ARIZONA WATER BANKING AUTHORITY
ANNUAL PLAN OF OPERATION

2000

Rita P. Pearson, Chairman
December 1999

INTRODUCTION
The Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA) was created to store Arizona’s
unused Colorado River water entitlement in western, central and southern Arizona to
develop long-term storage credits to: (1) firm existing water supplies for municipal and
industrial users during Colorado River shortages or Central Arizona Project (CAP) service
interruptions; (2) help meet the water management objectives of the Arizona Groundwater
Code; and (3) assist in the settlement of American Indian water rights claims.
In addition to these functions, which were set forth in the AWBA’s enabling
legislation, the AWBA can now undertake some additional water banking activities. The
Arizona Water Banking Authority Study Commission, created in 1996 to consider and
recommend possible additional roles for the AWBA in carrying out Arizona’s water policy,
proposed a series of water banking amendments during the 1999 legislative session, all
of which were approved by the Arizona Legislature and signed into law in April 1999 by
Governor Hull. These statutory amendments include provisions to allow the AWBA to
perform water banking services for specific entities in Arizona and create a mechanism for
distribution of long-term storage credits earned on behalf of specific Arizona entities; to
permit the AWBA to store effluent for the same purposes allowed for CAP water but only
when all available excess CAP water has been stored or when excess CAP water is not
available to the AWBA; to protect non-CAP surface water supplies; and to create a
mechanism for long-term storage credit lending.
The AWBA is required by statute to approve an annual Plan of Operation by January
1 of each year. Prior to approval of the final plan, the AWBA is required to solicit public
comment by presenting the plan to the groundwater users advisory councils for the
Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson active management areas (AMA) and to the county board of
supervisors for counties outside of the AMA’s if water storage is proposed there within the
current plan. Presentation of the Plan of Operation must be made at publicly noticed open
meetings at which members of the public are permitted to provide comment.
The Plan of Operation is intended to govern the operations of the AWBA over the
course of the entire calendar year. During the course of the year, changing circumstances
may present limitations or provide new opportunities not contemplated in the adopted Plan,
which could affect the overall delivery projections. In such circumstances, the AWBA may
choose to modify its adopted Plan. If such modifications are required, the proposed
modifications will be discussed and, if acceptable, approved at a public meeting of the
AWBA.
The AWBA recognizes that day-to-day adjustments in the normal operations of the
CAP or the individual storage facilities caused by maintenance and fluctuations in the
weather may affect the actual monthly deliveries made on behalf of the AWBA. If the
adjustments do not impact the overall annual delivery projections contained in the Plan,
they will not be deemed modifications to the Plan and will be addressed by staff and
reported to the AWBA members on an as-needed basis.

1

1999 PLAN OF OPERATION
In 1999, the AWBA’s second full year of operation, the AWBA recharged
approximately 250,000 acre feet of Colorado River water, bringing Arizona’s total use of
Colorado River water close to its normal year entitlement of 2.8 million acre feet (see Figure
1).
ARIZONA DIVERSIONS
Million Acre Feet
3.00
0.33

0.26

0.22

Diversion

2.00
1.08

1.01

1.20

1.29

1.19

1.05

1.00

0.00
1997

1998

1999

Years
OTHER

CAP

BANK

Figure 1
Because the Secretary of the Interior declared that the Colorado River was in
surplus in 1999, the increased use by Arizona did not impact the other Lower Basin states'
uses. Total estimated use of Colorado River water in the Lower Basin will be approximately
7.8 million acre feet in 1999 (see Figure 2).

LOWER BASIN DIVERSIONS
Million Acre Feet
10.00
0.24

8.00

0.27

0.25

Diversion

2.70

2.51

6.00

2.42

4.00
5.16

4.99

4.95

2.00

0.00
1997

1998

1999

Years
CALIFORNIA

ARIZONA

Figure 2

2

NEVADA

The AWBA recharged water at underground storage facilities (USF) and
groundwater savings facilities (GSF) in 1999. Table 1 lists the AWBA's recharge partners
for 1999, the amount of water that can be stored under each AWBA water storage permit,
and the amount estimated to be recharged by the AWBA at each facility in 1999. Final
figures generally become available in the middle of the following year (in this case, mid2000). The amount of water stored is always greater than the amount of long-term storage
credits earned by the AWBA because credits are computed by subtracting approximately
3-5% for losses and 5% for a "cut to the aquifer" from the total annual deliveries.
Table 1
AMA

Phoenix

Pinal
Tucson

Facility

Type

Permit Capacity

Amount Recharged

GRUSP
Queen Creek ID
New Magma IDD
SRP
Maricopa Water
District
MSIDD
CAIDD
Hohokam ID
Avra Valley (CAP)
Pima Mine Road
(CAP)
CAVSARP (Tucson)

USF
GSF
GSF
GSF
GSF

200,000 AF
28,000 AF
54,000 AF
200,000 AF
18,000 AF

62,147 AF
13,498 AF
46,328 AF
22,084 AF
20,000 AF

GSF
GSF
GSF
USF
USF

120,000 AF
110,000 AF
55,000 AF
11,000 AF
10,000 AF1

20,722 AF
5,000 AF
39,625 AF
3,730 AF
10,979 AF

USF

15,000 AF

Total
1

821,000 AF

7,761 AF

251,874 AF

In mid-1999, the Pima Mine Road pilot permit was extended allowing an additional 10,000 AF over a two year period.

Though the Amended 1999 Plan of Operation scheduled approximately 370,000
acre feet of water to be recharged around the state, the amount of water recharged
amounted to approximately 251,800 acre feet. Several GSFs requested a reduction in
water deliveries, and the AWBA recharged less water at GRUSP than originally anticipated.
Figure 3 shows the acre foot break down between GSFs and USFs for 1999 and a
comparison between 1999 and previous years.
RECHARGE by TYPE
Million Acre Feet
0.40

0.04

Deliveries

0.30

0.09
0.20

0.07
0.28

0.10

0.17

0.15

0.00
1997

1998
Years

GROUNDWATER SAVINGS

UNDERGROUND STORAGE

Figure 3
3

1999

2000 PLAN OF OPERATION
When developing the 2000 Plan, the AWBA evaluated four critical factors: (1) the
amount of unused water available to the AWBA for delivery, (2) the CAP capacity available
to the AWBA for the delivery of unused water, (3) the funds available and the costs
required to deliver the unused water, and (4) the capacity available for use by the AWBA
at the various recharge facilities.
For water year 2000, the Secretary of the Interior has declared that the Colorado
River is in a surplus condition. A surplus declaration means that surplus water would be
available to the AWBA as a source of unused water. Therefore, water availability will not
be a limiting factor for the AWBA in 2000.
The Central Arizona Project (CAP) 2000 Operating Plan accommodates the delivery
of approximately 1.6 million acre feet of water. CAP's plan delivers approximately 1.1
million acre feet to its subcontractors, which leaves approximately 500,000 acre feet of
capacity available for the AWBA. Based on this available capacity, the CAP's operations
will not be a limiting factor for the AWBA in 2000.
The funding available to the AWBA from its three sources (county ad valorem
property tax revenues, groundwater pumping fees, and general funds) to pay for the
delivery of water in 1999 will be approximately $20 million including the carryover from the
previous years. Given the costs associated with the delivery of water and the fact that the
GSF operators continue to pay $21 of that cost when the water is delivered to their
facilities, the $20 million is adequate to fund the AWBA Plan and is not a limiting factor in
2000. For more information about the cost of the plan, please refer to the pricing section,
infra.
To assist in developing the 2000 Plan, each facility operator submitted an annual
delivery schedule to the CAP. (The CAP schedules the AWBA's deliveries for those USFs
it will be operating.) The CAP staff utilized these schedules to compile an annual schedule
for the CAP, including municipal and industrial (M&I) water, water for Indian tribes, incentive
recharge water, agricultural pool water, and AWBA water. As discussed previously, this
integrated schedule was developed to conform to a 1.6 million acre foot delivery year.
Concurrently, the AWBA staff met with the facility operators to discuss their delivery
schedules and confirm their continued interest in participating with the AWBA. These
discussions confirmed the availability of substantial permitted recharge capacity but also
that limited capacity is available to the AWBA. Some of the GSF availability was limited by
delivery cost, and other facilities were limited by operational issues. Operational constraints
or previous commitments to other partners limited the availability of USFs to the AWBA.
Based on its adopted Plan, the AWBA anticipates recharging approximately 290,000
acre feet of Colorado River water in 2000. The Plan was developed utilizing permitted
facilities located in Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima Counties. The Plan attempts to optimize, on
a monthly basis, the delivery of Colorado River water to meet the AWBA's objectives. The
Plan is flexible, and if additional recharge capacity can be identified and funding remains
available, the Plan can be modified in the future to include additional facilities.

4

Based on projected uses, Arizona's use of Colorado River water in 2000 will be
approximately 2.60 million acre feet (see Figure 4), which will be slightly greater than
Arizona’s 1999 use. The overall Lower Basin use is projected to be approximately 7.8
million acre feet (see Figure 5).

2000 ARIZONA DIVERSIONS
Million Acre Feet
0.29
1.07

1.20

OTHER

CAP

BANK

Figure 4

2000 LOWER BASIN DIVERSIONS
Million Acre Feet
0.28
2.56
5.00

ARIZONA

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

Figure 5
The CAWCD has proposed a policy for allocating excess water.1 The policy
establishes criteria for eligibility for a particular pool and establishes a pricing strategy
for those pools.

1

Excess water is all Colorado River water available for delivery through the CAP under normal, shortage,
or surplus conditions on the Colorado River that is in excess of the amounts scheduled for delivery under
long-term contracts and subcontracts.

5

The first pool of excess water would be full price, including any capital charge, and
would be available for sale to any Arizona user (municipalities, agricultural entities, water
companies, private entities, Indians, or federal agencies). The first pool may be limited by
the CAWCD Board. The second pool is the Agricultural Pool priced at “energy rate 1.” This
pool would be limited beginning at 400,000 acre feet and declining to 225,000 acre feet.
The second priority pool is for non-Indian agricultural users only. The third pool would be
incentive recharge at the “energy rate 2” plus other costs as set by current policy
(approximately five dollars). This third priority pool is primarily for the AWBA, but cities or
other municipal and industrial (M&I) entities could participate. If the federal government
wanted to develop recharge credits; it could participate through the AWBA. Federal water
banking efforts would be accomplished in a manner similar to that outlined in the proposed
Interstate Water Banking rules first published in draft form in December 1997 and not yet
finalized. Finally, the fourth pool would consist of any remaining available water for any use
including non-Indian agricultural, Indian, federal, and recharge at the price set by the
CAWCD Board each year. The fifth pool is for the AWBA for interstate storage purposes.
Table 2 shows the AWBA's 2000 delivery schedule. Line One of this table provides
estimates of the CAP's monthly deliveries to its M&I, agricultural, incentive recharge, and
Indian customers. These deliveries have a scheduling priority over the AWBA’s deliveries.
These estimates do not include deliveries to New Waddell Dam.
Line Two shows the capacity available to the AWBA after the CAP makes its priority
deliveries and its deliveries to New Waddell Dam. The CAP is capable of delivering
approximately 180,000 acre feet of water each month. The AWBA’s capacity is determined
by subtracting customer deliveries from the available capacity. The available capacity
does not always total 180,000 acre feet/month because of unique situations such as the
filling of Lake Pleasant in the winter months, deliveries to the western portion of the
aqueduct, New Waddell Dam releases to the aqueduct in the summer months and
scheduled maintenance. During the fall and winter months, the capacity available to the
AWBA is constrained because the CAP is making deliveries to Lake Pleasant.
Lines Three through Twenty-one represent the AWBA’s 2000 Plan of Operation.
This section identifies the AWBA’s partners for 2000 and the amount of water scheduled
to be recharged. The second column in this section identifies the AWBA’s water storage
permit capacities for each facility and the amount of that capacity that is available to the
AWBA in 2000. The capacity available does not always equal the storage permit capacity
because the storage facility operators may have agreements with other storage partners.
Line Twenty-three lists the CAP capacity remaining after the AWBA’s deliveries are
scheduled. The CAP has shown in the past that there is some operational flexibility to help
meet deliveries in any given month. The AWBA staff will work closely with the CAP staff
and our partners in an attempt to meet all scheduled deliveries.

6

The values in Table 2 reflect the delivery amounts at the CAP turnout and do not
account for losses incurred between the turnout and the actual point of use. Those losses
must be calculated and deducted from the deliveries to determine the actual credits earned
by the AWBA.
In 2000, GSFs and USFs will comprise somewhat equal portions of the AWBA’s
water deliveries. Figure 6 shows the break down between GSF and USF water storage for
2000.
2000 RECHARGE by TYPE
Million Acre Feet
0.12

0.17

GROUNDWATER SAVINGS
UNDERGROUND STORAGE

Figure 6

No recovery is anticipated in 2000. The AWBA began developing recovery concepts
in 1999 to ensure that the benefit of the credits developed will be realized by the area in
which the funds are collected. An environmental consulting firm hired by the AWBA
completed much of its work in 1999 and received input from various water entities in a
series of meetings held in April and May 1999. The process resulted in the production of
a CD containing water data for the Pinal, Phoenix, and Tucson AMAs. The AWBA will
continue to pursue recovery concepts in 2000 and beyond.

7

Table 2

ARIZONA WATER BANKING AUTHORITY
Water Delivery Schedule
Calendar Year 2 0 0 0

1999
Deliveries
(ACRE

(ACRE-FEET)
Jan
1

Feb

Mar

Apr

FEET)
May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Estimated CAP Deliveries + Losses :
28,800 38,700 101,000 140,300 146,000 155,200 151,800 135,000
(M&I, Indian, Ag Pools 1 , 2 & 3, Incentive Recharge)

2 Available Excess CAP Capacity for AWBA :
AWBA -- Recharge Sites :

91,000 82,000

47,000

35,000

34,000

25,000

34,000

55,000

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

72,600 50,200

30,500 26,500 1,076,600

50,000 35,000

23,000 23,000

534,000

Permitted Requested
Capacity Capacity
(AF)
(AF)

LA PAZ COUNTY :
3

USF

VIDLER WATER / MBT

10,000

?

?

0

PHOENIX A M A :
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

USF
GSF

GRUSP
AGUA FRIA
CHCID
MWD
NEW MAGMA
QUEEN CREEK
RWCD
SRP
TONOPAH ID

200,000
100,000
3,000
18,000
54,000
28,000
100,000
200,000
15,000

85,000
15,000
1,500
18,000
47,200
20,000
?
15,000
3,000

6,600
0
50
0
2,000
0

6,600
0
100
0
2,000
0

6,600
0
50
0
3,200
0

6,600
0
100
0
2,500
0

6,600
0
100
0
3,000
0

6,600
0
126
0
3,500
0

6,600
2,500
100
0
3,700
3,946

6,600
2,500
100
1,633
9,700
7,270

6,600
2,500
100
2,353
9,600
3,720

4,600
2,500
191
2,353
3,500
1,600

4,600
2,500
100
0
2,500
1,050

6,600
2,500
0
0
2,000
2,460
0
1,000

75,200
15,000
1,117
6,339
47,200
20,046
?
14,840
3,000

62,147
0
0
20,000
46,328
13,498
0
22,084
0

0
0

0
0

2,120
0

2,120
0

2,120
0

2,120
0

2,120
0

2,120
0

2,120
0

0
0

0
2,000

110,000
55,000
120,000

15,000
46,000
15,000

0
2,300
530

0
3,500
0

0
6,500
320

0
6,000
0

0
7,500
320

0
4,500
2,000

0
0
4,620

1,451
7,600
3,260

8,506
3,500
1,370

4,184
2,000
110

482
800
110

377
2,000
1,580

15,000
46,200
14,220

5,000
39,625
20,722

11,000
15,000
10,000
30,000
11,000
11,000

2,000
7,500
12,500
10,000
?
500

200
500
1,000
0

200
500
1,100
0

200
500
0
0

200
500
0
0

200
500
1,300
0

200
500
1,300
0

0
500
1,300
1,000

0
500
1,300
1,800

200
500
1,300
1,800

200
500
1,300
900

200
500
1,300
1,800

200
500
1,300
1,800

3,730
7,761
10,979
0

0

0

0

2,000
6,000
12,500
9,100
?
500

0

0

0

0

0

250

250

0

0

312,700 13,180 14,000

19,490

18,020

21,640

21,096

26,636

45,834

44,169 23,938

17,942 22,317

288,262

251,874

77,820 68,000

27,510

16,980

12,360

3,904

7,364

9,166

5,831 11,062

PINAL A M A :
13
14
15

GSF

16
17
18
19
20
21

CAIDD
HOHOKAM
MSIDD
TUCSON A M A :
USF Avra Valley
CAVSARP
Pima Mine Road
Lower Santa Cruz
GSF Kai Avra
Kai Red Rock

22

T O T A L (USF + GSF) :

23

Remaining CAP Capacity :

9

5,058

683

245,738

0

NEW PARTNERS
In 2000, the Annual Plan of Operation anticipates recharging water at several new
facilities. Some facilities have existing agreements and deliveries have been scheduled
while others are still negotiating agreements. If agreements can be negotiated, it is
anticipated that the existing Plan could accommodate certain facilities without amendment.

Agua Fria Recharge Project
CAWCD is developing the Agua Fria Recharge Project as a Maricopa County State
Demonstration Project. It will be the first recharge project in Arizona to incorporate a
combination of streambed recharge and infiltration basins in a single underground storage
facility. The Agua Fria Recharge Project is located in the Agua Fria River channel within
the Salt River Valley groundwater basin of the Phoenix AMA. As of Fall 1999, land
acquisition remains the final issue to be resolved before the Agua Fria may operate.
(1) Federal and State Environmental Requirements. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) has determined that the CAWCD’s 404 permit application is complete and
correct. The COE is currently drafting the 404 permit. The Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality issued CAWCD the 401 permit for the project in July 1999.
All other required regulatory permits have been acquired.
(2) Land Acquisition. CAWCD is attempting to acquire access easements and rights-ofway to state and private land in the Agua Fria River channel. The Arizona State
Land Department is currently reviewing the right-of-way application and issuance
in early 2000 is anticipated. One of the 5 private land easements has been acquired
and negotiations are continuing on the others.
The Agua Fria Recharge Project is expected to be available to the AWBA for recharge in
July 2000.

Lower Santa Cruz Recharge Project
CAWCD and the Pima County Flood Control District (PCFCD) are jointly developing
the Lower Santa Cruz Recharge Project in the Tucson AMA. PCFCD is the lead agency
in the permit process, design and construction of the underground storage facility. CAWCD
will be the owner and operator after the facility is constructed. The Lower Santa Cruz
Recharge Project is located about one quarter mile northwest of the Avra Valley Recharge
Project along the Santa Cruz River. Scheduled project completion and final acceptance is
May 2000, and the facility should be available to the AWBA for recharge in June 2000.

Bouse Recharge Facility
Arizona Public Service (APS) has obtained a permit for this facility and has had
discussions with AWBA staff regarding recharge in the year 2000. No agreement has been
negotiated, however, APS has proposed that approximately 3,000 acre feet could be
recharged at the facility beginning mid-year. Prior to including this facility in the plan,
a public meeting with the La Paz County Board of Supervisors and AWBA approval to
amend the plan would be required.
10

Vicksburg Farms Facility
The McMullen Valley Water Conservation and Drainage District has applied for an
underground storage permit for this facility. The application has been publicly noticed and
the draft permit is currently under review. The application is for a pilot project of 10,000
acre feet of storage over a 10 year period. No agreement has been negotiated, however
there have been discussions with AWBA staff regarding water storage at this facility in the
year 2000.

Kai Farms (Red Rock) at Picacho
Mr. Herb Kai has a GSF permit for this facility in the amount of 11,231 acre feet per
annum. No agreement has been negotiated, however based on staff discussions with Mr.
Kai, there has been a small amount of storage at this facility included in the Plan.

11

INTERSTATE WATER BANKING
The Secretary of the Interior published the final rule regarding Offstream Storage of
Colorado River water on November 1, 1999 with an effective date of December 1, 1999.
Prior to the AWBA initiating negotiations for interstate contracts, the Director of the Arizona
Department of Water Resources (ADWR) must review the federal rule and make a
determination that it adequately protects Arizona’s rights to Colorado River water as
defined by law. The ADWR’s Legal Division is analyzing the adequacy of the rule with
regard to protecting Arizona’s rights. It is anticipated that ADWR will issue a draft opinion
regarding this issue sometime in January 2000. The draft opinion will be distributed for
public comment and finalized following the comment period.
No interstate banking is included in this plan because the Director has not
completed her review and made her determination. If the Director determines that
Arizona’s entitlement is protected, the AWBA could decide to negotiate interstate
agreements. Once an interstate agreement is negotiated, the Plan could be amended to
reflect additional deliveries and storage for interstate purposes. Prior to amending the Plan
of Operation, the public would have the opportunity to provide comment.

12

PRICING
The CAWCD established a subcommittee to review the existing delivery rate
for the AWBA’s water. Two members of the AWBA, Tom Griffin and Bill Chase, sat
on the subcommittee which analyzed long-term delivery rates for incentive recharge
water. Based on the subcommittee’s recommendation, the CAWCD Board adopted
a pricing policy that continues to offer incentive recharge water to both the AWBA
and M&I subcontractors. For 2000, that policy established a rate of $44 per acre
foot consisting of the following components: Energy Rate 2; ten percent of fixed
operation and maintenance costs of the CAP system; and compensation for lost
revenues.
The AWBA’s policy of recovering $21 from its groundwater savings facility partners
will continue for 2000. Table 3 reflects the water delivery rate the CAP will charge the
AWBA, the rate the GSF operators will pay for use of the AWBA’s water, and the various
rates the AWBA will be charged to utilize the different USFs.
Table 3
2000 Water Rates
CAP’s delivery rate to AWBA
Groundwater Savings Facility operator portion of delivery rate

$44 per acre foot
$21 per acre foot 1

Underground Storage Facility rate paid by AWBA
GRUSP (SRP)
Avra Valley (CAP)
Pima Mine Road (CAP)

$14 per acre foot
$20.30 per acre foot
$7.50 per acre foot

Central Avra Valley (Tucson Water)

$14 per acre foot (estimate)2

Lower Santa Cruz (CAP/Pima County)

$16.50 per acre foot

Agua Fria Recharge Project

$2.50 per acre foot

1

This rate is paid directly to CAP by the GSF operators and is not available as revenue
to the AWBA. The AWBA’s rate for delivery of in lieu water is thus reduced to $23/af.
2
In 2000, the rate may be lower because of favorable energy costs.

The estimated total cost of the AWBA’s 2000 Plan of Operation is
approximately $11 million which includes the USF use fees and the CAP delivery
rate minus cost recovery from the GSF operator by the CAWCD.

13

ACCOUNTING
The AWBA’s enabling legislation required the development of an accounting
system that allows the tracking of all long-term storage credits accrued by the
AWBA and the funding sources from which they were developed. The Arizona
Department of Water Resources has established accounts that track both credits
and funds.
Table 4 provides estimates of the funds available including funds carried over
from previous years, the funds to be expended, and the credits that will accrue to
those accounts based on the 2000 Plan.

Table 4
2000 PLAN OF OPERATION
FUNDING1
AVAILABLE
EXPENDED
Withdrawal Fee
Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA
Four Cent Tax
Maricopa County
Pima County
Pinal County
Other
General Fund

California
Nevada
TOTAL

CREDITS 2
AMOUNT
LOCATION

$6,492,000
$1,966,000
$3,096,000

$0
$0
$1,505,000

0
0
59,000

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$16,005,000
$3,626,000
$231,000

$6,581,000
$296,000
$230,000

151,000 AF
5,000 AF
9,000 AF

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$2,000,000

$2,000,000
$550,000
$1,450,000
$0

35,000 AF
13,000 AF
22,000 AF
0 AF

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

(not applicable)
(not applicable)
$33,416,000

$10,612,000

259,000 AF

1

Does not include groundwater savings facility partners' payment. The AWBA’s partners
make payments directly to the CAWCD.
2

Estimate based on 89.78% of the deliveries (1998 actual Plan of Operation loss
calculation)

14

Table 5 provides an estimate of the funds expended and the credits that will
accrue to various accounts based on the AWBA’s recharge activities since its inception.
Table 5
CUMULATIVE TOTALS
1997-1999
EXPENDED
Withdrawal Fee
Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA
Four Cent Tax
Maricopa County
Pima County
Pinal County
Other
General Fund

CREDITS 1
AMOUNT
LOCATION

$0
$0
$0

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$12,544,000
$2,040,000
$842,000

349,273 AF
34,248 AF
40,657 AF

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$6,695,000
$2,060,000
$4,635,000

297,518 AF
61,009 AF
236,509 AF

Phoenix AMA
Pinal AMA

$22,121,000

721,696 AF

California
Nevada
TOTAL
1

Actual credits used for 1997 and 1998; credits estimated for 1999

15

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT
The AWBA staff held public meetings in conjunction with the Groundwater User
Advisory Councils (GUAC) for the Phoenix, Tucson and Pinal Active Management
Areas (AMA) as required by the AWBA’s enabling legislation. In general, the GUACs
were supportive of the AWBA’s efforts to date.
Phoenix GUAC
There was some discussion and questions regarding the use of general fund
money and status of withdrawal fees. It was explained that the withdrawal fees are
primarily for water management purposes and as the AWBA’s goal has been firming,
thus far, withdrawal fees have not been utilized. There was a request that the statutorily
mandated guidelines for public meetings associated with the Plan be included in the
Plan. This information was included in the Introduction.
Pinal GUAC
There was discussion regarding the use of general fund money, the possible use
of withdrawal fees and the $21 per acre foot paid by the indirect users. There were no
specific comments regarding the Plan or requests for modifications to it.
Tucson GUAC
The Tucson GUAC had a number of specific concerns with regard to the Plan.
The GUAC requested that consideration be given to expenditure of general fund money
in Pima County. The Plan has been modified pursuant to this request. There is a
concern regarding the AWBA’s limited participation in GSFs in the Tucson AMA. This is
due to the existing $21 cost share by the indirect user. There are on-going staff level
discussions with the AMA directors regarding possible resolutions to this concern
through the utilization of withdrawal fees. Further, the Plan now includes a small
quantity of recharge at a GSF in the Tucson AMA. The GUAC again raised the issue of
limited review time of the Plan.

16