed components total $5,903,180, leaving $96,820 of the stated grant amount unexplained in the presentation. That difference does not establish missing money, but the public figures do not identify its allocation.

Connecting the towers to fiber is another listed expense, estimated at approximately $2.6 million in county funds. The presentation identifies $200,000 in ARPA funding and approximately $2.4 million in interest earnings from ARPA and the Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund.

These budgets cannot automatically be combined into a single final project cost because the tower connections also extend the existing fiber backbone.

A September 21 county budget attachment also transferred $4,711,980 in existing ARPA construction authority between county departments. That was a budget transfer, not a new grant for the 11 remaining towers.

Earlier plans tell a different story

The project has changed considerably since the first tower construction contract.

An April 2025 county contract-amendment packet identifies eX2 Technology as the contractor and lists the original December 2024 award at $3,775,135.

The proposed amendment expanded the design from 27 towers to 34, reflecting revised electrical and engineering requirements. It listed a revised contract amount of $5,459,984.45 and an August 31, 2026 completion date, contingent on extending the state grant.

The publicly available attachment is a proposal, not a verified final executed contract. Without subsequent amendments and payment records, the difference cannot be presented as a confirmed cost overrun.

Earlier schedules have also shifted.

During the February 19 Board meeting, officials discussed an August tower closeout target and a roughly $2.4 million proposal to extend 48-strand fiber to agricultural sites.

The October presentation instead describes approximately $2.6 million in fiber work and 12-strand cable, with two strands reserved for tower operations.

The newer update does not explain the difference in cable specifications or estimated costs.

The middle-mile project has also encountered legal complications. In October 2024, Yuma County reported a construction and payment halt tied to procurement litigation brought by Gila Electronics. The county said portions already operating could continue.

The subsequent court orders and current disposition were not established in the records reviewed. That earlier dispute should not be assumed to be holding up the project today.

Can residents get service now?

For residents, the answer depends on their address and the provider serving it.

ALLO already advertises residential fiber service in Yuma, separate from the agricultural tower project.

Customers can check their address through ALLO's website or call 928-459-3655 for residential new-service inquiries. Business sales can be reached at 928-459-3610.

A fiber route passing through a neighborhood does not guarantee that every nearby property has an available connection.

For growers, the process is less clear.

On April 20, the Board of Supervisors approved formation of a Broadband Service District Authority in unanimous 5–0 votes, according to the signed meeting minutes.

The authority is intended to oversee agricultural connectivity. Mark Smith of Yuma Irrigation District told supervisors it would operate and govern the system without taxing authority.

Establishing that governing body was a step toward operating the network, but it did not establish a date when farms could subscribe.

The next measure of success

The original state grant documentation calls for quarterly expenditure and performance reporting.

Among the measures are acres served, participating farms, baseline water use, water conserved and completed infrastructure milestones.

Those reports will matter when the network begins operating.

Yuma County's October update documents construction progress, but it does not provide measured water savings, farm participation totals, network reliability results or verified productivity improvements.

Those benefits remain goals rather than demonstrated outcomes.

The immediate questions are more practical. When will the completed towers receive power and fiber? Which growers can connect first? What equipment and monthly costs will participation involve? And where will the county find the estimated $4.7 million needed for the remaining towers?

The project has moved far beyond planning, with substantial infrastructure already built. What residents and growers still need is a clear accounting of when that investment will become a working service.

As of October 8, the public records reviewed do not provide that answer.