ARIZONA WATER BANKING AUTHORITY
ANNUAL PLAN OF OPERATION

2001

Rita Pearson Maguire, Chairman
December 2000

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. Changes in the AWBA’s enabling legislation in 1999 authorized the AWBA to
participate in other water banking activities, however, no new water banking activities
are included in this annual Plan of Operation.
The AWBA’s storage (or banking) of water is accomplished through the Underground
Water Storage, Savings and Replenishment Act (UWS) enacted by the Arizona
legislature in 1994 and administered by the Arizona Department of Water Resources
(ADWR). Through this program, the AWBA stores renewable water that currently has
no immediate, direct use in either underground storage (USF) or groundwater savings
(GSF) facilities. A USF is a facility that allows water to physically be added to an
aquifer. A GSF is a facility where the renewable water is used in place of groundwater,
creating a groundwater savings. The UWS program mandates the accounting of the
renewable water stored and the development of long term storage credits. The long
term storage credits developed by the AWBA will then be utilized by the AWBA when
future conditions warrant. The use of credits for the three objectives listed above may
differ and is dependent on the source of funds utilized to develop them.
The AWBA is required by statute to approve an annual Plan of Operation (Plan) by
January 1 of each year. Prior to approval of the final Plan, the AWBA is required to
solicit public comment by presenting it to the Groundwater Users Advisory Councils
(GUAC) 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 Plan. Presentation of the Plan must be made at publicly
noticed open meetings at which members of the public are permitted to provide
comment.
The Plan 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

2000 PLAN OF OPERATION
In 2000, the AWBA’s fourth full year of operation, the AWBA recharged approximately
296,000 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 USES
(Million Acre Feet)

Diversion

3.00
0.22

0.26

0.30

1.19

1.19

1.24

1.01

1.13

1.15

2.00

1.00

0.00
1998

1999

2000

Years

CAP

OTHER

BANK

Figure 1
Because the Secretary of the Interior declared that the Colorado River was in surplus in
2000, increased use by Arizona did not impact the other Lower Basin states' uses.
Total use of Colorado River water in the Lower Basin is estimated to be approximately
8.3 million acre feet in 2000 (see Figure 2).

LOWER BASIN USES
(Million Acre Feet)
10.00

Diversion

8.00

0.29

0.25

6.00

2.58

2.42

4.00

0.34

4.95

2.69
5.30

5.11

2.00
0.00
1998

1999

2000

Years

CALIFORNIA

ARIZONA

Figure 2

2

NEVADA

The AWBA recharged water at both USFs and GSFs in 2000. Table 1 lists the AWBA's
recharge partners for 2000, 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 2000. Final figures generally become available in the middle of the following
year following review of the annual reports filed with the ADWR. 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
GRUSP
Chandler Hts Citrus ID
Queen Creek ID
New Magma IDD
Tonopah ID
SRP
Maricopa Water District
MSIDD
CAIDD
Hohokam ID
Avra Valley (CAP)
Lower Santa Cruz
Pima Mine Road (CAP)
CAVSARP (Tucson)
Kai Farms (Red Rock)

Type

Permit Capacity

Amount Recharged

USF
GSF
GSF
GSF
GSF
GSF
GSF
GSF
GSF
GSF
USF
USF
USF
USF
GSF

200,000 AF
3,000 AF
28,000 AF
54,000 AF
15,000 AF
200,000 AF
18,000 AF
120,000 AF
110,000 AF
55,000 AF
11,000 AF
30,000 AF
1
30,000 AF
15,000 AF
11,200 AF

88,134 AF
1,030 AF
11,330 AF
49,200 AF
1,000 AF
14,838 AF
1,164 AF
26,936 AF
11,492 AF
55,000 AF
2,000 AF
15,820 AF
6,510 AF
9,429 AF
2,566 AF

Total

900,200 AF

296,449 AF

1

The Pima Mine Road pilot permit maximums were reached in March 2000. Recharge was reinitiated under
the full-scale permit in September 2000. The permit capacity listed in the full-scale permit amount.

The 2000 Plan scheduled approximately 288,000 acre feet of water to be recharged
around the state. The amount of water recharged amounted to more than 296,000 acre
feet . Figure 3 shows the acre foot break down between GSFs and USFs for 2000 and
a comparison between 2000 and previous years.
RECHARGE by TYPE
Million Acre Feet
0.30
0.12
Deliveries

0.09
0.20

0.07

0.10

0.17

0.15

0.17

0.00
1998

1999
Years

GROUNDWATER SAVINGS

UNDERGROUND STORAGE

Figure 3

3

2000

2001 PLAN OF OPERATION
When developing the 2001 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.
The Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) has not yet signed the Annual Operating Plan for
water year 2001, however, they have proposed declaration of a limited surplus. This
declaration is consistent with the provisions of the seven state interim surplus proposal.
Based on this declaration and proposed uses, the overall Lower Basin use is projected
to be 8.13 million acre feet (see Figure 4). Arizona’s use of Colorado River water in
2001 will be 2.8 million acre feet (see Figure 5). This is utilization of Arizona’s total
Colorado River allocation. Signing of the Annual Operating Plan is anticipated before
December 31, 2000.
-

2001 LOWER BASIN USES
Million Acre Feet
0.30

5.03

2.80

ARIZONA

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

Figure 4

2001 ARIZONA USES
Million Acre Feet 0.32
1.19

1.29

OTHER

CAP

Figure 5

4

BANK

The CAP 2001 Operating Plan anticipates the delivery of approximately 1.46 million
acre feet of water. CAP's plan delivers approximately 1.15 million acre feet to its
subcontractors. As the Bureau has projected CAP’s Colorado River diversions to be in
excess of 1.62 million acre feet, the CAP’s operations will not be a limiting factor for the
AWBA in 2001. However, monthly capacity may be limiting due to a planned outage of
the CAP in November and December 2001.
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 2001 will be approximately $40 million including the carryover from previous
years. Given the costs associated with the delivery of water and the continued policy
of GSF operators paying $21 of the water delivery costs to their facilities, the $40 million
is adequate to fund the Plan and is not a limiting factor in 2001. For more information
about the cost of the Plan, please refer to the pricing section.
To assist in developing the 2001 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.
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 not all of the existing capacity is available to the AWBA. Some of the GSF
availability was limited by delivery cost. Operational constraints or previous
commitments to other partners limited the availability of both the GSFs and the USFs to
the AWBA. For example, two partners that previously participated with the AWBA are
not included in this Plan. The Central Avra Valley Storage and Recovery Project will be
fully utilized by Tucson Water for their own annual recharge and recovery purposes.
Maricopa Water District also anticipates that their GSF capacity will be fully utilized by
other recharge partners. Figure 6 shows the break down between GSF and USF water
storage for the 2001 Plan.

2001 RECHARGE by TYPE
Million Acre Feet
0.13

0.19

GROUNDWATER SAVINGS

UNDERGROUND STORAGE

Figure 6
5

Based on its adopted Plan, the AWBA anticipates recharging approximately 319,000
acre feet of Colorado River water in 2001. 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 it can be modified in the future to include additional facilities.
The CAP water that the AWBA purchases from CAWCD can be viewed as having two
components, cost and availability. The pricing aspect of the water deliveries is
discussed further in the pricing section of this document. With regard to availability of
water, the AWBA purchases water from the category that is termed excess water.
Excess water is generally recognized to be all water available for delivery through the
CAP, regardless of Secretarial declaration of condition, that exceeds the quantities
scheduled under long-term contracts and subcontracts. The availability of excess water
is determined on an annual basis. In 2001, and until 2004, there are no pools
associated with excess water and the AWBA has available to it any water not requested
by another entity within Arizona. In light of the Repayment Settlement Stipulation with
the federal government, the CAWCD has proposed a new policy for excess water that
will become effective in 2004 and continue until 2030. This policy establishes eligibility
criteria, priority and price for each pool or category. The AWBA category is established
exclusively for the AWBA’s intrastate storage purposes. Size and price of the pool will
be established by the CAWCD Board; a priority was not established for this pool. This
policy also establishes an Interstate Storage category for the AWBA’s interstate storage
purposes. The price for water delivered for interstate banking will be established
according to statute. This pool strategy has been discussed in numerous CAWCD
Board meetings but has not yet been officially adopted as Board policy.
Table 2 shows the AWBA's 2001 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 operational capacity available of the CAP after it makes its priority
deliveries and its deliveries to New Waddell Dam. Although the CAP is capable of
delivering approximately 180,00 acre feet per month, the available capacity does not
always total that because of unique situations. These can include 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 and outages. 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 represent the AWBA’s 2001 Plan of Operation. This
section identifies the AWBA’s partners for 2001 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 based on the full-scale facility permits and the amount
of that capacity that is available to the AWBA in 2001. The capacity available does not
always equal the storage permit capacity because the storage facility operators may
have agreements with other storage partners.

6

C:\AWBA Files\Annual Plan\2001\2001 Plan of Operation Table 2.doc
Line Twenty-one lists the total amount of AWBA storage scheduled for the year 2001.
Line Twenty-two 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.
No recovery is anticipated in 2001, however, there was significant activity in the past
year regarding recovery. In March there was a meeting of the Recovery Subcommittee
in which the final Recovery Data CD and general recovery strategies developed by
AWBA staff were presented and discussed. Some recovery components identified at
the March meeting were the topic of the next Recovery Subcommittee meeting held in
May. At the May meeting it was determined that there existed a smaller, core group of
entities with the operational flexibility and capability to participate in recovery for
themselves and others. This core group met in June and August to discuss the ability
of each entity to recover water and the entities were tasked with bringing specific
operational, system and quantity information back to the core group. It was anticipated
that this compilation of this information would be completed in November or December
and another core group meeting would be scheduled. Nonetheless, the AWBA will
continue to pursue recovery concepts in 2001 and beyond.

NEW PARTNERS
In 2001, the Annual Plan of Operation anticipates recharging water at only one new
facility, the 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. Land acquisition remains the final issue to be
resolved before the Agua Fria may be constructed. The Agua Fria Recharge Project is
expected to be available to the AWBA for recharge in August 2001. Staff are currently
in the process of negotiating an agreement for this facility.
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation Bouse Recharge and Vicksburg Farms Facilities
At their September 2000 meeting, the AWBA determined that there would be no further
participation at pilot scale projects due to the increased risks associated with storing
water at these facilities. Consequently, storage would only be scheduled at these
facilities if they were to obtain full scale permits.

INTERSTATE WATER BANKING
Rita Pearson Maguire, as Director of the Department of Water Resources (ADWR),
presented her determination that the final federal rule regarding interstate banking met
state statutory criteria on January 26, 2000. The AWBA then authorized a negotiating
team composed of AWBA, CAP and ADWR staff, to initiate exploratory discussions
with Nevada. On June 28, 2000, the AWBA formally authorized the team to begin
13

negotiations with the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the Colorado River
Commission of Nevada. The first staff level negotiation meeting was held on July 17,
2000 and it was decided that initial negotiations would focus on the two party
agreement between the states. The draft agreement, titled the Agreement for Interstate
Water Banking, continues to be collaborated upon.
To increase AWBA involvement in the process, an Interstate Water Banking
Subcommittee was formed. The subcommittee meets as needed to discuss important
items of negotiation identified by the AWBA and staff.

PRICING
On June 22, 2000, the CAWCD board adopted final water delivery rates for 2001. The
rate for AWBA and other M&I Incentive recharge will be $45 per acre foot. The delivery
rate is the pumping energy rate 2 component ($40 per acre foot) plus 10 percent of the
fixed OM&R charge ($2.90 per acre foot) plus a component to recover lost revenues
from federal deliveries ($2.22 per acre foot). This rate calculation utilized the same
formula as the 2000 delivery rate which was the first to include a second energy
pumping rate.
The AWBA’s policy of recovering $21 from its groundwater savings facility partners will
continue for 2001. 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
2001 Water Rates
CAP’s delivery rate to AWBA
Groundwater Savings Facility operator portion of delivery rate

$45 per acre foot
1
$21 per acre foot

Underground Storage Facility rate paid by AWBA
GRUSP (SRP)
Avra Valley (CAP)
Pima Mine Road (CAP)
Lower Santa Cruz (CAP/Pima County)

$14.63 per acre foot
$21.30 per acre foot
$8.90 per acre foot

Agua Fria Recharge Project
1

$13.10 per acre foot
$1.90 per acre foot

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 $24/af.

The individual USF agreements determine the cost components paid by the AWBA.
For GRUSP, the cost is comprised of an annual administration component, a
component for use of the SRP interconnection facility, a transportation component and
a general facility component. The other five USFs utilized in the Plan are operated by
13

the CAP and were constructed using state demonstration project funds. Therefore,
there is no administration cost component because the AWBA already pays the CAP
an administrative cost component on an annual basis for utilization of CAP staff. The
CAP also does not charge the AWBA a capital cost component for the facilities. The
Avra Valley facility has an operation and maintenance (O&M) component, a land lease
charge component and a wheeling component for use of the BKW water delivery
system. The Lower Santa Cruz has an O&M component and a wheeling component for
use of the same system. The Pima Mine Road facility has an O&M component. The
Agua Fria facility charge is only an estimate as there is currently no agreement for
storage at the facility. The CAP facility O&M component typically includes facility
maintenance and repair, monitoring, water quality sampling and data management and
reporting.
The estimated total cost of the AWBA’s 2001 Plan of Operation is approximately
$12 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 ADWR 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 2001 Plan.

Table 4
2001 PLAN OF OPERATION
1

FUNDING
AVAILABLE
EXPENDED

2

CREDITS
AMOUNT
LOCATION

Withdrawal Fee
Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$10,045,000
$2,726,000
$2,200,000

$0
$0
$2,201,000

0
0
82,000

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

Four Cent Tax
Maricopa County
Pima County
Pinal County

$18,279,127
$5,441,312
$229,979

$6,876,000
$721,000
$230,000

145,000 AF
12,000 AF
9,000 AF

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$2,000,000

$2,000,000
$737,000
$1,124,000
$139,000

39,000 AF
16,000 AF
18,000 AF
5,000 AF

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

Other
General Fund

California
Nevada
TOTAL

(not applicable)
(not applicable)
$40,921,418

$12,028,000

287,000 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)

13

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
1997-2000
1

EXPENDED
Withdrawal Fee
Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA
Four Cent Tax
Maricopa County
Pima County
Pinal County
Other
General Fund

CREDITS
AMOUNT
LOCATION

$0
$0
$1,875,000

0
0
73,000

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$18,528,873
$2,512,688
$1,105,021

475,273 AF
41,248 AF
51,657 AF

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$8,695,000
$2,510,012
$4,652,468
$1,532,520

337,518 AF
76,009 AF
237,509 AF
24,000

Phoenix AMA
Pinal AMA
Tucson AMA

$32,716,582

978,696 AF

California
Nevada
TOTAL
1

Actual credits used for 1997,1998 and 1999; credits estimated for 2000

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT
The AWBA staff held public meetings in conjunction with the GUACs for the Phoenix,
Tucson and Pinal AMAs as required by the AWBA’s enabling legislation.
Phoenix GUAC
At the Phoenix GUAC meeting there were requests for additional information regarding
the water banking process and the various cost components for the storage facilities.
The requested information was incorporated into the Introduction and Pricing sections
of this document.
Pinal GUAC
There were no specific comments regarding the Plan or requests for modifications to it.

13

Tucson GUAC
While the Tucson GUAC generally support the Plan and the fact that general funds
were being expended in their AMA, they had no specific comments regarding the Plan
or requests for modifications to it. One entity that commented encouraged full utilization
of the available recharge sites within the Tucson AMA, particularly in light of the
possibility of an increase in the energy 2 rate in 2002. There was also a letter received
that expressed a similar opinion. There was some discussion regarding the interstate
banking process and its potential benefit to Arizona.

13

Table 2

ARIZONA

WATER

BANKING AUTHORITY

Water Delivery Schedule

2000

Calendar Year 2 0 0 1

Deliveries
(AF)

(ACRE-FEET)
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Estimated CAP Deliveries + Losses :
55,000 63,000 105,000 134,000 138,000 163,000 179,000 138,000
(M&I, Indian, Ag Pools 1 , 2 & 3, Incentive Recharge)

1

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

LA PAZ COUNTY :
USF VIDLER WATER / MBT

3

22,000 25,000

35,000

38,000

41,000

42,000

44,000

64,000

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

65,000 59,000

23,000 22,000 1,144,000

61,000 35,000

12,000 16,000

435,000

Permitted Requested
Capacity Capacity
(AF)
(AF)
100,000

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

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

79,200
11,920
1,117
0
47,200
16,115
14,840
3,000

7,920
0
50
0
2,000
0
0
0

7,920
0
100
0
2,000
0
0
0

7,920
0
50
0
3,200
0
2,120
0

7,920
0
100
0
2,500
0
2,120
0

7,920
0
100
0
3,000
0
2,120
0

7,920
0
151
0
3,500
0
2,120
0

7,920
0
125
0
4,700
2,967
2,120
0

7,920
1,560
125
0
10,200
6,642
2,120
0

7,920
1,450
125
0
10,600
4,124
2,120
0

7,920
1,410
191
0
5,500
1,682
0
0

3,000
3,750
0
0
0
200
0
2,000

3,000
3,750
0
0
0
500
0
1,000

85,200
11,920
1,117
0
47,200
16,115
14,840
3,000

88,134
0
1,030
1,164
49,200
11,330
14,838
1,000

110,000
55,000
120,000

15,000
54,500
37,590

0
2,000
1,750

0
2,800
1,860

0
6,400
2,170

0
7,500
4,150

0
9,000
5,590

0
7,200
7,250

0
5,000
3,220

4,195
7,600
3,530

6,700
3,500
1,830

2,500
2,000
3,280

0
0
0

1,605
1,500
2,960

15,000
54,500
37,590

11,492
55,000
26,936

11,000
60,000
30,000
30,000
11,000
11,000

6,000
0
10,325
14,503
?
2,000
369,310

570
0
0
492

570
0
937
2,000

570
0
1,140
2,000

570
0
1,140
2,000

570
0
1,140
2,000

570
0
1,140
2,000

570
0
1,140
400

570
0
1,140
400

570
0
1,140
1,200

570
0
808
1,011

0
0
0
0

300
0
600
1,000

2,000
9,429
6,510
15,820

0
14,782

0
18,187

0
25,570

0
28,000

0
31,440

0
31,851

0
28,162

500
46,502

1,000
500
42,279 27,372

0
8,950

0
16,215

6,000
0
10,325
14,503
?
2,000
319,310

7,218

6,813

9,430

10,000

9,560

10,149

15,838

17,498

18,721

6,0501

2,7851

121,6901

0

0

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

USF
GSF

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

PINAL A M A :
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

GSF

CAIDD
HOHOKAM
MSIDD
TUCSON A M A :
USF Avra Valley
CAVSARP
Pima Mine Road
Lower Santa Cruz
GSF Kai Avra
Kai Red Rock
T O T A L (USF + GSF) :
Remaining CAP Capacity :

1

7,628

2,566
296,449

The 6,000 acre feet scheduled for delivery at GRUSP in November and December are not subtracted from the remaining CAP capacity listed in line 22 because the deliveries will
be accomplished through an exchange with Salt River Project.

7