Water Resources
Development Commission
Final Report

Volume I
October 1, 2011

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS
Member
Bas Aja
Steve Olson
David Modeer
Pat Call
Lyn White
John Lewis
Maureen George
Ray Benally
David Brown (Co-chair)
Ron Doba
David Snider
John Sullivan
Warren Tenney
Wade Noble
Pat Graham
Chris Avery

Representing
Agriculture - Statewide
Arizona Municipal Water Users Association
Central Arizona Water Conservation District
Cochise County/Southern Arizona
Industry - Statewide
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
Mohave County/Northwest Arizona
Navajo Nation
Northeastern Arizona
Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association
Pinal County
Salt River Project
Southern Arizona Water Users Association
Southwest Colorado River Communities
The Nature Conservancy
Tucson, City of (Tucson Water Department)

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Steve Olea
Don Butler
Michael Fulton
Sandra Fabritz-Whitney (Chair)
Larry Voyles
Maria Baier
Kevin Kinsall
Jim Kenna
Randy Chandler

Arizona Corporation Commission
Arizona Department of Agriculture
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Arizona Department of Water Resources
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Arizona State Land Department
Governor Jan Brewer’s Office
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

FORMER WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS
Herb Guenther (Chair)
Tom Buschatzke (Co-chair)

Arizona Department of Water Resources
City of Phoenix

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page i

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ADVISORS

Chris Udall
Tom Farley
Jim Klinker
Gary Hix
Craig Sullivan
Spencer Kamps
Ray Jones

Agri-Business Council
Arizona Association of REALTORS
Arizona Farm Bureau
Arizona Water Well Association
County Supervisors Association of Arizona
Home Builders Association of Central Arizona
Water Utility Association of Arizona

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page ii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADWR
AF
AMA
CAP
SWAG
WIFA
WRDC
WS&D Committee
WSDR Fund

Arizona Department of Water Resources
Acre-feet; the volume of water needed to cover one acre of
land, one foot deep; 325,851 gallons
Active Management Area
Central Arizona Project
Statewide Water Advisory Group
Water Infrastructure Finance Authority
Water Resources Development Commission
Water Supply and Demand Committee
Water Supply Development Revolving Fund

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Arizona has a long history of successful water
management practices, dating back to the development
of irrigation systems by tribal people nearly two millennia ago. Arizona’s leaders were, and continue to be,
forward thinkers with respect to water resources management and are recognized for their long-term vision
in this arena. Arizonans have been willing to aggressively take action as needed to insure that sufficient water
supplies are available to secure long-term economic
viability and provide a high quality of life for Arizona’s
current and future generations. The current challenge
facing Arizona is that, although the state has a solid
water foundation, future economic development is anticipated to increase demand for water. Arizona is not
unique among the arid states in facing this challenge to
identify water supplies to meet future demands.

nine ex officio members representing state and federal
agencies and the Governor’s office. There are seven advisors to the commission.
There were five committees formed in order to
meet the statutory obligations of the WRDC: the Population Committee, the Water Supply and Demand Committee, the Environmental Committee, the Finance
Committee, and the Legislative Recommendations Committee. Each WRDC committee prepared detailed written reports that describe the various methods and
assumptions used to develop the data. These reports
were based on an examination of the existing data and
information only, and do not represent independent research. However, the reports represent an exploration of
the water demands, supplies and water dependent natural resources throughout the state with the purpose of
creating a broad synopsis of conditions in each county.
Information, data and recommendations from these reports were utilized by the WRDC in developing this final
report. None of the committee reports have been independently verified by the WRDC and the work products
represent the viewpoints of the individual committees
and not the WRDC as a whole. The reports are intended
to present the information as requested by the legislature
and are not intended to be utilized in a regulatory manner. The committee reports are available in their entirety
in Volume 2 of this report and available at
http:/infoshare.azwater.gov/docushare/dsweb/View/C
ollection-123.

The inherent diversity, variability and complexity within Arizona makes meeting this challenge difficult. In some areas, water users may only have access to
surface water from rivers and streams. In others, they
rely completely on groundwater. Other regions have
access to both groundwater and surface water, which
can be conjunctively managed to provide renewable and
redundant supplies for the benefit of local water users.
Some areas may have elaborate and far reaching water
transmission and delivery systems, while others have no
infrastructure and rely entirely on local wells. Some
areas may have experienced rapid growth and others
may have not. Some areas of the state have extensive
water-dependent natural resource issues. Some areas
of the state have water supplies available that far exceed
projected demands. In others, the currently developed
supplies may not be sufficient to meet projected future
demands, however, there are locally available supplies
that can be developed in volumes adequate to meet
those needs. Absent development of supply acquisition
and transportation projects, some portions of this arid
state may struggle to meet projected water demands
with locally available supplies. Reclaimed water is used
to meet non-potable demands and augment aquifers in
many areas. These supplies are anticipated to increase
with growth and can be used to stretch available
groundwater and surface water supplies.

This report projects that total statewide demand
will range from a low of 8.1 million AF in 2035 to a high
of 10.6 million AF in 2110. Potential future water supplies to meet that demand include groundwater, surface
water (both in-state rivers and the Colorado River), reclaimed water, and other water such as brackish or poor
quality groundwater, mine and agricultural drainage,
desalinated water, and water made available through
weather modification. However, there are numerous hydrologic, technical, legal, and economic challenges in
developing such supplies that may limit their practical
feasibility or actual development. These challenges are
generally detailed within this report.

In 2010, the Arizona State Legislature passed
House Bill 2661 that established the Water Resources
Development Commission (WRDC). The WRDC was
given the task of assessing Arizona’s demand for water
and the supplies available to meet those demands for
the next 25, 50, and 100 years. The WRDC is comprised
of 17 commission members selected because they possessed knowledge regarding a variety of water resource
and water management issues in the state, and because
they provided representation for a regional and geographic cross-section of the state. The WRDC also has

The WRDC completed the legislated task of analyzing Arizona’s water needs for 100 years and has made
progress in evaluating the issues associated with those
needs. It is now known that portions of the state have
sufficient supplies developed to meet future needs, while
other areas within the state will require development of
additional supplies for the future. However, due to the
variability in Arizona’s geology, climate, precipitation
patterns, water use patterns, population growth and land
ownership, evaluation of the issues and development of
comprehensive solutions is extremely difficult.
Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page iv

Arizona must develop a broad portfolio of solutions to
meet the myriad of challenges that are inherent in this
diverse state. Finally, decisions must be made regarding what solutions will be most effective in discrete
regions, how those solutions will be funded, and
whether implementation of the solutions require legislative changes.
Due to the time constraints associated with
preparation of this final report, the WRDC has not
been able to fully consider all of these issues. Pursuant
to House Bill 2661, the WRDC does not sunset until
September 30, 2012. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the WRDC that it be given until the sunset date
to continue development, evaluation and prioritization of potential solutions and/or legislative proposals.

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page v

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND….…………………………………………………….1
POPULATION COMMITTEE………………………………………………………………………3
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE….…………………………………………………………..3
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMMITTEE…………………………………………..3
Projected Future Water Demands……………………………………………………………………...3
Currently Developed Water Supplies………………………………………………………………......3
Identification of Potential Future Water Supplies ………………………………………………..5
Identification of Legal and Technical Issues Associated with Utilization of
Additional Water Supplies………………….……………………………………………………………...6
FINANCE COMMITTEE……………………………………………………………………………6
Identification of Potential Mechanisms to Finance Acquisition of Water
Supplies Infrastructure……….……………………………………………………………………………6
Water Supply Development Revolving Fund ..……………………………………………………8
Evaluation of Potential Revenue Sources and Funding Mechanisms …………..….…….8
Public-Private Partnerships ……………………………………………….……………………………..8
RECOMMENDATIONS …………………………………………………………………………….9
Committee Recommendation with Respect to Data Analyses…………………………………9
Committee Recommendations Regarding Further Studies and Evaluations.…........…9
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ….………………………………………………………..10
APPENDICES .……………….……………………….….…..….…………………………………44
Appendix I. List of Committee Participants……………………………………………………………...44
Appendix II. List of Arizona Department of Water Resources Staff Participants in the
WRDC Process ..………………………………………………………………………………….48

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table
Table
Table
Table

1.
2.
3.
4a.

Table 4b.
Table 4c.
Table 4d.
Table 5.
Table
Table
Table
Table

6.
7.
8.
9.

Census Block Population Projections……………………………………………………..11
Total Water Demand by Groundwater Basin for 2035, 2060, and 2110 …………12
Currently Developed Water Supply by Groundwater Basin……………………...15
Basins that May Require Development of Additional Water Supplies and
Potential Future Water Supplies Available to that Basin………………………….18
2060 New Basins that May Require Development of Additional Water
Supplies and Potential Future Water Supplies Available to that Basin….……….20
2110 (Census Block) New Basins that May Require Development of
Additional Water Supplies and Potential Future Water Supplies
Available to that Basin………..………………………………..…………………………………...21
2110 New Basins that May Require Development of Additional Water
Supplies and Potential Future Water Supplies Available to that Basin…………….22
Potential Legal and Technical Issues Associated with Additional
Water Supplies ….…………………….……………………………………………………………..24
Comparison of Traditional Financing Sources for Water Resources ….……….…...7
Comparison of Various Funding Sources for WSDR……….……………………….25
Range of Projected Potential Revenue by Source if Implemented in 2011 ……..…8
Current Groundwater Supply for All Basins…………………………………………..27

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.

Statewide Counties and Groundwater Basins ……………….………………………….4
Apache County Groundwater Basins……………………………………………………...29
Cochise County Groundwater Basins………….…………………………………………..30
Coconino County Groundwater Basins………….………………………………………31
Gila County Groundwater Basins………………………………………………………….32
Graham County Groundwater Basins…………………………………………………….33
Greenlee County Groundwater Basins………….……………………………………….34
LaPaz County Groundwater Basins……………………………………………………….35
Maricopa County Groundwater Basins……………………………………………………36
Mohave County Groundwater Basins…………………………………………………….37
Navajo County Groundwater Basins……………………………………………………..38
Pima County Groundwater Basins………………………………………………………….39
Pinal County Groundwater Basins………………………………………………………….40
Santa Cruz County Groundwater Basins………….……………………………………….41
Yavapai County Groundwater Basins…………………………………………………….42
Yuma County Groundwater Basins…………….…………………………………………43

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page viii

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In 2010, the Arizona State Legislature passed
House Bill 2661 that established the Water Resources
Development Commission (WRDC). The WRDC was
given the task of assessing Arizona’s demand for water
and the supplies available to meet those demands for the
next 25, 50, and 100 years.
Arizona has a long history of successful water
management practices. Nearly two millennia ago, tribal
people developed a variety of techniques to create productive communities in this desert environment. The
early irrigation systems used in the late 19th century in
the Salt River Valley were built by restoring some of the
canals constructed much earlier by tribal people. Arizonans have continued to make significant contributions to
developing water supplies for agricultural, industrial and
domestic uses. Arizona’s leaders were, and continue to
be, forward thinkers with respect to water resources
management and are recognized for their long-term vision in this arena. Arizonans have been willing to aggressively take action as needed to insure that sufficient
water supplies are available to secure long-term economic viability and provide a high quality of life for Arizona’s
current and future generations. Historically, the actions
have been varied and include: developing dams and reservoirs such as those developed as part of the Salt River
Project, the San Carlos Irrigation Project, and the present day Maricopa Water District to utilize surface water
supplies negotiating and litigating for rights to the Colorado River; obtaining authorization for construction of
the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal; passage of the
Groundwater Management Act; and development of the
Arizona Water Banking Authority. While diverse, they
have shared the common theme of being solutions that
were developed to meet the future water resource challenges the state faced.
Arizona has been successful at managing its water resources because it has continually planned and
invested in them for well over a century. In fact, without
the past efforts in the state, the magnitude of our current
challenge would be even greater. The current challenge
facing Arizona is that, although the state has a solid
water foundation, future economic development is anticipated to increase demand for water. Water is an essential element to Arizona’s prosperity. Arizona has grown,
in a relatively short time frame, from a population of 2.7
million people with an economy of $30 billion in 1980 to
nearly 6.6 million people with an economy of $260 billion in 2009.
Annual water use in the state is projected to grow
from current levels of about 7.1 million acre-feet to between 9.9 to 10.6 million acre-feet per year in 2110.
Arizona’s further growth will occur during a period of
supply uncertainty.

Consequently, the economic future of the state is dependent upon a resource for which it is facing a potential period of limits. The issue of limits is further
exacerbated when the complexity that exists within
Arizona is taken into consideration.
The state of Arizona includes widely diverse
geographic regions ranging from forested mountain
areas to arid desert areas. These areas have dissimilar
climates and precipitation patterns, resulting in variability in, and accessibility to, surface water supplies.
Arizona is also geologically complex, which impacts the
availability, quality and accessibility of groundwater
supplies. Areas of water demand are also unevenly distributed across the state. Central Arizona exhibits the
highest concentration of urban/municipal uses and
growth and much of this use is located on retired farmlands. While no longer the dominant use in Central
Arizona, agricultural irrigation is still significant and is
the most prevalent water use sector in other portions of
the state, such as the Gila Bend Basin and along the
main-stem of the Colorado River. Industrial uses, such
as copper mining remain regionally significant water
use in isolated portions of the state.
Arizona is also unique in its land ownership
pattern. Less than 18 percent of the land within the
state is under private ownership. State trust land comprises almost 13 percent of the land, with the remainder
either federal or Indian trust land. This variability in
land ownership adds additional complexity and challenges that must be met. These challenges range from:
the need to appropriately involve tribal entities to insure that Indian water supplies, demands and water
rights settlements are accurately portrayed and considered; and insuring that the mandates of state trust and
federal lands are fulfilled.
Additionally, Arizona has a bifurcated water law
system, with groundwater and surface water largely
regulated under separate statutes and rules. Reclaimed
water is managed under a completely different set of
regulations and policies. This legal complexity adds to
the challenge of ensuring that adequate supplies exist
to meet the demands across the state.
A direct result of the diversity, variability and
complexity within Arizona is that it makes definition of
the issue difficult. In some areas, water users may only
have access to surface water from rivers and streams.
In others, they rely completely on groundwater. Other
regions have access to both groundwater and surface
water, which can be conjunctively managed to provide
renewable and redundant supplies for the benefit of
local water users. Some areas may have elaborate

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 1

and far reaching water transmission and delivery systems, while other have no infrastructure and rely entirely on local wells.
Some areas may have
experienced rapid growth and others may have not.
Some areas of the state have water supplies available
that far exceed projected demands. In others, the currently developed supplies may not be sufficient to
meet projected future demands, however, there are
locally available supplies that can be developed in
volumes adequate to meet those needs. Absent development of supply acquisition and transportation projects, some portions of this arid state may struggle to
meet projected water demands with locally available
supplies.
Arizona’s environment is unique, but its need
to develop secure and sufficient supplies to meet current and projected demands is shared by many states
and regions throughout the world. While Arizona
water managers have long recognized the uncertainty
and vulnerability of the state’s water supplies, it is
known that additional water supply development solutions will be needed to ensure Arizona’s water supplies will be sustainable for future generations.
It is clear that meeting the demand for additional water supplies in the 21st century requires inventive action to be taken and consideration of new
ways to expand supplies. As the idea of limits loomed
on the horizon, Arizona’s proactive water planners
recognized the need for action. The result was creation of the WRDC that could: (1) assist in identifying
future water supply needs throughout the state; (2)
assist in identifying and developing proposals for
projects to meet those supply needs; and (3) provide
recommendations to the Legislature and Governor
regarding development of additional water supplies.
Stakeholders in Arizona strongly believe that these
prudent steps are necessary to insure a sustainable
economic and environmental future for the state.
The WRDC is comprised of 17 commission
members selected because they possessed knowledge
regarding a variety of water resource and water management issues in the state, and because they provided representation for a regional and geographic
cross-section of the state. The WRDC also has nine ex
officio members representing state and federal agencies and the Governor’s office. There are seven advisors to the commission. Information regarding
commission membership is presented on pages I and
ii.

The WRDC held its first meeting on August 13,
2010 and adopted a work plan developed by ADWR
staff that was designed to meet the October, 2011
deadline. The underpinning of the work plan was the
creation of committees that were chaired by commissioners and tasked with specific objectives. The Population Committee was tasked with developing
population forecasts through 2110. This committee
had the earliest deadline for completion of projections
because a majority of the water use demands are based
on population. The Water Supply and Demand Committee (WS&D) was tasked with utilizing the population projections and developing forecasted water
demands and current and projected water supplies to
meet those demands. The Environmental Committee
was tasked with preparing an inventory of Arizona’s
water-dependent natural resources so that an evaluation could be made regarding the relationship between
the state’s water supplies and the environmental resources they support. The Finance Committee was
tasked with identifying potential mechanisms to finance development of additional water supplies and
development of related infrastructure. The Legislative
Recommendations Committee was tasked with preparing the WRDC’s recommendations, including recommendations for future legislative action.
Membership and participation on the various committees was open to all interested stakeholders.
Each WRDC committee prepared detailed
written reports that describe the various methods and
assumptions used to develop the data. These reports
were based on an examination of the existing data and
information only, and do not represent independent
research. However, the reports represent an exploration of the water demands, supplies and water dependent natural resources throughout the state with the
purpose of creating a broad synopsis of conditions in
each county. None of the committee reports have been
independently verified by the WRDC and the work
products represent the viewpoints of the individual
committees and not the WRDC as a whole. The reports
are intended to present the information as requested
by the legislature and are not intended to be utilized in
a regulatory manner. Information, data and recommendations from these reports were utilized by the
WRDC in developing this final report. The committee
reports are available in their entirety in Volume 2 of
this
report
and
available
at
http:/infoshare.azwater.gov/docushare/dsweb/View/
Collection-123.

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 2

POPULATION COMMITTEE
Table 1 (page 11) contains the projected populations by county for 2035, 2060, and 2110 utilized by the
WS&D Committee to develop demand projections. In
2110, population was projected using two different population estimates: the Census Block projection and the
Area Split projection. The two population estimates
differ in their assumptions regarding where future population growth will occur. The Census Block method
assumes that future population will distribute in the
same manner as current population. The Area Split
method assumes that future population growth will
occupy available land. The Area Split population projection is only presented in 2110 because the Area Split
projections did not appear to be reasonable projections
to the WS&D Committee in the shorter-term. For more
detailed information regarding development of population projections, see the Population Committee final
report.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
The Environmental Committee developed The
Inventory of Arizona’s Water-Dependent Natural Resources. The inventory is a document that required
extensive review of the existing data and compilation of
that data into a single resource that is detailed, yet
accessible to readers. The inventory is presented in
Volume 2. This inventory was organized by groundwater basin with references to the applicable county to be
consistent with water supply and demand information.
This inventory is intended to be a tool that may support
local, regional and statewide decision makers. The committee also provided the WRDC with recommendations
for additional research and data collection and a recommendation that potential impacts and risks to waterdependent natural resources be included in the evaluation of future water supply options.

WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND
COMMITTEE
Projected Future Water Demands
Projected water demands were estimated for 2035,
2060 and 2110. Water demand in 2110 is projected
using both the Census Block and Area Split projections.
Water demand information is found summarized in
Table 2 (pages 12-14). Water demand data was available
to the WS&D Committee by groundwater basin. In
order to meet the requirements of House Bill 2661,
demand data was analyzed on the basis of individual
groundwater basins and then associated with the applicable county(ies) geographically coincident with the
applicable basin. Figure 1 shows the spatial relation-

ship between counties and basins. Pages 19-43 contain
individual maps for each county with the basins within
that county identified.
The total water demand is composed of three
use sectors: municipal, agriculture and industrial. Industrial demand was comprised of demand for mining,
power, turf, dairy, feedlots, and sand and gravel. Tribal
water demands for each sector were included and
based on the best available data. Demand projections
for each water use sector were developed separately
using different methods and assumptions. For detailed
information regarding the demand projections see the
appropriate use sector report in Volume 2. For each
year, a high and low demand projection is given, which
reflects the methodology utilized by the subcommittee
that evaluated industrial subsector demands.
Total statewide demand projections in 2035
range from a low of 8,191,191 AF to a high of 8,595,266
AF. Total projected demand in 2060 ranges from a low
of 8,637,438 AF to a high of 9,092,987 AF. Total
demand in 2110, for both the Census Block and Area
Split population projections, ranges from a low of
9,930,628 AF to a high of 10,605,563 AF.

Currently Developed Water Supplies
The currently developed water supplies (baseline supplies) were identified and quantified for each
basin. This information is found in the WRDC Supply
Subcommittee Report that is included as Appendix 5
and 6 in the WRDC Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report and summarized in Table 3 (pages
15-17). As with water demands, the supply data was
available to the WS&D Committee by groundwater basin. Supply data was analyzed on the basis of groundwater basin and then associated with the county(ies)
that geographically coincide with the basins.
The baseline water supply information was developed to catalogue water sources currently utilized
throughout Arizona. The water sources include
groundwater, instate surface water diversions, reclaimed water, and Colorado River water, both in the
form of main-stem Colorado River entitlements and
CAP subcontracts. In general, the baseline water supply inventory identified the sources of water used to
meet demand in the baseline condition using the best
available data. The baseline supply is maintained
throughout the projection period with the exception of
instate surface water supplies. To account for potential
water supply stresses due to drought and/or climate
change, baseline instate surface water supplies were
decreased 5 percent in 2035, 10 percent in 2060 and
then held constant through 2110.
Baseline water supply is provided for Colorado
River supplies for both normal and shortage years. The
shortage year supply is based on the first tier shortage
on the Colorado River and at that level of shortage, CAP

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 3

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 4

and Priority 4 consumptive use entitlements are reduced by a total of 320,000 AF. In the baseline
supply projections utilized in this report, 90 percent
of the shortage is allocated to CAP and 10 percent is
allocated to Priority 4 on-river users. Shortages could
be allocated using a different method, for example
shortage sharing pursuant to the Director’s Shortage
Sharing Workgroup Recommendation, which may
impact the supplies available to Priority 4 on-river
users. For more detailed information regarding the
sources of data and methods used to establish the
baseline water supplies, see the WRDC Supply Subcommittee Report in Volume 2.
Statewide, the total volume of currently developed water supplies ranges from 6,446,394 AF to
6,750,704 AF. The WS&D Committee recognized that
there are currently water supplies, such as groundwater, surface water and reclaimed water that are considered developed but that are not currently being
used. Additionally, it should be recognized that there
are water supplies that are not yet developed, but
should be considered available to meet demands. Examples of these supplies are: (1) reclaimed water for
which there is not yet delivery or storage infrastructure constructed to put it to direct or indirect use, and
(2) a portion of water in aquifer storage.
Currently, the ADWR concurs with projections that adjusted water in aquifer storage within the
state to a depth of 1,000 to 1,200 feet below land
surface (or bedrock) is just over 1.2 billion AF. Adjusted water in aquifer storage is equal to 80 percent of
the actual volume. If this groundwater was utilized
over a 100 year period, the annual volume available
would be 12,584,400 AF. However, care should be
taken when looking at water in storage as a potential
future supply. In many instances, the largest volumes
of water are located in areas that do not have the
greatest projected increases in demand. For example,
the adjusted water in aquifer storage in the Little
Colorado River Plateau basin is 763,200,000 AF and
the projected demand in 2110 ranges from 300,000 to
400,000 AF. Additionally, this aquifer underlies a
significant area of Indian reservation and, while potentially available for on-reservation uses, is not likely
available to off-reservation users. Also at issue is the
potential for undesirable consequences associated
with utilizing large volumes of water in aquifer storage.
These may include, but are not limited to:
declining water tables; dewatering of certain areas;
declining well yields; increased pumping costs; land
subsidence and earth fissuring; diminished water
availability to water dependent natural resources; and
deterioration of water quality. The WS&D Committee
did not look at individual groundwater sub-basins.

ADWR has also projected potential volumes of
reclaimed water to be generated by future populations.
These projections were conservatively derived by holding constant the current percentage of the population
that currently discharges to a sewer system in each
groundwater basin and applying a constant reclaimed
water volume generated in gallons per capita per day to
the projected population. In 2035, the estimated volume
of reclaimed water that can be generated statewide is
740,572 AF. In 2060, the volume is estimated at
935,270 AF and just under 1.3 million AF in 2110. These
supplies were not included in the evaluation documented in the WRDC Supply Subcommittee Report. It
should be noted that significant investment may be required to put this non-potable water to use locally, or
move the supply to areas with projected supply shortfalls. Impediments to increased utilization of reclaimed
water supplies have been evaluated by the Governor’s
Blue Ribbon Panel on Water Sustainability. Work plans
to implement the recommendations of this panel are
under development by the applicable state agencies,
ADWR, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
and the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Identification of Potential Future Water
Supplies
Prior to evaluating potential future water supplies, the WS&D Committee first identified the areas in
the state where development of additional water supplies may be considered necessary to meet projected
future demands. This was achieved by comparing baseline supplies against projected future demands. Table
4(a) identifies the basins that may require supplies to
meet increased future demand by 2035. The additional
basins that may require additional supplies to meet
increased future demand by 2060 and 2110 are identified in Tables 4(b) and 4(c), respectively. Once areas
potentially requiring additional water supplies were
identified, the committee evaluated potential future water supplies that may be available within those basins.
This information is also included in Tables 4(a) through
4(c). Table 4(d) identifies the basins that may require
additional supplies to be developed to meet increased
future demands by 2110 using the alternative population
estimate method. Tables 4(a) through 4(d) are available on pages 18-23.
The water supplies evaluated as potential future water
supplies included: groundwater; surface water (both
in-state rivers and the Colorado River); reclaimed water;
and other. This information is included in Tables 4(a)
through (d). The “other” category included the following: currently undevelopable or underutilized sources
of water such as brackish or poor quality groundwater,

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 5

mine drainage, and agricultural drainage; desalinated
water; and water made available through weather modification. In all basins, the “other” category is identified
as unknown as no analysis regarding availability within
a basin, or feasibility of development of the source, was
completed within the available timeframe. Further, it
was recognized that there are potentially additional
sources that could be included beyond those listed
above, but were not evaluated in the context of the
WS&D Committee’s work or this report.
Although not listed as an additional supply in
this report, the WS&D Committee recognized that water
conservation is one of the most simple and effective
methods to stretch existing supplies. The WS&D Committee stated that it was assumed that water conservation in all water use sectors will be an ever increasing
practice in future years in all basins within the state.

Identification of Legal and Technical Issues
Associated with Utilization of Additional
Water Supplies
Additional water supplies are potentially available for
any given groundwater basin. However, there are numerous hydrologic, technical, legal, and economic issues related to developing such supplies that may limit
their practical feasibility or actual development. Table 5
(page 24) provides a summary of the legal and technical
issues that may limit the development and use of potential supplies, and general infrastructure requirements
associated with developing those water supplies
throughout the state. As demonstrated in Table 5, there
are some legal and technical issues that are common to
almost all of the additional water supplies.

continue to be, adequate for developing certain supplies. However, in some locations, it may be necessary
to develop large scale water supply projects capable of
serving entire regions within the state. The magnitude
of the cost of regional water supply projects is such that
many rural Arizona cities and even some larger metropolitan cities may not be able to finance them though
the traditional funding or financing mechanism. Currently conceived regional water supply projects in Arizona have estimated costs between $34 million and $1
billion.
Potential options to finance water supply infrastructure
projects that were identified and evaluated include:
Ÿ Federal loans, federal loan guarantees used in
conjunction with private lending or
state/local/district bond issuance and federal
agency debt issued specifically to finance infra
structure provision at the state and local level
(i.e. possible national infrastructure bank).
Ÿ State loans, state revolving funds that serve as
infrastructure banks, and state loan guarantees
used in conjunction with private lending or
local/district bond issuance.
Ÿ Municipal debt in the form of bonds, or in loans
to municipalities from private lenders, including debt issued directly by municipal water utilities and debt issued by municipalities to
finance water improvement districts.
Ÿ Special district debt in the form of bonds or in
loans to districts from private lenders, including
bonds issued by community facility districts
with private property being used as collateral.
Ÿ Private water utility or other corporate and private-sector debt, including short-term paper,
bonds, or borrowing from investment banks,
commercial banks or private sources.

FINANCE COMMITTEE
Identification of Potential Mechanisms to
Finance Acquisition of Water Supplies Infrastructure
Identifying the full array of potential funding
mechanisms is particularly challenging because of the
widely varying nature of water resource projects, and
the potential beneficiaries of those projects. The traditional forms of financing available to municipalities and
private water providers, such as revenue bonds, government obligation bonds, impact fees, standard bank
loans, and other financial vehicles have been, and will

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 6

Table 6, below, compares and contrasts the
traditional financing sources identified. Some of the
traditional forms of financing water infrastructure
projects include revenue bonds, whose repayment is
linked to project-generated cash flow, general obligation bonds issued by the local political entity, general
funds of political entities, or loans from the Water
Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA). In addition
to these traditional financing sources, the Water Supply Development Revolving Fund (WSDR Fund) was
created in 2007 to enhance Arizonan’s ability to finance such projects, but is not currently financially
viable. Public-Private Partnerships may also provide
a viable method to plan, finance, and construct water
infrastructure.

Table 6 Comparison of Traditional Financing Sources for Water Resource
Projects
Revenue Bonds
Relies on revenues from a specific
project
Higher cost than general obligation
bonds, but after-tax cost not higher
Projects can be sized properly and built
rapidly
May potentially impact a municipality’s
credit rating
Can’t be used for new project
development financing due to need for
regular bond payments and no revenues
generated during project development;
may be an option for expansion of
existing project

General Obligation Bonds
Relies on taxes; requires public approval
May potentially impact the credit rating and
borrowing capability of the municipality
Revenue generated dictated by the amount
of taxes

Other Sources
U.S. government or state government loans
Currently very limited if even available;
generally comes with a 50 year repayment
provision and subject to Congressional
approvals

Can be used for project development
normally done by the government entity

Bureau of Reclamation funds
Funds are limited and subject to annual
appropriations resulting in project delays or
downsizing

Cost fluctuates with the economy and issuer
financial rating; may be unavailable or
economically unfeasible

WIFA financing
Limited to water and wastewater treatment
projects
Water Supply Development Revolving Fund
This fund not yet funded, overseen by WIFA
Public-Private Partnerships
Relies on cash flow from a specific project,
after-tax cost equal to municipal bond cost,
requires source of development equity to
conduct engineering and due diligence

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 7

Water Supply Development Revolving
Fund
The WSDR Fund was created by the Arizona
legislature in 2007 after multi-year discussions by the
Statewide Water Advisory Group (SWAG). The purpose
of the WSDR Fund administrated by WIFA, is to provide
low interest rate loans to water providers for the acquisition of water supplies and development of water infrastructure. The legislation identified six sources of
revenue for the WSDR Fund but, to date, it has not been
funded. If the WSDR Fund is to be a primary source of
financing for the acquisition and development of water
supply projects, one or more sources of dedicated funding will need to be established.

Evaluation of Potential Revenue Sources
and Funding Mechanisms

This information is summarized in Table 7
(page 29-30). For more detailed information regarding
the summarized revenue sources, see the Finance Work
Group Report found in Volume 2 of this report.
The committee also evaluated the projected ranges of
revenue that might be generated by certain revenue
sources. Table 8, below, provides the potential cumulative revenues that could be generated by 2020, 2035,
2060 and 2110. These projections assume the revenue
source is initiated in 2011 and incorporates a three
percent rate of return for loans made from the WSDR
Fund. The projections also assume that all revenues
received annually are appropriated to various water
resource projects. The projected cumulative revenues
generated by 2020 were included because the committee assumed funding might be needed within the next
five to 25 years to assist some water providers in meeting their water demands.

The Committee evaluated a number of potential revenue
sources with respect to the advantages and disadvantages they would have as a revenue source for individual
projects or the WSDR Fund.

Table 8 Range of Projected Potential Revenue by Source if Implemented in 2011
Revenue
Bottled Water Tax1
Transaction Privilege Tax2
Statewide New Development Tax3
New or Existing Well Fees4
General Fund Appropriation5
Total

2020
($ billion)
0.239-0.596
0.285-0.570
0.018-0.035
0.019-0.039
0.118
0.68-1.36

2035
($ billion)
0.759-1.9
0.907-1.8
0.056-0.113
0.062-0.124
0.376
2.16-4.31

2060
($ billion)
2.3-5.9
2.8-5.6
0.174-0.349
0.192-0.383
1.2
6.67-13.4

2110
($ billion)
12.6-31.6
15-30.2
0.938-1.9
1.0-2.0
6.3
35.8-72

1Range

represents tax at 2¢ per bottle and 5¢ per bottle, respectively 2 Range represents tax at 5¢ per 1,000 gallons and 10¢ per 1,000 gallons, respectively 3Range
represents tax for 6,000 lots at $250 per lot and $500 per lot, respectively 4Range represents fees at $50 per new well and $10 for existing well and $100 per new
well and $20 for existing well, respectively 5Assumes $10 million annual general fund appropriation

Public-Private Partnerships
Public-private partnerships are becoming an increasingly common method to finance large infrastructure
projects. Public-private partnerships are joint ventures
that:
Ÿ Combine project elements into a single purpose
entity whose cash flows will repay the principal
and interest required to build and operate the
project,
Ÿ Clearly define the separate roles of the public
and private sector by means of a joint venture
contract that is specific to the project and its
special requirements,
Ÿ Assign appropriate risks to each group, and
Ÿ Use private funds and companies as determined
through joint venture agreements to finance,
build and often operate projects, but with some
public sector assets at risk

With conceived projects ranging in cost from
$34 million to more than $1 billion, public-private partnerships may be a viable option. The use of these partnerships may also reduce the size of the WSDR Fund or
other funds needed to assist in the financing of water
supply projects.
For more detailed information regarding public-private partnerships, see the Finance Work Group Report
found in Volume 2 of this report.
The Finance Committee recommends that further examination of these funding sources and financing
mechanisms, including the WSDR Fund, be conducted
to determine what options will best enable water users
throughout the State to meet their future water needs
taking into consideration the political, fiscal, legal, and
hydrological ramifications for the State and for the individual water users.
Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 8

RECOMMENDATIONS
Committee Recommendations with
Respect to Supplemental Data Analyses
In general, the primary limiting factor identified
with respect to the data analyses that serve as the basis
for this report was time. With the WRDC convening its
first meeting in August 2010, there was less than one
year to collect and analyze population, water demand
and water supply data statewide. If more time were
available, more in-depth data analysis could be completed. The three committee recommendations related to
the time limitations imposed when preparing this report
were:
Ÿ The potential for water conservation to reduce
future water demand was not addressed and
should be evaluated and taken into account in
further analysis of future water demand and
supply needs.
Ÿ There are three potential Colorado River shortage conditions pursuant to the Interim Guidelines for the Operation of Lake Powell and Lake
Mead. The supply data included in this report
only includes the condition where Arizona is
shorted 320,000 AF. Additional analyses should
be completed that include the other two Colorado River shortage conditions in addition to the
evaluation of potential climate change impacts
on other water supplies.
Ÿ When population projections were completed
the 2010 U.S. Census data had not been updated.
To obtain the best possible population projections (which drive demand), the population
numbers should be re-calculated in 2012 using
the updated 2010 U.S. Census data as a baseline
for professional demographers to conduct population projections using a cohort-component
method. This should be done as part of a larger
process that includes full participation from the
cities, Associations of Governments, county
planners, professional demographers, universities, and other state agencies.
One other recommendation was made with respect to
the data analyses included in this report:
The final committee reports are a compilation of
the existing water-related data and information
for the state. As such, they may serve as a source
of information for decision makers. There are
final committee reports for the Population Committee, the WS&D Committee, the Environmental Committee, the Finance Committee and the
Legislative
Recommendations
Committee.
There was an extensive data collection effort
associated with this report. To insure that the
integrity of the data is maintained and that

data can be updated, a central repository
for the data should be created. The WRDC
should support a continuing ADWR effort to
refine and update data.

Committee Recommendations Regarding
Further Studies and Evaluations
In general, in most areas outside of the state’s Active
Management Areas (AMA), insufficient data was the
limiting factor when completing data analysis for this
report or when contemplating future efforts. The following recommendations regarding further studies
and evaluations were made by the various committees
in the respective committee reports.
Ÿ The WRDC supports a continuing ADWR effort
to refine and update all information generated
by the committees in this process.
Ÿ Future efforts should focus on voluntary collection and analysis of water use data, particularly
within rural areas.
Ÿ Future efforts should focus on collection and
analysis of hydrogeologic data in order to better
estimate basin and local area recharge, groundwater storage, water level trends and other basin characteristics and water budget
components in all basins.
Ÿ Future efforts should include research and data
collection regarding water supplies that support water-dependent natural resources and
provide information for future evaluations of
water supply and demand.
ADWR staff provided some additional evaluation of supplies and demands by basin to further the
efforts of the WS&D Committee. This evaluation included a comparison of demands in each basin to other
statistics of interest, including: estimated net natural
Recharge and groundwater in storage; permitted well
capacity in the basin; and relationships between the
groundwater and surface water systems within each
basin. Table 9 ( pages 27-28) summarizes these evaluations and is presented as a suggested preliminary
analysis further evaluating supply/demand relationships in each basin.

Recommendation of Legislative Recommendations Committee
This committee was tasked with evaluating the findings
of the other committees in an effort to determine if
legislative action was warranted or required as a result
of their conclusions. The committee met on four occasions and discussion was primarily focused on potential funding or financing mechanisms and
Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 9

consideration of a statewide or regional water authority.
The Legislative Recommendations Committee
recommends the WRDC direct the Legislative Recommendations Committee to continue consideration and
develop final recommendations regarding legislation (if
necessary) for funding future water supply development. The committee recommends a deadline be given
to provide a full report to the WRDC by August 1, 2012.

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
The WRDC completed the legislated task of analyzing Arizona’s water needs for 100 years and evaluating the issues associated with those needs. It is now
known that portions of the state have sufficient supplies
developed to meet future needs, while other areas within the state will require development of additional supplies for the future. However, due to the variability in
Arizona’s geology, climate, precipitation patterns, water

use patterns, population growth and land ownership,
evaluation of the issues and development of comprehensive solutions is extremely difficult. Arizona must
develop a broad portfolio of solutions to meet the myriad of challenges that are inherent in this diverse state.
Finally, decisions must be made regarding what
solutions will be most effective in discrete regions, how
those solutions will be funded, and whether implementation of the solutions require legislative changes.
Due to the time constraints associated with
preparation of this final report, the WRDC has not been
able to fully consider all of these issues. Pursuant to
House Bill 2661, the WRDC does not sunset until September 30, 2012. Therefore, it is the recommendation
of the WRDC that it be given until the sunset date to
continue development, evaluation and prioritization of
potential solutions or legislative proposals.

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 10

Tables
Table 1 Census Block Population Projections
Groundwater Basin

2035

2060

2110 (Census Block)

2110 (Area Split)

Agua Fria
Aravaipa Canyon
Big Sandy
Bill Williams
Bonita Creek
Butler Valley
Cienega Creek
Coconino Plateau
Detrital Valley
Donnelly Wash
Douglas
Dripping Springs Wash
Duncan Valley
Gila Bend
Grand Wash
Harquahala INA
Hualapai Valley
Kanab Plateau
Lake Havasu
Lake Mohave
Little Colorado River
Lower Gila
Lower San Pedro
McMullen Valley
Meadview
Morenci
Paria
Parker
Peach Springs
Phoenix AMA
Pinal AMA
Prescott AMA
Ranegras Plain
Sacramento Valley
Safford
Salt River
San Bernardino Valley
San Rafael
San Simon Wash
Santa Cruz AMA
Shivwits Plateau
Tiger Wash
Tonto Creek
Tucson AMA
Upper Hassayampa
Upper San Pedro
Verde River
Virgin River
Western Mexican Drainage
Willcox
Yuma

16,671
123
2,607
6,858
30
0
7,467
14,987
2,750
0
41,635
245
3,659
11,390
0
1,491
65,017
12,553
108,522
96,942
375,183
16,685
19,984
7,741
1,674
4,724
673
20,438
3,146
6,443,884
674,968
211,763
1,096
36,116
48,905
33,400
96
183
10,603
68,887
13
0
19,473
1,430,910
21,270
124,419
154,999
4,950
40
16,738
307,963

20,036
136
3,251
7,850
35
0
9,130
18,000
3,421
0
49,327
272
4,252
14,302
0
2,155
80,729
15,675
137,859
119,141
444,449
19,850
32,360
9,362
2,079
5,477
762
22,722
3,799
8,096,058
1,071,653
259,600
1,346
45,574
56,139
37,506
104
211
13,337
84,828
16
0
24,202
1,772,729
26,335
147,360
185,477
6,444
50
19,153
377,462

27,703
188
4,495
10,987
49
0
12,624
24,887
4,730
7,897
68,201
375
5,879
19,775
0
3,974
111,620
21,674
190,609
164,728
614,513
27,446
44,742
12,679
2,875
7,572
1,053
30,753
5,253
11,170,234
1,465,914
358,933
1,662
63,012
77,261
51,856
143
291
18,441
117,287
23
0
33,463
2,482,634
36,412
203,746
256,448
8,909
69
26,482
521,894

373,613
935
16,536
36,976
2,116
0
10,903
28,757
6,367
7,897
64,767
9,161
6,307
187,503
574
27,886
101,677
24,719
189,359
154,868
612,095
107,863
50,158
18,670
466
8,482
379
29,528
12,384
10,540,458
1,457,753
325,885
1,232
65,281
77,621
62,964
3,461
1,224
19,971
118,918
4,777
3,173
46,284
2,477,858
11,942
201,083
266,661
1,208
753
24,569
519,087

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 11

Table 2 Total Water Demand by Groundwater Basin for 2035, 2060 and
2110 and Identification of Counties that Overlay Basins

Groundwater
Basins
Agua Fria
Aravaipa
Canyon
Big Sandy

Bill Williams
Bonita Creek
Butler Valley

Cienega
Creek
Coconino
Plateau
Detrital Valley
Donnelly
Wash
Douglas
Dripping
Springs Wash
Duncan Valley
Gila Bend
Grand Wash
Harquahala
INA
Hualapai
Valley
Kanab Plateau
Lake Havasu
Lake Mohave
Little Colorado
River

Lower Gila

Lower San
Pedro
McMullen
Valley
Meadview

Morenci

Counties that
Overlay Basins
and Percent of
Basin in
County1
Maricopa (5%)
Yavapai (95)
Graham (85%)
Pinal (15%)
Mohave (71%)
Yavapai (29%)
La Paz (12%)
Mohave (29%)
Yavapai (59%)
Graham (100%)
La Paz (100%)
Cochise (4%)
Pima (48%)
Santa Cruz
(47%)
Coconino
(100%)
Mohave (100%)
Pinal (100%)
Cochise (100%)
Gila (43%)
Graham (7%)
Pinal (49%)
Cochise (3%)
Greenlee (97%)
Maricopa (100%)
Mohave (100%)
La Paz (36%)
Maricopa (64%)
Mohave (100%)
Coconino (56%)
Mohave (44%0
Mohave (100%)
Mohave (100%)
Apache (38%)
Coconino (29%)
Navajo (33%)
La Paz (4%)
Maricopa (19%)
Pima (19%)
Yuma (58%)
Cochise (16%)
Gila (4%)
Graham (9%)
Pima (16%)
Yuma (55%)
La Paz (51%)
Maricopa (35%)
Yavapai (13%)
Mohave (100%)
Apache (6%)
Graham (23%)
Greenlee (71%)

2035 Low
Demand
(AF)

2035
High
Demand
(AF)

2060 Low
Demand
(AF)

2060
High
Demand
(AF)

2110
Census
Block
Low
Demand
(AF)

4,772

4,888

5,371

5,511

6,738

6,931

75,504

71,004

1,013

1,014

1,014

1,015

1,020

1,021

1,098

1,105

509

528

635

658

879

910

3,232

3,347

14,298
5
14,500

34,346
5
14,500

14,529
6
14,500

34,584
6
14,500

15,260
8
14,500

35,337
8
14,500

21,541
342
14,500

41,574
357
14,500

1,755

2,007

1,968

2,232

2,415

2,703

2,195

2,471

1,596
410

1,701
430

1,917
511

2,043
534

2,651
706

2,824
739

3,063
950

3,264
995

0
55,841

0
56,344

0
57,291

0
57,847

850
60,845

906
61,533

850
60,198

906
60,862

16

17

17

19

24

27

587

651

17,969
377,271
0

17,994
384,396
0

18,060
390,492
0

18,090
400,591
0

18,311
404,603
0

18,352
418,574
0

18,377
428,755
79

18,421
440,191
83

136,670

136,910

137,516

137,944

138,374

138,953

142,642

143,163

14,919

15,584

18,524

19,299

25,612

26,603

23,331

24,252

5,075
31,577
140,846

5,163
32,545
146,977

6,057
40,113
152,311

6,166
41,286
160,574

7,943
55,754
171,905

8,095
57,242
183,569

8,901
55,390
168,155

9,074
56,870
179,670

218,219

259,566

249,821

307,246

292,195

372,121

291,806

371,709

497,669

516,115

490,312

509,041

502,324

521,304

517,200

535,164

20,948

37,087

22,961

39,054

24,843

41,023

25,666

42,123

72,008
251

72,062
263

72,220
312

72,285
326

72,652
431

72,740
451

73,432
70

73,562
73

14,150

50,183

14,481

50,519

15,401

51,454

15,801

51,860

2110
Census
Block
High
Demand
(AF)

2110
Area
Split Low
Demand
(AF)

2110
Area
Split
High
Demand
(AF)

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 12

Table 2 continued

Groundwater
Basins
Paria
Parker

Peach Springs

Phoenix AMA

Pinal AMA
Prescott AMA
Ranegras
Plain
Sacramento
Valley

Safford

Salt River
San
Bernardino
Valley

San Rafael
San Simon
Wash
Santa Cruz
AMA
Shivwits
Plateau
Tiger Wash
Tonto Creek

Tucson AMA
Upper
Hassayampa
Upper San
Pedro

Verde River

Counties that
Overlay Basins
and Percent of
Basin in
County1
Coconino
(100%)
La Paz (92%)
Yuma (8%)
Coconino (27%)
Mohave (64%)
Yavapai (9%)
Maricopa (84%)
Pinal (15%)
Yavapai (1%)
Maricopa (9%)
Pima (36%)
Pinal (55%)
Yavapai (100%)
La Paz (99%)
Yuma (1%)
Mohave (100%)
Cochise (27%)
Gila (17%)
Graham (55%)
Apache (19%)
Gila (45%)
Graham (4%)
Greenlee (3%)
Maricopa (7%)
Navajo (20%)
Pinal (2%)

Cochise (100%)
Cochise (33%)
Santa Cruz
(67%)
Maricopa (1%)
Pima (99%)
Pima (20%)
Santa Cruz
(80%)
Mohave (100%)
Maricopa (100%)
Coconino (1%)
Gila (99%)
Pima (79%)
Pinal (18%)
Santa Cruz (3%)
Maricopa (12%)
Yavapai (88%)
Cochise (93%)
Pima (1%)
Santa Cruz (6%)
Coconino (35%)
Gila (8%)
Maricopa (6%)

2035 Low
Demand
(AF)

2035
High
Demand
(AF)

2060 Low
Demand
(AF)

2060
High
Demand
(AF)

2110
Census
Block
Low
Demand
(AF)

9,483

12,988

11,342

16,267

12,901

19,728

12,750

19,572

654,752

656,521

659,696

662,584

665,105

668,894

664,775

668,556

810

832

916

942

1,151

1,188

2,307

2,394

2,985,423

3,097,639

3,356,261

3,489,538

4,279,621

4,484,942

4,078,593

4,291,51
4

985,887
36,863

1,007,978
38,478

902,124
44,762

925,757
46,581

983,096
60,736

1,015,930
63,463

981,227
55,423

1,016,05
8
57,797

29,398

29,405

29,488

29,498

29,603

29,615

29,447

29,456

20,005

26,067

22,996

29,797

27,462

35,495

27,938

35,987

183,181

205,523

184,388

206,780

187,971

210,513

187,911

210,451

39,460

55,850

40,148

56,630

42,332

59,001

43,971

60,718

25

26

27

28

38

39

906

930

26

28

30

32

42

44

176

185

2,042

2,116

2,440

2,533

3,182

3,311

3,405

3,544

25,541

26,336

28,921

29,530

34,906

36,116

35,207

36,460

2
0

2
0

3
0

3
0

4
0

4
0

820
1,285

853
1,307

7,418

7,765

8,856

9,236

11,670

12,115

15,567

16,340

425,148

472,395

486,427

535,325

627,088

685,279

627,766

684,268

5,551

5,699

6,685

6,869

8,943

9,197

3,460

3,545

39,528

50,520

44,660

55,686

56,827

68,577

56,252

67,957

53,750

58,275

59,459

63,748

71,347

76,836

73,058

78,793

2110
Census
Block
High
Demand
(AF)

2110
Area
Split Low
Demand
(AF)

2110
Area
Split
High
Demand
(AF)

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 13

Table 2 continued

Groundwater
Basins
Virgin River
Western
Mexican
Drainage
Willcox
Yuma

Counties that
Overlay Basins
and Percent of
Basin in
County1
Yavapai (52%)
Mohave (100%)
Pima (50%)
Yuma (50%)
Cochise (79%)
Graham (21%)
Yuma (100%)

2035 Low
Demand
(AF)

2035
High
Demand
(AF)

2060 Low
Demand
(AF)

2060
High
Demand
(AF)

2110
Census
Block
Low
Demand
(AF)

2,705

2,740

2,953

2,998

3,363

3,426

2,083

2,091

6

7

8

8

11

12

123

128

177,569
864,329

180,182
867,271

179,443
854,466

183,085
858,157

182,216
891,449

187,264
896,657

181,770
890,740

186,805
895,925

2110
Census
Block
High
Demand
(AF)

2110
Area
Split Low
Demand
(AF)

2110
Area
Split
High
Demand
(AF)

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 14

Table 3 Currently developed Water Supply By Groundwater Basin and Identification of
Counties that Overlay Basins

Currently
Developed
Groundwater
(AF)

Currently
Developed
Surface
Water
(in-state)
(AF)

Normal
Year NonCAP
Colorado
River Water
(AF)

Currently
Developed
Reclaimed Water
(AF)

3,602

0

30

3,632

514

500

NR

1,014

15,028

0

NR

15,028

3,251
0
14,503

500
0
0

200
NR
NR

1,101
500
159
19
53,300

0
358
50
0
0

100
1,700
NR
NR
1,400

11

0

NR

11

8,054
295,323
2

9,900
55,417
0

50
800
NR

18,004
351,540
2

66,178
9,109

0
0

NR
1,800

2,799

800

500

45

32

Kanab Plateau

Counties that
Overlay Basins and
Percent of Basin in
County1
Maricopa (5%)
Yavapai (95)
Graham (85%)
Pinal (15%)
Mohave (71%)
Yavapai (29%)
La Paz (12%)
Mohave (29%)
Yavapai (59%)
Graham (100%)
La Paz (100%)
Cochise (4%)
Pima (48%)
Santa Cruz (47%)
Coconino (100%)
Mohave (100%)
Pinal (100%)
Cochise (100%)
Gila (43%)
Graham (7%)
Pinal (49%)
Cochise (3%)
Greenlee (97%)
Maricopa (100%)
Mohave (100%)
La Paz (36%)
Maricopa (64%)
Mohave (100%)
Coconino (56%)
Mohave (44%0

Lake Havasu

Mohave (100%)

47

0

3,400

23,432

16,796

Lake Mohave

Mohave (100%)
Apache (38%)
Coconino (29%)
Navajo (33%)
La Paz (4%)

2,007

0

3,100

103,654

90,250

66,178
10,909
4,131 to
4,144
20,243 to
26,879
95,357 to
108,761

95,812
110,296

14,717
473

36,100
300

50,000
260,780

50,000
260,645

196,629
371,714 to

Groundwater
Basins
Agua Fria
Aravaipa Canyon
Big Sandy

Bill Williams
Bonita Creek
Butler Valley

Cienega Creek
Coconino Plateau
Detrital Valley
Donnelly Wash
Douglas
Dripping Springs
Wash
Duncan Valley
Gila Bend
Grand Wash
Harquahala INA
Hualapai Valley

Little Colorado
River
Lower Gila

417

150

Normal
Year CAP
Supply
(AF)

Shortage
Year NonCAP
Colorado
River Water
(AF

299

150

Shortage
Year CAP
Supply
(AF)

Supply
Currently
Developed
(AF)

4,250 to
4,368
0
14,503

1,201
2,558
359
19
54,700

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 15

TABLE 3 continued

Safford

Counties that
Overlay Basins and
Percent of Basin in
County1
Maricopa (19%)
Pima (19%)
Yuma (58%)
Cochise (16%)
Gila (4%)
Graham (9%)
Pima (16%)
Yuma (55%)
La Paz (51%)
Maricopa (35%)
Yavapai (13%)
Mohave (100%)
Apache (6%)
Graham (23%)
Greenlee (71%)
Coconino (100%)
La Paz (92%)
Yuma (8%)
Coconino (27%)
Mohave (64%)
Yavapai (9%)
Maricopa (84%)
Pinal (15%)
Yavapai (1%)
Maricopa (9%)
Pima (36%)
Pinal (55%)
Yavapai (100%)
La Paz (99%)
Yuma (1%)
Mohave (100%)
Cochise (27%)
Gila (17%)
Graham (55%)

Salt River

Apache (19%)
Gila (45%)
Graham (4%)
Greenlee (3%)
Maricopa (7%)

Groundwater
Basins

Lower San Pedro

McMullen Valley
Meadview

Morenci
Paria
Parker

Peach Springs

Phoenix AMA

Pinal AMA
Prescott AMA
Ranegras Plain
Sacramento Valley

Currently
Developed
Groundwater
(AF)

Currently
Developed
Surface
Water
(in-state)
(AF)

Normal
Year NonCAP
Colorado
River Water
(AF)

Currently
Developed
Reclaimed Water
(AF)

23,677

833

700

25,211

71,500
145

0
0

NR
NR

71,500
145

9,126
120

1,627
0

200
NR

1,787

0

2,100

10,953
120
399,236 to
407,324

351

0

100

673,754

727,402

315,000

895,395

703,579

431,290
17,679

73,830
2,067

6,900
6,900

166,269

116,073

29,350
3,765

0
0

NR
300

29,350
4,065

87,958

74,183

2,600

164,741

12,611

12,011

2,600

27,222

Normal
Year CAP
Supply
(AF)

403,437

Shortage
Year NonCAP
Colorado
River Water
(AF

Shortage
Year CAP
Supply
(AF)

395,349

Supply
Currently
Developed
(AF)
371,849

451
2,419,735
to
2,611,551
628,093 to
678,289
26,645

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 16

TABLE 3 continued

Groundwater
Basins

Counties that
Overlay Basins and
Percent of Basin in
County1

Currently
Developed
Groundwater
(AF)

Currently
Developed
Surface
Water
(in-state)
(AF)

Normal
Year NonCAP
Colorado
River Water
(AF)

Currently
Developed
Reclaimed Water
(AF)

19

0

NR

19

22

0

NR

22

1,500

0

400

1,900

20,980
2
2

0
0
0

16,311
NR
NR

37,291
2
2

3,000

1,000

500

4,500

216,997

506

74,235

3,286

0

600

3,886

23,957

4,450

5,300

33,707

28,549
1,585

16,494
1,618

6,200
10

51,243
3,213

6

0

NR

6

175,714

150

500

108,570

973

13,500

176,364
614,533 to
616,850

Normal
Year CAP
Supply
(AF)

Shortage
Year NonCAP
Colorado
River Water
(AF

Shortage
Year CAP
Supply
(AF)

Supply
Currently
Developed
(AF)

Navajo (20%)
Pinal (2%)

San Bernardino
Valley
San Rafael
San Simon Wash
Santa Cruz AMA
Shivwits Plateau
Tiger Wash
Tonto Creek

Cochise (100%)
Cochise (33%)
Santa Cruz (67%)
Maricopa (1%)
Pima (99%)
Pima (20%)
Santa Cruz (80%)
Mohave (100%)
Maricopa (100%)
Coconino (1%)
Gila (99%)

Willcox

Pima (79%)
Pinal (18%)
Santa Cruz (3%)
Maricopa (12%)
Yavapai (88%)
Cochise (93%)
Pima (1%)
Santa Cruz (6%)
Coconino (35%)
Gila (8%)
Maricopa (6%)
Yavapai (52%)
Mohave (100%)
Pima (50%)
Yuma (50%)
Cochise (79%)
Graham (21%)

Yuma

Yuma (100%)

Tucson AMA
Upper Hassayampa

Upper San Pedro

Verde River
Virgin River
Western Mexican
Drainage

220,106

493,807

188,519

491,490

480,257 to
511,844

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 17

TABLE 4a Basins that May Require Development of Additional Water
Supplies1 and Potential Future Water Supplies Available to that Basin
Basin
Agua Fria

Bill Williams

Cienega Creek
Douglas
Duncan Valley
Gila Bend
Harquahala INA
Hualapai Valley

County
Maricopa (5%)
Yavapai (95)
La Paz (12%)
Mohave (29%)
Yavapai (59%)
Cochise (4%)
Pima (48%)
Santa Cruz (47%)
Cochise (100%)
Cochise (3%)
Greenlee (97%)
Maricopa (100%)
La Paz (36%)
Maricopa (64%)

Kanab Plateau

Mohave (100%)
Coconino (56%)
Mohave (44%0

Lake Havasu

Mohave (100%)

Lake Mohave

Mohave (100%)
Apache (38%)
Coconino (29%)
Navajo (33%)
La Paz (4%)
Maricopa (19%)
Pima (19%)
Yuma (58%)
La Paz (51%)
Maricopa (35%)
Yavapai (13%)
Apache (6%)
Graham (23%)
Greenlee (71%)

Little Colorado River

Lower Gila

McMullen Valley

Morenci
Paria

Pinal AMA

Coconino (100%)
La Paz (92%)
Yuma (8%)
Coconino (27%)
Mohave (64%)
Yavapai (9%)
Maricopa (84%)
Pinal (15%)
Yavapai (1%)
Maricopa (9%)
Pima (36%)
Pinal (55%)

Prescott AMA

Yavapai (100%)

Sacramento Valley

Mohave (100%)
Cochise (27%)
Gila (17%)
Graham (55%)
Apache (19%)
Gila (45%)
Graham (4%)

Parker

Peach Springs

Phoenix AMA

Safford

Salt River

Potential Future Water Supplies Available
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Colorado River2 – Unlikely, Reclaimed
Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater – Unknown3, Transported Groundwater, In-state Surface Water,
Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater – Unknown3, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater – Unknown3, CAP Water4, Development of Other SuppliesUnknown
In-basin Groundwater – Unknown3, Colorado River2 – Unlikely, Reclaimed Water,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Colorado River2 – Unlikely, Reclaimed
Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater unlikely, Colorado River2 – Unlikely, Reclaimed Water,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater unlikely, Colorado River2 – Unlikely, Reclaimed Water,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Colorado River2 – Unlikely, Reclaimed
Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown

In-basin Groundwater, Colorado River2 – Unlikely, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown

In-basin Groundwater – Unknown3, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Colorado River2-Unlikely, Development
of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Transported Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Colorado
River2 – Unlikely, Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Colorado River2-Unlikely, Reclaimed
Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Transported Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, CAP Water4,
Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Transported Groundwater, CAP Water4, Reclaimed Water,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater – Unknown3, Transported Groundwater, In-state Surface Water,
Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Colorado River2-Unlikely, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown

1All

basins that may require development of additional supplies in this year are included. Some may require additional supplies only in the High Demand scenario,
when there are shortages on the Colorado River, or for non agricultural uses supplied by the Colorado River. 2 Potential Colorado River supply identified for basins
having reaches of Colorado River bordering or within the basin. Actual development is unlikely unless flow of river is augmented. 3 Basin currently in overdraft;
long-term groundwater sustainability issues at baseline rate of consumption. 4Potential CAP supply identified for basins currently receiving CAP. Actual development
of any such supplies subject to potential issues and limitations.

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 18

TABLE 4a continued
Basin

Tonto Creek

Tucson AMA
Upper Hassayampa

Upper San Pedro

Verde River
Willcox

County
Greenlee (3%)
Maricopa (7%)
Navajo (20%)
Pinal (2%)
Coconino (1%)
Gila (99%)
Pima (79%)
Pinal (18%)
Santa Cruz (3%)
Maricopa (12%)
Yavapai (88%)
Cochise (93%)
Pima (1%)
Santa Cruz (6%)
Coconino (35%)
Gila (8%)
Maricopa (6%)
Yavapai (52%)
Cochise (79%)
Graham (21%)

Potential Future Water Supplies Available

In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Transported Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, CAP Water4,
Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Transported Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed
Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown

In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater – Unknown3, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown

1All

basins that may require development of additional supplies in this year are included. Some may require additional supplies only in the High Demand scenario,
when there are shortages on the Colorado River, or for non agricultural uses supplied by the Colorado River. 2 Potential Colorado River supply identified for basins
having reaches of Colorado River bordering or within the basin. Actual development is unlikely unless flow of river is augmented. 3 Basin currently in overdraft;
long-term groundwater sustainability issues at baseline rate of consumption. 4Potential CAP supply identified for basins currently receiving CAP. Actual development
of any such supplies subject to potential issues and limitations.

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 19

TABLE 4b 2060 – New Basins1 that May Require Development of Additional
Water Supplies2 and Potential Future Water Supplies Available to that Basin
Basin
San Simon Wash

County
Maricopa (1%)
Pima (99%)

Potential Future Water Supplies Available
In-basin Groundwater, Reclaimed Water, Development of Other SuppliesUnknown

These basins are in addition to the basins previously listed in Table 4a. 2All basins that may require development of additional supplies in this year are
included. Some may require additional supplies only in the High Demand scenario, when there are shortages on the Colorado River, or for non-agricultural
uses supplied by the Colorado River.

1

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 20

TABLE 4c 2110 (Census Block) – New Basins1 that May Require Development
of Additional Water Supplies2 and Potential Future Water Supplies Available
to that Basin
Basin
Coconino Plateau

County
Coconino (100%)

Detrital Valley

Mohave (100%)

Donnelly Wash
Meadview

Mohave (100%)

Virgin River

Mohave (100%)

Yuma

Yuma (100%)

Potential Future Water Supplies Available
In-basin Groundwater, Transported Groundwater, In-state Surface Water,
Colorado River3 – Unlikely, Reclaimed Water, Development of Other SuppliesUnknown
In-basin Groundwater, Colorado River3 – Unlikely, Development of Other
Supplies-Unknown,
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Development of Other SuppliesUnknown
In-basin Groundwater, Colorado River3 – Unlikely, Development of Other
Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development
of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Colorado River3 – Unlikely, Reclaimed Water,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown

These basins are in addition to the basins previously listed in Tables 4a and 4b. 2All basins that may require development of additional supplies in this year
are included. Some may require additional supplies only in the High Demand scenario, when there are shortages on the Colorado River, or for non-agricultural
uses supplied by the Colorado River. 3Potential additional Colorado River supply identified for basins having reaches of Colorado River bordering or within the
basin. Actual development is unlikely unless flow of river is augmented.
1

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 21

Table 4d 2110 – Basins that May Require Development of Additional Water
Supplies1 based on the Area Split Population Estimation and Potential Future
Water Supplies Available to that Basin
Basin
Agua Fria

Coconino Plateau

County
Maricopa (5%)
Yavapai (95)
Graham (100%)
La Paz (12%)
Mohave (29%)
Yavapai (59%)
Cochise (4%)
Pima (48%)
Santa Cruz (47%)
Coconino (100%)

Donnelly Wash

Pinal (100%)

Douglas

Cochise (100%)

Dripping Springs Wash

Gila (43%)
Graham (7%)
Pinal (49%)
Cochise (3%)
Greenlee (97%)
Maricopa (100%)

Bonita Creek
Bill Williams

Cienega Creek

Duncan Valley
Gila Bend
Harquahala INA
Hualapai Valley
Kanab Plateau

La Paz (36%)
Maricopa (64%)
Mohave (100%)

Lake Havasu

Coconino (56%)
Mohave (44%0
Mohave (100%)

Lake Mohave

Mohave (100%)

Little Colorado River

Apache (38%)
Coconino (29%)
Navajo (33%)
La Paz (4%)
Maricopa (19%)
Pima (19%)
Yuma (58%)
Cochise (16%)
Gila (4%)
Graham (9%)
Pima (16%)
Yuma (55%)

Lower Gila

Lower San Pedro

Potential Future Water Supplies Available
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Colorado River2 – Unlikely,
Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Transported Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Colorado
River3 – Unlikely, Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Development of Other SuppliesUnknown
In-basin Groundwater – Unknown3, Transported Groundwater, In-state Surface
Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Development of Other SuppliesUnknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater – Unknown3, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater – Unknown3, CAP Water4, Development of Other SuppliesUnknown
In-basin Groundwater – Unknown3, Colorado River2 – Unlikely, Reclaimed Water,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Colorado River2 – Unlikely,
Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Colorado River2 – Unlikely, Reclaimed Water, Development
of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Colorado River2 – Unlikely, Reclaimed Water, Development
of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Colorado River2 – Unlikely,
Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Colorado River2 – Unlikely, Reclaimed Water, Development
of Other Supplies-Unknown

In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown

McMullen Valley

La Paz (51%)
Maricopa (35%)
Yavapai (13%)

In-basin Groundwater – Unknown3, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown

Morenci

Apache (6%)
Graham (23%)
Greenlee (71%)
Coconino (100%)

In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown

Paria
Parker
Peach Springs

Phoenix AMA

La Paz (92%)
Yuma (8%)
Coconino (27%)
Mohave (64%)
Yavapai (9%)
Maricopa (84%)
Pinal (15%)
Yavapai (1%)

In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Colorado River2-Unlikely,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Transported Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Colorado
River2 – Unlikely, Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Colorado River2-Unlikely, Reclaimed
Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Transported Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, CAP
Water4, Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown

1All basins that may require development of additional supplies in this year are included.

Some may require additional supplies only in the High Demand scenario, when
there are shortages on the Colorado River, or for non-agricultural uses supplied by the Colorado River. 2Potential additional Colorado River supply identified for basins
having reaches of Colorado River bordering or within the basin. Actual development is unlikely unless flow of river is augmented. 3Basin currently in overdraft; long-term
groundwater sustainability issues at baseline rate of consumption 4Potential additional CAP supply identified for basins currently receiving CAP water. 4Potential CAP
supply identified for basins currently receiving CAP. Actual development of any such supplies subject to potential issues and limitations.

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 22

Table 4d continued
Basin
Pinal AMA

Potential Future Water Supplies Available
In-basin Groundwater, Transported Groundwater, CAP Water4, Reclaimed Water,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown

Prescott AMA

County
Maricopa (9%)
Pima (36%)
Pinal (55%)
Yavapai (100%)

Sacramento Valley

Mohave (100%)

Safford

Cochise (27%)
Gila (17%)
Graham (55%)
Apache (19%)
Gila (45%)
Graham (4%)
Greenlee (3%)
Maricopa (7%)
Navajo (20%)
Pinal (2%)

In-basin Groundwater, Colorado River2-Unlikely, Reclaimed Water,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown

Salt River

San Bernardino Valley

Cochise (100%)

San Simon Wash

Maricopa (1%)
Pima (99%)
Mohave (100%)

Shivwits Plateau
Tiger Wash
Tonto Creek
Tucson AMA

Upper San Pedro

Verde River

Willcox

Maricopa (100%)
Coconino (1%)
Gila (99%)
Pima (79%)
Pinal (18%)
Santa Cruz (3%)
Cochise (93%)
Pima (1%)
Santa Cruz (6%)
Coconino (35%)
Gila (8%)
Maricopa (6%)
Yavapai (52%)
Cochise (79%)
Graham (21%)

In-basin Groundwater – Unknown3, Transported Groundwater, In-state Surface
Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown

In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown

In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Development of Other SuppliesUnknown
In-basin Groundwater, Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Colorado River2-Unlikely,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Transported Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, CAP
Water4, Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, Transported Groundwater, In-state Surface Water,
Reclaimed Water, Development of Other Supplies-Unknown
In-basin Groundwater, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water, Development of
Other Supplies-Unknown

In-basin Groundwater – Unknown3, In-state Surface Water, Reclaimed Water,
Development of Other Supplies-Unknown

1All

basins that may require development of additional supplies in this year are included. Some may require additional supplies only in the High Demand
scenario, when there are shortages on the Colorado River, or for non-agricultural uses supplied by the Colorado River. 2Potential additional Colorado River
supply identified for basins having reaches of Colorado River bordering or within the basin. Actual development is unlikely unless flow of river is augmented.
3Basin currently in overdraft; long-term groundwater sustainability issues at baseline rate of consumption 4Potential additional CAP supply identified for basins
currently receiving CAP water. 4Potential CAP supply identified for basins currently receiving CAP. Actual development of any such supplies subject to potential
issues and limitations.

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 23

TABLE 5 Potential Legal and Technical Issues Associated with Additional
Water Supplies
Type of Supply

Potential Legal and Technical Issues

In-basin Groundwater

Available groundwater in storage
Current groundwater basin overdraft
Aquifer heterogeneity and productivity
Water quality
Earth Fissures and Land Subsidence
Groundwater/surface water impacts
Colorado River accounting surface impacts
Environmental
Tribal rights and claims
Groundwater rights and well drilling rules
Costs to drill wells and to pump, treat and transport groundwater
Data limitations

Transported Groundwater

All in-basin groundwater issues
Inter- basin transfer restrictions
Physical availability
Physical availability of new dam and reservoir sites
Cost to construct and operate new diversions and transportation infrastructure
Water quality
Environmental
Cost to treat and acquire surface water rights
Tribal rights and claims

In-state Surface Water

Colorado River

CAP

Reclaimed Water
Mine and Agricultural Drainage

Desalination of Ocean Water

Desalination of Brackish
Water
Weather Modification

Physical availability
Water quality
Cost to treat and acquire entitlements
Environmental
Tribal rights and claims
Physical availability
Proximity to CAP canal
Tribal rights and claims
Treatment cost
Low priority in times of shortage
Water quality
Cost to treat and transport
Groundwater/surface water impacts
Water quality
Treatment cost
International and interstate water transfer issues
Cost to treat and construct infrastructure
Ownership of water
Availability of electric power
Cost
Federal regulations
Availability of electric power
Cost
Technical feasibility

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 24

Table 7 Comparison of Various Funding Sources for WSDR Fund

Revenue Source

Federal Grants and Loans

General Fund Appropriations
Statewide Specific Taxes

Advantages
·Long history of federal funding for water projects in addition to
involvement with assessment, design, construction and
management
·May be only source available for federal holdings and Indian
Communities
·May be available for project start-up
·Dependable once granted

·Central funding source benefits from economy of scale
·Funding based on diverse range of revenue sources

Bottled Water Tax

·Tax rate negligible with little economic impact
·Dependable as long as patterns of use remain constant

Transaction Privilege Tax

·Dependable
·Statewide base for funding source

New or Existing Well Fees

Statewide New Development Tax

Local Area Development Impact Fees
Specific Area Taxes, Assessments, Levies or
Volumetric Charges

Special District Assessment or Charge

·Dependable if applied to existing wells
·Statewide base for funding source
·Revenue levels somewhat tied to demands
·Statewide base for funding source
·Revenue could be significant
·Revenue levels somewhat tied to demands
·Revenue could be significant
·Nexus between fee and water projects to be funded
·Funding comes directly from benefiting parties
·Can be set by city, town or county governing body

·Revenue levels somewhat tied to demands
·Revenue could be significant
·Assessments could be charged over time, reducing economic
impact
·Nexus between assessment and water projects to be funded
·Funding comes directly from benefiting parties

Disadvantages

·Available funding extremely limited
·Difficult to obtain funds in a timely manner
·Costs associated with obtaining grants and loans
·Costs associated with mandatory compliance activities
·Available funding extremely limited
·Future funding determined by economic climate and subject to
reappropriation by legislature
·Revenue does not come directly from benefiting parties
·Potential opposition by those who do not benefit
·Revenue does not come directly from benefiting parties
·No nexus between tax and water projects to be funded
·Does not itself generate sufficient revenue
·May require supermajority or public vote
·Revenue does not come directly from benefiting parties
·No nexus between tax and water projects to be funded
·Magnitude of revenue tied to rate tax is levied.
·May require supermajority or public vote
·Less dependable if applied to new wells
·Revenue does not come directly from benefiting parties
·No nexus between fee and water projects to be funded
·May be inequitable if all well types assessed the same fee
·May be inequitable if a similar fee already charged
·Revenue does not come directly from benefiting parties
·Not dependable because tied to economy
·May require amendment to existing law
·Narrow base for funding source; only new development pays the
fee
·Not dependable because tied to economy
·Requires action be taken by user before fee implemented

·May require amendment to existing law
·Narrow base for funding source
·Not dependable because tied to economy
·May not itself generate sufficient revenue
·Formation of special districts can be difficult
·May require property owners to use property as collateral

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 25

Table 7 continued

Public or Private Utility Connection and Volumetric
Charges

Local/Regional Ad Valorem Taxes

Groundwater Withdrawal Fees

·Equitable
·Can be used to finance operation and maintenance costs in
addition to initial capital costs
·Dependable
· Revenue could be significant
·Rate could be charged over time, reducing economic impact
·Nexus between charges and water projects to be funded
·Funding comes directly from benefiting parties
·All users can be required to pay
·Can be used to finance operation and maintenance costs in
addition to initial capital costs
·Taxes are charged over time, reducing economic impact
·Nexus between tax and water projects to be funded
·Funding comes primarily from benefiting parties
·Equitable
·Less volatile than other taxes
·Revenue could be significant
·Fees are charged over time, reducing economic impact
·Nexus between fees and water projects to be funded
·Dependable

·Narrow base for funding source

· May tax water users in an inequitable manner
·Narrow base for funding source
·May require legislative action
·May not itself generate sufficient revenue
·Requires legislative action

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 26

Table 9 Current Groundwater Supply for All Basins (4/5/2011)
All Basins Current Groundwater Supply Analysis 1 Rev 4_5_2011

Basin

Sub-Basins

2006 GW
Demand 2

2006 AG
Drainage
Pumping 2
(AF)

(AF)

Agua Fria
Aravaipa Canyon
Big Sandy

Bill Williams

16

Bonita Creek
Butler Valley
Cienega Creek
Coconino Plateau
Detrital Valley 16
Donnelly Wash
Douglas
Dripping Springs Wash
Duncan Valley
Gila Bend
Grand Wash
Harquahala
Hualapai Valley
Kanab Plateau 16
Lake Havasu 16
Lake Mohave 16
Little Colorado River
Plateau 16,17

Lower Gila

16

Lower San Pedro
McMullen Valley
Meadview
Morenci
Paria
Parker

16

Peach Springs

Phoenix 18,19

Pinal 18,20

Prescott18,19
Ranegras Plain
Sacramento Valley
Safford

Salt River
San Bernardino Valley
San Rafael
San Simon Wash
Santa Cruz 18,19
Shivwits Plateau
Tiger Wash
Tonto Creek
Tucson 18,19
Upper Hassayampa
Upper San Pedro
Verde River
Virgin River
Western Mexican Drainage
Willcox
Yuma 16

None
None
Fort Rock
Wikieup
Burro Creek
Alamo Reservoir
Clara Peak
Skull Valley
Santa Maria
None
None
None
None
None
None
Douglas
Douglas INA15
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
C-aquifer
D-aquifer
N-aquifer
Joseph City INA15
Childs Valley
Dendora Valley
Wellton-Mohawk
Camp Grant Wash
Mammoth
None
None
None
None
Cibola Valley
Colorado River Indian
Reservation
La Posa Plains
None
Carefree
East Salt River
Fountain Hills
Hassayampa
Lake Pleasant
Rainbow Valley
West Salt River
Aguirre Valley
Eloy
Maricopa-Stanfield
Santa Rosa
Vekol Valley
Little Chino
Upper Agua Fria
None
None
Gila Valley
San Carlos Valley
San Simon Valley
Black River
Salt River Canyon
Salt River Lakes
White River
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Avra Valley
Upper Santa Cruz
None
Allen Flat
Sierra Vista
Big Chino
Verde Canyon
Verde Valley
None
None
None
None

Estimated
Natural
Recharge 3
(AF/YR)

No. of NonSum of tested
Cancelled,
Estimated
Adjusted
pump
NonGroundwater Groundwater
capacity of
abandoned,
wells in
in Storage 4 in Storage 5
Production
column to the
(AF)
(AF)
wells
left (gpm)
including

Available Supply 12
Maximum
Current
Pump
Capacity
(AF/YR)21

Historical
Committed
Demand
(Since 1973)
(AF/YR)

Committed
Demand
Since 1995
(AF/YR)

Adjusted GW
in Storage
divided by
100 years
(AF/YR)

Ratio
2006 GW
Recent
2006 GW Negative Water
Demand
Exceeds Demand: Level Change
7
Natural
Storage
Rate
6
Recharge?
(Ft/Yr)

3,600
500

9,000
7,000

600,000
5,000,000

480,000
4,000,000

1,168
190

16,157
10,941

26,061
17,648

1
0

0
0

4,800
40,000

No
No

1:150
1:8,000

15,000

22,000

9,500,000

7,600,000

2,074

23,506

37,915

110

110

76,000

No

1:500

3,300

32,000

10,000,000

8,000,000

4,970

196,310

316,649

8

8

80,000

No

1:2,400

3,300
14,500
1,100
500
150
19

9,000
1,000
8,500
NA
1,000
3,000

1,000,000
2,000,000
5,100,000
3,000,000
1,000,000
140,000

800,000
1,600,000
4,080,000
2,400,000
800,000
112,000

4
1
1,050
84
187
53

650
14,270
11,731
3,486
2,212
1,356

1,048
23,018
18,922
5,623
3,568
2,187

0
0
427
67
19,181
0

0
0
427
67
19,129
0

8,000
16,000
40,800
24,000
8,000
1,120

No
Yes
No
UNK
No
No

1:250
1:100
1:3,700
1:4,800
1:5,300
1:5,900

53,500

15,500

20,800,000

16,640,000

1,382

319,410

515,211

0

0

Yes

1:300

11
8,100
295,300
2
66,200
8,800
1,300
0
3,500

3,000
6,000
10,000
NA
1,000
2,000
NA
35,000
183,000
319,000
5,400
20,200
NA

150,000
9,000,000
17,000,000
NA
13,000,000
3,000,000
NA
1,000,000
1,200,000
413,000,000
15,000,000
526,000,000
NA

120,000
7,200,000
13,600,000
NA
10,400,000
2,400,000
NA
800,000
960,000
330,400,000
12,000,000
420,800,000
NA

56
351
382
6
255
843
178
69
900

5,441
44,090
464,411
40
239,697
15,138
3,176
3,695
32,981

8,776
71,117
749,098
65
386,633
24,418
5,123
5,960
53,199

0
0
36,645
0
22,986
96,702
412
209
24,053

0
0
36,645
0
22,986
83,785
412
209
23,925

1,200
72,000
136,000
N/A
104,000
24,000
N/A
8,000
9,600

No
Yes
Yes
NA
Yes
Yes
NA
No
No

1:10,900
1:900
1:50
NA
1:150
1:250
NA

5,742

224,777

362,567

38,764

34,145

7,632,000

No

1:3,300

98,700

110,350

9,000

100,000,000

80,000,000

2,199

998,628

1,610,794

0

0

23,700

104000

24,000

11,000,000

8,800,000

1,382

111,318

179,557

1,265

1,203

800,000

71,500
150
9,200
100

1,000
4,000
15,000
NA

14,000,000
1,000,000
3,000,000
15,000,000

11,200,000
800,000
2,400,000
12,000,000

335
38
331
10

50,896
651
35,094
1,060

82,096
1,050
56,607
1,710

36,351
0
0
452

36,103
0
0
0

112,000
8,000
24,000
120,000

1,800

241,000

14,000,000

11,200,000

4,410

80,607

130,020

985

909

350

NA

1,000,000

800,000

27

1,628

2,626

0

0

689,300

172,300

80,400,000

64,320,000

86,793

15,103,060

24,361,344

631,935

434,700

96,300

35,200,000

28,160,000

11,580

3,555,490

5,735,031

235,237

NA
1:250

Yes

1:700

No

1:350

Yes
No
No
UNK

1:150
1:5,300
1:250
1:120,000

112,000

No

1:6,200

8,000

UNK

1:2,300

594,224

643,200

Yes

1:93

232,175

281,600

Yes

1:65

20,300

8,200

3,000,000

2,400,000

14,556

233,594

376,789

25,052

22,381

24,000

Yes

1:100

29,350
4,000

1,000
1,000

9,000,000
3,600,000

7,200,000
2,880,000

403
911

55,092
13,349

88,864
21,532

312
31,807

312
30,805

72,000
28,800

Yes
Yes

1:250
1:700

84,900

105,000

27,000,000

21,600,000

5,820

781,140

1,259,984

7,438

3,433

216,000

No

1:250

12,500

178,000

8,700,000

6,960,000

4,260

147,064

237,215

0

0

69,600

No

1:550

19
22
1,500
20,600
2
2
3,000

9,000
5,000
11,000
50,800
NA
1,000
17,000

1,600,000
4,000,000
6,700,000
160,000
NA
700,000
2,000,000

1,280,000
3,200,000
5,360,000
128,000
NA
560,000
1,600,000

74
102
4
774
9
6
1,301

2,050
6,048
5
69,058
5
140
15,969

3,307
9,755
8
111,391
8
226
25,758

0
0
0
22,100
0
0
25

0
0
0
21,920
0
0
25

12,800
32,000
53,600
1,280
NA
5,600
16,000

No
No
No
No
UNK
No
No

1:67,400
1:145,500
1:3,600
1:6
UNK
1:280,000
1:550

216,900

99,100

61,000,000

48,800,000

12,080

1,083,028

1,746,932

141,606

135,095

488,000

Yes

1:200

3,800

8,000

1,000,000

800,000

1,219

18,050

29,115

2,696

2,306

8,000

No

1:200

24,000

35,800

19,800,000

15,840,000

8,198

363,864

586,915

27,570

20,881

158,400

No

1:650

29,000

107,000

13,000,000

10,400,000

25,143

474,255

764,977

56,219

53,816

104,000

No

1:350

1,600
6
175,700
104,200

30,000
1,000
15,000
213,000

1,700,000
3,000,000
42,000,000
34,000,000

1,360,000
2,400,000
33,600,000
27,200,000

309
9
2,310
1,522

16,831
274
261,777
165,668

27,149
442
422,248
267,224

11,310
0
2,007
16,377

11,301
0
2,007
12,311

13,600
24,000
336,000
272,000

No
No
Yes
No

1:850
1:400,000
1:200
1:250

99,000

-0.1
-0.1
-0.4
-0.5
NA
-0.2
NA
-1.3
-0.1
NA
-1
-0.3
-0.5
-0.8
NA
-1.2
-1.3
-0.4
-0.2
-4.3
NA
-1.1
-0.9
-0.1
NA
-0.1

Available Supply 8
(Assum ption 1)
Long-Term GW Supply
>=
Current GW
Dem and

Available Supply 9
(Assum ption 2)
LongTerm GW Supply ≈
Current GW Dem and

(Assum ption 5)
Documented
Long-Term GW Supply
Historic or
(Assum ption 4)
>= Current GW
Current
For AMAs Provided By
Dem and For Basins
GW/SW
CR Basin Model
w ith Direct or Potential
13
Projections
Impacts?
Colorado River
Connections

Available Supply 10 Available Supply 11
(Assum ption 3)
Long-Term GW
Supply <
Current GW Dem and

3,600
500

?
N

107
50

?

49

N

152

N
N
?
Y
N
N

14

3,300

3,300
14,500
1,100
500
150
19

46
197
27
3

53,500

?

2
7
26

66,200
8,800
1,300
0
3,500

N
?
Y
N
?
N
N
Y
Y

21
139
38
122

98,700

Y

884

110,350

Y

11

Y

77

?
N
?
N

7
355
27

Y

147

N

14

11
8,100
< 295,300
2

23,700
71,500
150
9,200
100

-0.1
-0.9
-0.1
NA
-1.1
-2.1
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-1
-0.8
-1.8
-1
NA
-0.1
-1.4
-1.4
-0.9
-0.5
-0.2
NA
-1.2
NA
-0.3
-2.2
NA
-0.4
-0.4
NA
-0.5
NA
NA
-0.4
-1.5
-1.6
-0.4
-0.4
-0.5
-0.2
-2.4
-1.2
-0.1
-0.5
-2
-0.4

14

Stream
(Miles)

15,000

-1.4
NA
NA
-1.7
-0.4
-0.2
-0.6
-2.2
-1.1
-0.6
-1.2
NA

Perennial

1,800
350

TBD

Y

TBD

Y

4

20,300

Y

29,350
4,000

N
N

5

84,900

Y

157

12,500

?

1187

19
22
1,500
20,600

?
?
?
Y
N
N
?

2
14

2
2
3,000
TBD

61
129

Y

52

3,800

Y

52

24,000

Y

101

29,000

Y

475

1,600
6

Y
N
Y
Y

47

175,700
104,200

32
53

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 27

Table 9 Notes:
NA - Not Available
1 Natural recharge estimates, groundwater-in-storage from ADWR Arizona Water
Atlas report and AMA Assessment reports.
2 2006 Groundwater demand and drainage pumping for non-AMA basins from
unpublished USGS data. Drainage pumpage for Lower Gila and
Yuma basins provided by USGS estimates. Please note that drainage pumpage
may occur in other basins but is not differentiated from other
groundwater withdrawals. A portion of current drainage pumping is used to
satisfy US/Mexico Colorado River water settlements. Some
drainage pumpage may be available to supply additonal future water demands.
2006 Groundwater demand totals and related ratios not rounded if less than 100
AF, rounded to nearest 50 acre-feet if >100AF and <1000AF, rounded to nearest
100 AF if > 1,000AF.
3 See Atlas Volumes 2 through 7 for non-AMA natural recharge data sources.
Where more than one estimate of natural recharge was
available the lowest estimate is shown here.
Note: Natural recharge for AMAs taken from most recent AMA Water Demand
and Supply Assessments.
AMA natural recharge assessments generally include stream channel infiltration
from natural flows and reclaimed water discharged to natural
channels not associated with recharge projects, mountain front recharge and
basin groundwater underflow (inflow only).
4 See Atlas Volumes 2 through 8 for groundwater-in-storage data sources.
Where more than one estimate of groundwater-in-storage was
avaialable the lowest estimate is shown here. All groundwater-in-storage is to
1,200 feet below land surface (BLS) unless otherwise
indicated.

5 Value shown is 80% of estimated groundwater-in-storage. Adjustment reflects
hydrologic, practical and other limitations on actual volume of
groundwater that may be produced from a groundwater basin. (Adjustment
percentage is not based on basin specific data or analysis)
6 A low ratio of demand to storage is of less concern in basins where the natural
recharge exceeds demand.
7 Recent water level decline rate is based on (circa 1990 to mid to late 2000's)
groundwater level data for wells showing declines in each
basin. Many basins also have wells that show rises over the same period. A
complete analysis of basinwide water level change is available by reviewing maps
and tables found in WRDC Water Supply Infoshare directory.

8 Available Supply Assumption 1 - Long-term (at least 100-years) basinwide
groundwater supply is at least equal to current groundwater
demand. Any local or basinwide groundwater overdraft that may be indicated
by basin wl negative change rate or from water budget data, is
not considered likely to impact future available groundwater supply within next
100 years (at current rate of demand).
9 Available Supply Assumption 2 - Long-term (at least 100 years) basinwide
groundwater supply is about equal to current groundwater
demand. Any local or basinwide groundwater overdraft that is indicated by
basin wl negative change rate or from water budget data, is
significant and may impact future available groundwater supply within next 100
years (at current rate of demand). Basins lacking natural recharge estimates
were placed in this Available Supply Assumption (ie, Paria, Peach springs, and
Shivwitz Plateau) however it is likely that these basins could have been grouped
in Assumption 1.

10 Available Supply Assumption 3 - Long-term (at least 100-years) basinwide groundwater supply is less than current groundwater demand.
Any local or basinwide groundwater overdraft that is indicated by basin wl negative
change rate or from water budget data, is significant
and will impact future available groundwater supply within next 100 years (at
current rate of demand).
11 Available Supply Assumption 4 - Long-term (at least 100 years) basinwide groundwater supply will be analyzed using Colorado River basin
model (work in progress, results to be determined, as of 3/7/2011).

12 Available Supply Assumption 5 - Long-term (at least 100 years) basinwide groundwater supply (for basins with direct or potential Colorado
River hydraulic connection) is at least equal to current groundwater demand.
However, estimated basin groundwater storage has not been
dis-aggregated into separate Colorado River and non-Colorado River components,
and some future well withdrawal volumes greater than
current demands could be disallowed due to potential Colorado River impacts.

13 Statewide assessment of documented historic or current groundwater/surface
water impacts is preliminary and subject to additional review
for completeness and accuracy. Identification and administration of any historic or
current gw/sw impacts identified for Colorado River
basins may be subject to federal procedures, rules and regulations that would not
apply to in-state river systems.
14 Perennial stream miles per groundwater basin from ADEQ_USGS Perennial River
Miles database
15 The Douglas INA and the Joseph City INA are political divides within the Douglas
and Little Colorado River basins and are not sub-basins
per se.

16 2006 Groundwater demand for Colorado River Basins has been analyzed to
exclude any Colorado River water or other surface water that is
produced from wells (4/5/11 update).

17 The C-, N-, and D-aquifers are not sub-basins, however separate recharge and
storage data were available for them so they are included
here

18 2006 Groundwater demand for AMAs from AMA Assessments (includes all demands identified as "Groundwater". However, does not
include "In-Lieu" groundwater)

19 Storage is to a depth of 1,000 feet

20 Storage to a depth of 1,100 feet
21 Based on a query of all wells in the Gila Bend basin, using the water production,
exempt, exempt-domestic, other and non-exempt
categories, non-cancelled and a 100% duty cycle. See sheet "SQL."

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 28

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 29

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 30

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 31

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 32

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 33

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 34

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 35

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 36

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 37

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 38

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 39

Water Resources Development Commission

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 41

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 42

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 43

APPENDIX I. LIST OF COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS

Name

Affiliation

Senator Allen

Legislative District 5

Bas Aja
Robert Anderson
Cynthia Aragon
Chris Avery
Robin Bain
William Baker
Jason Baran
Celia Barotz
Phil Bashaw
Rhett Billingsley
Bill Brandau
Patrick Bray
Steve Brophy
Katja Brundiers
Brenda Burman
Tom Buschatzke
Jean Calhoun
Supervisor Call
Jorge Canaca
Luana Capponi
Greg Capps
Cliff Cauthen
Cynthia Chandley
Jim Chang
Aaron Citron
Tom Collazo
Karen Collins
Rebecca Comstock
Peter Culp
Kevin Davidson
Rebecca Davidson
Val Danos
Tom Davis
Christine Dawe
Henry Day
Julie Decker
Tony DeMarco
Norm DeWeaver
Ron Doba

Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association
Fennemore Craig
Arizona State Legislative Liaison
City of Tucson
City of Peoria
Southwestern College – Academic Dean
Arizona Municipal Water Users Association
City of Flagstaff
Arizona Farm Bureau
Ryley, Carlock and Applewhite
Water Resources Research Center
Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association
Farmer, Alternate for Dave Brown
Arizona State University
The Nature Conservancy
City of Phoenix (former)/ADWR
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Cochise County Board of Supervisors
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Arizona State Land Department
City of Chandler
Hohokam Irrigation and Drainage District
Snell and Wilmer
Arizona Department of Commerce
Arizona Land and Water Trust
The Nature Conservancy
Salt River Project
Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold
Squire, Sanders and Dempsey
Mohave County
Salt River Project
Arizona Municipal Water Users Association
Yuma County Water Users Association
U.S. Forest Service
Arizona Public Service Company
Bureau of Land Management
Arizona State Senate Research Analyst
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users
Association
Arizona State Land Department
City of Peoria
Town of Taylor
Salt River Project
City of Tucson

Wimberly Doran
Alan Dulaney
Eric Duthie
Jeff Ehlers
Sandy Elder

Committee
ENV – Environmental
FIN – Finance
LEGREC – Legislative Recommendations
POP – Population
WS&D – Water Supply and Demand
LEGREC
ENV, WS&D
LEGREC
ENV
LEGREC
LEGREC
LEGREC
ENV, FIN, POP, WS&D
ENV
ENV, POP, WS&D
WS&D
ENV
POP
LEGREC
ENV
ENV (co-chair), LEGREC, WS&D
ENV, LEGREC, POP, WS&D
ENV
LEGREC (co-chair)
ENV, POP, WS&D
POP, WS&D
WS&D
ENV, LEGREC, WS&D
WS&D
POP
ENV, LEGREC
LEGREC, WS&D
FIN, LEGREC, POP (chair)
WS&D
ENV, WS&D
POP
ENV, LEGREC, POP, WS&D
ENV, FIN, LEGREC, WS&D
LEGREC, WS&D
ENV, WS&D
WS&D
WS&D
LEGREC
POP, LEGREC, WS&D
FIN, LEGREC, WS&D (co-chair)
LEGREC
WS&D
LEGREC, WS&D
FIN
LEGREC

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 44

LIST OF COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS
Nicole Eiden
Craig Engler
Tom Farley
Sean Ferris
Tiffanie Figueroa
Cecilio Flores
Brandon Forbes
Doug Frost
Mike Fulton
Santiago Garcia
Maureen George
Jocelyn Gibbon
Tim Gibson
Supervisor Gomez
Vivian Gonzales
Angela Gotto
Jeff Gray
Willie Grayeyes
Wofgang Grunberg
Simone Hall
Bruce Hallin
Eve Halper
Robert Hardy
Jim Hartdegen
Adam Hawkins
Todd Henderson
Paul Hendricks
Brad Hill
Gary Hix
Mark Holmes
Thomas Homan
Amelia Homewytewa
Chip Howard
Scott Hughes
John Hunt
Shilpa Hunter-Patel
Robin Interpreter
Dave Iwanski
James Jayne
Jeff Johnson
Representative Jones
Spencer Kamps
Reland Kane
Jim Kenna
Robert Kirk
Jim Klinker
Dee Korich
Doug Kupel
Lucius Kyyitan
Rick Lavis
Michael Liberti
Brett Lindsay
Cheryl Lombard
Gus Lundberg

Arizona Game and Fish Department
Summit Global Management
Arizona Association of REALTORS
Golf Industry Association
Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold
City of Tucson
U.S. Geological Survey
City of Phoenix
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Mohave County/Northwest Arizona
Environmental Defense Fund
Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold
Greenlee County Board of Supervisors
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Central Arizona Association of Governments
R & R Partners
Citizen
Arizona Game and Fish Department
The Nature Conservancy
Salt River Project
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
City of Cottonwood
Consultant
Rio Tinto
Town of Marana
Consultant
City of Flagstaff
Arizona Water Well Association
City of Mesa
Gila County
Gila River Indian Community
Turf Science
Cal Portland Cement
Department of Agriculture
Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold
Montgomery and Interpreter, PLC
City of Goodyear
Navajo Nation
Town of Taylor
Legislative District 24
Homebuilders Association of Central Arizona
Tucson Electric Power
Bureau of Land Management
Navajo Nation
Arizona Farm Bureau
City of Tucson
City of Phoenix
Gila River Indian Community
Arizona Cotton Growers Association
City of Tucson
Salt River Materials Group
The Nature Conservancy
Town of Taylor

ENV
LEGREC
LEGREC
LEGREC, WS&D
LEGREC
FIN
WS&D
FIN
ENV
ENV, LEGREC, POP
LEGREC, POP, WS&D
ENV, LEGREC, WS&D
LEGREC, WS&D
WS&D
LEGREC, WS&D
POP
LEGREC
LEGREC
LEGREC
ENV, LEGREC, WS&D
LEGREC
WS&D
LEGREC, WS&D
FIN, LEGREC, WS&D
WS&D
LEGREC
FIN, WS&D
LEGREC, WS&D
WS&D
WS&D
POP
WS&D
WS&D
LEGREC, WS&D
POP
LEGREC
LEGREC
POP
ENV
POP, WS&D
LEGREC
LEGREC, WS&D
WS&D
WS&D
LEGREC, POP
ENV
ENV, WS&D
ENV, FIN, LEGREC, WS&D
ENV, WS&D
LEGREC, WS&D
POP
WS&D
LEGREC, WS&D
FIN

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 45

LIST OF COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS
Supervisor Lunt
Robert Lynch
Todd Madeksza
Dean Mair
Ralph Marra
Rob Marshall
Brad Martin
Verle Martz
Sharon Masek-Lopez
Tom McCann
Ed McGavock
Colleen McVey
Sharon Megdal
Leslie Meyers
Adam Miller
Beth Miller
Susan Montgomery
Colette Moore
John Munderloh
Brian Munson
Shawn Murray
Scot Mussi
Joanna Nadeau
Karen Nally

Lauren Neu
Jade Neville
Wade Noble
Christine Nunez
Steve Olea
Steve Olson
Krishna Parameswaran
Chris Payne
Senator Pierce
David Plane
Bill Plummer
Kathy Rall
John Rasmussen
Jim Renthal
Janet Regner
Dave Roberts
Carl Roby
Sandra Rode
Brad Ross
Rod Ross
Steve Rossi
Stephen Rot
Dennis Rule
Bill Schooling
Nancy Scott
John Sellers
Richard Seigel
Chip Sherrill

Greenlee County Board of Supervisors
Attorney
County Supervisors Association
Collie Canyon
City of Tucson
The Nature Conservancy
Montgomery and Interpreter, PLC
Salt River Materials Group
Northern Arizona University
Central Arizona Project
Errol Montgomery and Associates
La Paz County
Water Resources Research Center
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
City of Phoenix
City of Scottsdale
Montgomery and Interpreter, PLC
City of Mesa
Town of Prescott Valley
ASARCO
City of Mesa
Homebuilders Association of Central Arizona
Water Resources Research Center
Representing Hohokam Irrigation and Drainage
District and Central Arizona Irrigation and
Drainage District
Strand Engineering
U.S. Geological Survey
Noble Law Office
City of Surprise
Arizona Corporation Commission
Arizona Municipal Water Users Association
ASARCO
Snell and Wilmer
Legislative District 1
University of Arizona
Agri-Business Council of Arizona
Town of Gilbert
Yavapai County
Bureau of Land Management
Husk Partners
Salt River Project
Cochise County
City of Goodyear
Resolution Copper Mining
County Supervisors Association
City of Phoenix
City of Glendale
Central Arizona Project
Arizona Department of Commerce
Arizona Corporation Commission
Yavapai Regional Capital Group
Salt River Project
Mohave County

LEGREC, WS&D
LEGREC
LEGREC
WS&D
WS&D
ENV, LEGREC
ENV
LEGREC, WS&D
ENV, LEGREC
LEGREC
WS&D
POP
LEGREC
WS&D (co-chair)
POP, WS&D
LEGREC, WS&D
LEGREC
WS&D
FIN, LEGREC (co-chair), POP
WS&D
LEGREC, POP
LEGREC
ENV
ENV, FIN, POP, WS&D

FIN, WS&D
WS&D
ENV, LEGREC, WS&D
ENV, WS&D
FIN, LEGREC
ENV, LEGREC, POP, WS&D
WS&D
WS&D
LEGREC
POP
ENV, WS&D
WS&D
ENV, LEGREC, POP, WS&D
ENV, LEGREC, WS&D
ENV, WS&D
ENV
LEGREC, WS&D
LEGREC, WS&D
WS&D
LEGREC, WS&D
LEGREC, POP, WS&D
LEGREC
ENV, LEGREC, WS&D
POP
FIN
FIN, WS&D
FIN, LEGREC
WS&D

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 46

LIST OF COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS
Robert Shuler
Tim Skarupa
Dave Slick
Supervisor Snider
Ron Solomon
Stu Spaulding
Jerry Stabley
Cynthia Stefanovic
Robin Stinnett
Linda Stitzer
Mayor Strain
Raymond Suazo
Saeid Tadayon
Warren Tenney
Dick Thompson
Doug Toy
Dean Trammel
Steve Trussell
Matt Tsark
Shelly Tunis
Chris Udall
Bill Victor
Tom Victory
Diane Vosick
Robert Wagner
Summer Waters
Dave Weedman
Bill Wells
Lyn White
Ron Whitler
Doyle Wilson
Joe Wilson
Wally Wilson

Consultant
Salt River Project
Salt River Project
Pinal County Board of Supervisors
Town of Taylor
Town of Taylor
Pinal County
Arizona State Land Department
City of Avondale
Western Resource Advocates
Sierra Vista
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Geological Survey
Metro Water District
City of Tucson
City of Chandler
City of Tucson
Salt River Materials Group
Strand Engineering
Yuma Fresh Vegetable Association
Agri-Business Council of Arizona
Errol Montgomery and Associates
City of Tucson
Northern Arizona University
Yavapai Regional Capital
University of Arizona, Cooperative Extension,
Maricopa County
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Bureau of Land Management
Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold
Town of Buckeye
Lake Havasu City
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
City of Tucson

LEGREC, WS&D
WS&D
WS&D
FIN (co-chair), LEGREC
ENV, LEGREC
LEGREC, WS&D
POP
WS&D
LEGREC, WS&D
ENV, LEGREC, WS&D
LEGREC
WS&D
LEGREC, WS&D
LEGREC, ENV (co-chair)
LEGREC
WS&D
ENV, POP, WS&D
LEGREC, WS&D
WS&D
LEGREC
ENV
WS&D
LEGRECD
ENV
ENV, FIN, LEGREC, WS&D
ENV, LEGREC
ENV
ENV, WS&D
WS&D
LEGREC
WS&D
WS&D
ENV, LEGREC, WS&D

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 47

APPENDIX II. LIST OF ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER
RESOURCES STAFF PARTICIPANTS IN WRDC PROCESS
Perri Benemelis
Fred Breedlove **
Rich Burtell **
Tom Buschatzke
Jorge Cano
Paul Charman
Frank Corkhill
Karen Fisher
Dena Gambrel
Laura Grignano**
Don Gross

Wes Hipke
Marie Horn
Deanna Ikeya
David Johnson
Michael Johnson
Michael Lacey
Colleen Lane
Alan Leaf
Andrew Metcalf**
Michelle Moreno
Sharon Morris

Kelly Mott-Lacroix**
Pam Nagel
Syndia Reeder
Luis Sanchez
Ken Slowinski
Karen Smith**
Linda Stitzer**
Tom Whitmer
Gerry Wildeman
Dianne Yunker

** Denotes former ADWR employee

Water Resources Development Commission
Final Report Page 48