COCONINO COUNTY APACHE COUNTY NAVAJO Kingman COUNTY Flagstaff MOHAVE COUNTY Holbrook YAVAPAI PRESCOTT AMA COUNTY Prescott St Johns Parker LA PAZ GILA COUNTY COUNTY PHOENIX AMA Phoenix Globe GREENLEE COUNTY Clifton MARICOPA Florence COUNTY YUMA COUNTY Safford GRAHAM Yuma COUNTY PINAL AMA PINAL COUNTY AR IZ ME ONA XIC O Tucson TUCSON AMA PIMA COUNTY COCHISE COUNTY State Capitol SANTA CRUZ AMA County Seat Selected Major Road SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Bisbee Nogales Interstate Arizona Boundary County Active Management Area Central Highlands 0 Eastern Plateau Lower Colorado Southeastern Arizona Upper Colorado Western Plateau 12.5 25 50 75 100 Miles FIGURE 1 ARIZONA PLANNING AREAS AND COUNTIES Ocober 13, 2004 C:/lstitzerrural/fig1planningareas.mxd KAIBAB - PAIUTE Page Arizona Strip Kayenta (PROPOSED) WESTERN PLATEAU SAN JUAN SOUTHERN EASTERN PLATEAU PAIUTE NAVAJO HAVASUPAI HOPI North Central Arizona HUALAPAI Little Colorado River Peach Springs Kingman Bullhead City Flagstaff Northwest Arizona Watershed Council FORT Upper and Middle Verde MOHAVE Holbrook Sedona UPPER COLORADO Prescott AMA Prescott Upper Bill Williams Lake Havasu City Upper Agua Fria Upper Hassayampa Parker COLORADO RIVER ZUNI YAVAPAI - APACHE YAVAPAI - PRESCOTT St Silver Creek Pine/Strawberry Johns Show Low Creek Northern Gila County Payson Springerville TONTO APACHE CENTRAL HIGHLANDS INDIAN Upper Little Colorado FORT APACHE TRIBES FORT MCDOWELL Phoenix SALT RIVER PIMA - MARICOPA Globe Eagle Creek SAN CARLOS APACHE GILA LOWER COLORADO TOHONO SOUTHEASTERN RIVER O'ODHAM (GILA AK - CHIN BEND) FORT YUMA Clifton ARIZONA Florence Safford Yuma COCOPAH Upper Gila Lower San Pedro ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREAS City and Town Arizona Boundary Indian Reservation Tucson TOHONO O'ODHAM State Capitol SAN ARI Z ME ONA XIC O XAVIER Benson Middle San Pedro Planning Area Sierra Vista Arizona Strip Eagle Creek Nogales Little Colorado River Upper San Pedro Bisbee Douglas Lower San Pedro Middle San Pedro North Central Arizona North Gila County Northwest Arizona Show Low Creek 0 12.5 25 50 75 100 Miles Silver Creek Upper Agua Fria Upper Bill Williams Upper Gila Upper Hassayampa Upper Little Colorado River FIGURE 2 ARIZONA RURAL WATERSHED INITIATIVE PARTICIPANTS Upper Middle Verde Upper San Pedro October 13, 2004 C:/lstitzerrural/fig2planning.mxd Colorado City VIRGIN RIVER Teec Nos Pos PARIA Kaibito KANAB PLATEAU GRAND WASH Lukachukai SHIVWITS PLATEAU Pinon MEADVIEW DETRITAL VALLEY LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU COCONINO PLATEAU PEACH SPRINGS Dolan Springs HUALAPAI VALLEY New Kingman / Butler Bullhead Kingman City Mohave Valley BIG SANDY Kachina Village LAKE MOHAVE VERDE RIVER Sedona Clarkdale Big Park Cottonwood PRESCOTT Cottonwood-Verde Village AMA Lake Montezuma Camp Verde SACRAMENTO VALLEY LAKE HAVASU Lake Havasu City BILL WILLIAMS Taylor Heber Overgaard AGUA FRIA UPPER HASSAYAMPA Black Canyon City TONTO BUTLER VALLEY MCMULLEN VALLEY TIGER WASH Quartzsite RANEGRAS PLAIN Show Low Pinetop - Lakeside Payson CREEK SALT RIVER HARQUAHALA Whiteriver PHOENIX AMA PARKER Globe Peridot San Carlos Cottonwood LOWER GILA Yuma DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH GILA BEND SAFFORD ARAVAIPA CANYON Fortuna Foothills Somerton San Luis DONNELLY WASH MORENCI BONITA CREEK Wellton PINAL AMA LOWER SAN PEDRO Ajo WE STE RN ME XIC A ND RAI NAG TUCSON AMA E WILLCOX Whetstone SAN SIMON WASH DUNCAN Safford VALLEY Swift Duncan Trail Junction Benson UPPER CIENEGA CREEK SANTA CRUZ AMA Community With 2 - 5% Growth Between 1990 and 2000 Tombstone SAN Sierra Vista SAN RAFAEL PEDRO DOUGLAS SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY Community With > 5% Growth Between 1990 and 2000 Arizona Boundary Groundwater Basin Active Management Areas Central Highlands Eastern Plateau Lower Colorado Southeastern Upper Colorado Western Plateau 0 12.5 25 50 75 100 Miles FIGURE 3 RURAL PLANNING AREAS AND GROUNDWATER BASINS WITH HIGH GROWTH RATE COMMUNITIES October 13, 2004 C:\lstitzerrural\fig3planningcolorcomms.mxd FIGURE 4 SOURCE WATER REPORTED BY WATER PROVIDERS 2 30 1 2 88 4 9 NR GW SW SW/GW GW/EFF SW/EFF GW/SW/EFF Note: NR = no response, GW = groundwater, SW = surface water, EFF = effluent. Unfortunately, the amount of water use by respondents is difficult to determine because the questionnaire did not ask respondents to identify the water use unit. In addition, a number of respondents did not provide this information. This problem will be addressed in the 2004 questionnaire, which will allow reconciliation of the information gathered in the 2003 questionnaire. Only three systems reported that zoning requirements or homeowner’s association restrictions in their service area resulted in increased water use. SYSTEM EXPANSION Responses indicate that growth is a significant feature in rural Arizona. Fifty-seven of the 136 respondents (42%) reported that they were expecting to expand their water distribution systems. Those expecting to serve more than 1,000 new homes within three years are located in the Bullhead City, Flagstaff, Kingman, Safford, Sierra Vista, and Yuma areas. Thirty-five water providers reported that other water companies in their communities were also expanding or that new water companies were proposed. However, only ten providers (including 3 “other”) indicated that in the next ten years they would be serving large new customers who would use an annual amount of water greater than 5% of their current total deliveries. 19 FIGURE 5 PERCENT METERING BY WATER PROVIDER TYPE 100 Percent 80 60 Meter Pumpage Meter Deliveries 40 20 0 Public Systems Private Systems Other Systems PRIVATE DOMESTIC WELLS In some rural areas, particularly where lots are large, private domestic wells serve a significant percentage of the area population. Private domestic well use is typically not measured and is unregulated except that the well, when drilled, must be registered with ADWR and drilled by a licensed well driller. Domestic well use is an unknown quantity when evaluating area water use and developing a water budget. Estimates in the literature vary, with one acre-foot per year per well often cited. Water providers were asked if private domestic wells were a significant source of water for households in the area in which they served. About 43 (31%) of the respondents mentioned that they were a significant source of water, but only 16 reported that private domestic wells affected their systems. The most commonly mentioned impact of domestic wells was their affect on groundwater levels in the area. WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM While about 30% of the 136 water providers that responded reported that they had a conservation program, some that did not claim to have a program still provided some type of conservation information to customers such as conservation literature in their offices. The most often reported measures were: • • Conservation literature available in offices (24%) Conservation literature distributed to customers (20%) 22