ARIZONA WATER BANKING AUTHORITY
ANNUAL PLAN OF OPERATION

2004

Herbert R. Guenther, Chairman
December 2003

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 (M&I) along the Colorado River and Central Arizona Project (CAP) M&I users
during Colorado River shortages or CAP service interruptions; (2) help meet the water
management objectives of the 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 longterm 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. This is achieved by presenting a draft of the Plan 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
draft Plan must be made at publicly noticed open meetings at which members of the
public are permitted to provide comment. The AWBA also accepts public comment in
writing up to the time the final draft Plan is presented for approval.
The Plan is intended to govern the operations of the AWBA over the course of the entire
calendar year. 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.

2003 PLAN OF OPERATION
In 2003, the AWBA’s seventh full year of operation, the AWBA recharged more than
209,000 acre feet of Colorado River water and Arizona’s total use of Colorado River
water is forecast to be 2.82 million acre feet by the Bureau of Reclamation data dated
December 30, 2003. Discussions with the CAP have indicated that they will adjust
1

pumping to bring Arizona’s use as close to 2.8 million acre feet as possible. The AWBA
has played a significant role in bringing Arizona to the second year of full utilization of
the normal year entitlement (see Figure 1).

ARIZONA USES
(Million Acre Feet)
3.00

0.35

0.21

1.16

1.22

1.13

1.24

1.24

Diversion

0.29
2.00

1.00

1.48

0.00
2001

2002

2003

Year
CAP

OTHER

BANK

Figure 1

The Bureau of Reclamation forecasts total use of Colorado River water in the Lower
Basin to be approximately 7.53 million acre feet in 2003 (see Figure 2).

LOWER BASIN USES
(Million Acre Feet)

Diversion

9.00
0.31

0.32

2.69

2.81

0.30

6.00
5.17

2.82

5.27

4.41

3.00

0.00
2001

2002

2003

Year
CALIFORNIA

ARIZONA

NEVADA

Figure 2

The AWBA recharged water at both USFs and GSFs in 2003. Table 1 lists the AWBA's
recharge partners for 2003, the amount of water that can be stored under each AWBA
water storage permit, and the amount of water delivered to the facility by the AWBA in
2003. Table 1 values are based on actual deliveries through October with November
and December’s deliveries estimated. The amount of water delivered to a facility 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
2

a "cut to the aquifer" from the total annual deliveries. Final figures for credits earned
generally become available in the middle of the following year after review of the annual
reports filed with the ADWR and are reported in the AWBA’s Annual Report.
Table 1
AMA

Facility
Agua Fria (CAP)
GRUSP
Hieroglyphic Mtn. (CAP)
Chandler Hts Citrus ID
Maricopa Water District
New Magma IDD
Queen Creek ID
Roosevelt WCD
SRP
CAIDD
Hohokam ID
MSIDD
Avra Valley (CAP)
CAVSARP
Lower Santa Cruz (CAP)
Pima Mine Road (CAP)
B.K. Wong Farms
Kai-Red Rock

Phoenix

Pinal

Tucson

Type

Permit Capacity

Amount Delivered

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

100,000 AF
200,000 AF
35,000 AF
3,000 AF
18,000 AF
54,000 AF
28,000 AF
100,000 AF
200,000 AF
110,000 AF
55,000 AF
120,000 AF
11,000 AF
60,000 AF
30,000 AF
30,000 AF
16,615 AF
11,231 AF

8,594 AF
21,536 AF
21,487 AF
919 AF
4,600 AF
21,918 AF
1,000 AF
12,500 AF
9,532 AF
5,500 AF
27,075 AF
10,950 AF
3,758 AF
6,000 AF
31,885 AF
17,444 AF
1,627 AF
3,091 AF

Total

1,181,846 AF

209,416 AF

While the Plan originally had projected about 60% of the storage at USFs, the actual
storage was closer to 53% at USFs and 47% at GSFs. Nonetheless, this was the first
year that storage at USFs exceeded storage at GSFs. This was due, in part, to lack of
funds limiting the amount of water that could be stored in the Pinal GSFs. However, it is
a trend that is expected to continue in the future as more USF capacity is developed
and becomes available to the AWBA. Figure 3 shows the acre foot break down
between GSFs and USFs for 2003 and a comparison between 2003 and previous
years.
RECHARGE BY TYPE
(Million Acre Feet)
0.40

Deliveries

0.30

0.14
0.11

0.20

0.11
0.2

0.18

0.10

0.10
0.00
2001

2002
Years

GROUNDWATER SAVINGS

UNDERGROUND STORAGE

Figure 3

3

2003

2004 PLAN OF OPERATION
When developing a Plan of Operation, the AWBA evaluates 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
I.

Water Availability
The factor of water availability consists of two parts: (1) the amount of water
available on the Colorado River for diversion by the CAP within Arizona’s
allocation; and (2) the amount of CAP water available for delivery to the AWBA
under the existing pool structure.
The Bureau of Reclamation published the final draft Annual Operating Plan
(AOP) for water year 2004 on November 25, 2003. The 2004 AOP stated that
the Partial Domestic Surplus condition is the criterion governing operation of
Lake Mead. There continues to be discussion regarding how surpluses will be
distributed among the Lower Basin states. Pending the outcome of those
discussions, Arizona may have available for use a portion of the surplus. This
Plan was developed using only the full 2.8 million acre foot allocation, however,
the CAP has indicated that they will be able to divert any additional water that
may become available to Arizona. If that water is not utilized by a higher priority
user, it could become available for use by the AWBA. It is not anticipated that
the quantity would be sufficient to warrant an amendment of the Plan but would
be stored pursuant to the existing Plan.
Based on projections dated November 13, 2003, Arizona’s on-river use is
forecast to be 1.204 million acre feet, leaving 1.60 million acre feet available for
diversion by CAP. It should also be noted that because CAP could bear the
burden for inadvertent overruns by Arizona, it is possible that their Colorado
River diversions may be decreased towards the end of the year if it appears
Arizona will exceed it’s allocation. Conversely, there exists the possibility of
increased CAP diversions if on-river uses are less than expected. Nonetheless,
the amount of water available to be diverted by the CAP within Arizona’s 2.8
million acre foot allocation was a limiting factor in this Plan.
With regard to availability of CAP 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, in excess of the quantities scheduled under long-term
contracts and subcontracts. The availability of excess water is determined on an
annual basis. Pursuant to current CAP policy, the AWBA has available to it any
water not requested by another entity within Arizona and the AWBA shares an
equal priority for water for municipal and industrial firming with the Central
Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District. For a number of reasons, the
4

amount of CAP water available to the AWBA was a limiting factor in this Plan.
First, because the AWBA can only utilize water not requested by another higher
priority user, the on-going drought has resulted in a decreased amount of water
available to the AWBA as others increase their use of CAP water. Additionally,
changes in CAP policies that effect the sizes of the various pools can also impact
the AWBA. Second, pursuant to customer requests, the CAP is currently
developing a draft proposal to allow CAP customers to purchase additional water
to meet unforeseen needs. If such a proposal is adopted and subcontractors
experience emergencies, there could be less water available to the AWBA than is
projected in this Plan. If this occurs, the priority for AWBA deliveries will continue
to be deliveries to the GSFs.
With a 1.60 million acre foot diversion, the CAP 2004 Operating Plan
accommodates the delivery of approximately 1.646 million acre feet of water.
CAP's plan delivers approximately 1.34 million acre feet of water to higher priority
users leaving 307,000 acre feet available to the AWBA.

II.

CAP System Capacity
Under normal operating conditions during a normal water supply year, CAP
diverts approximately 1.6 million acre feet. However, CAP staff believe that 1.8
million acre feet can be safely moved through the system. Nonetheless, there
are areas within the system that can become bottlenecks depending on the
magnitude of downstream deliveries. In 2004, the CAP identified a bottleneck at
the New River siphon in June and July due to the high downstream demand.
This bottleneck essentially eliminated AWBA deliveries downstream of the siphon
in those two months. Additionally, maintenance activities can also impact water
deliveries. The CAP 2004 Operating Plan has a planned maintenance outage of
the west canal from October 4 through October 31, 2004. As a result of this
outage, there is no storage at the Hieroglyphic Mountains Recharge Project in
September and October. Deliveries will be made to the Agua Fria Recharge
Project during this time period by backfeeding to the project from Waddell Dam.
This factor was somewhat limiting in developing this Plan.

III.

Available Funds
In 2004, the AWBA faces a unique situation with regard to available funds. First,
due to the legislative sweep of $9 million from the AWBA which was identified as
coming from the groundwater withdrawal fee accounts, the AWBA will only have
available for use withdrawal fee revenues collected in March of 2004. This is
because the transfer eliminated all carryover in the withdrawal fee accounts.
Second, as in 2003, the availability of funds limited storage in Pinal County. This
was, again, the result of the unavailability of a state general fund appropriation. It
should also be noted that the CAWCD Board resolved to retain the county ad
valorem property tax in 2004 and not transfer it to the AWBA Fund. The
retention of the tax revenues will not directly impact water deliveries in 2004,
however, it necessitates a shift in the administrative activities associated with
payment for water deliveries in Pinal County. The property tax revenues retained

5

by CAP must be used to offset costs of water delivered in Pinal county because
there is no carryover in the Pinal county ad valorem account.
The total amount of revenue available in 2004 is $44.8 million. This amount
includes (1) carryover from previous years, as applicable; (2) transfer of $9
million from AWBA withdrawal fee accounts to the state treasurer; (3) withdrawal
fees projected for March of 2004; and (4) ad valorem revenues projected for
collection in both November of 2003 and November of 2004. Of that amount,
$36.5 million is available in Maricopa County, and approximately $6.1 million and
$2.1 million are available in Pima and Pinal County, respectively.
The cost of water to the AWBA increased significantly in 2004, from $54 an acre
foot to $70 an acre foot. In response to this increase, the AWBA increased the
cost share payment for delivery to GSFs from $21 an acre foot to $28 an acre
foot. At current water delivery costs, facility costs and GSF cost share
contributions, the $36.5 million and $6.1 million are adequate to fund the Plan in
Maricopa and Pima Counties, respectively. As previously stated, the availability
of funds limited storage in Pinal County in 2004. For more specific information
about the cost of the Plan, please refer to the pricing section.
The AWBA is statutorily mandated to reserve long-term storage credits accrued
with general fund appropriation revenues for the benefit of M&I users of Colorado
River water outside the CAP service area. By policy, the AWBA identified
420,000 acre feet as the number of credits needed for this on-river firming. In
2002, the AWBA passed a resolution identifying on-river firming as the highest
priority of use of credits developed with the general fund appropriation. In 2004,
there are no general fund revenues available to the AWBA. The absence of a
general fund appropriation means that no on-river firming credits will be
developed in 2004. To date, more than 395,000 acre feet of credits have been
developed using general fund appropriation revenues.
IV.

Available Storage Facility Capacity
AWBA staff conferred with facility operators to discuss their delivery schedules
and their continued interest in participating with the AWBA. These discussions
confirmed that there was significant interest in partnering with the AWBA and
there was substantial permitted recharge capacity but, as in the past, previous
commitments to other partners somewhat limited the availability of both the GSFs
and the USFs to the AWBA.
As the AWBA had sufficient facility capacity to store all of the CAP water
available, storage facility capacity was not a limiting factor in development of the
2004 Plan. However, based on the quantity of water and funding available, the
AWBA could not meet all of the requests from its partners.

Table 2 shows the AWBA's 2004 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.
6

7

Table 2
WATER BANKING AUTHORITY

ARIZONA

Water Delivery Schedule

2003

Calendar Year 2 0 0 4

Deliveries
(AF)

(ACRE-FEET)
Jan
Estimated CAP Deliveries + Losses :

1

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

52,000 59,000 115,000 147,000 169,000 185,000 186,000 169,000

92,000 63,000

54,000 48,000 1,339,000

23,000 23,000

29,500 19,500

26,500 30,000

(M&I, Indian, Ag Pool, Incentive Recharge)
2 Available Excess CAP Capacity for AWBA:
AWBA -- Recharge Sites :

31,000

35,500

28,000

12,000

16,000

33,000

307,000

Permitted Requested
Capacity Capacity
(AF)
(AF)

PHOENIX A M A :
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

USF

GSF

GRUSP
HIEROGLYPHIC MTN.
AGUA FRIA
CHCID
NEW MAGMA
QUEEN CREEK
SRP
TONOPAH ID

200,000
35,000
100,000
3,000
54,000
28,000
200,000
15,000

50,000
25,800
30,550
533
47,200
8,861
8,000
3,000

4,166
2,700
2,500
0
2,500
0
800
0

4,166
2,700
1,500
0
3,000
0
800
0

4,166
2,700
500
50
6,100
0
800
0

4,166
2,700
3,750
50
6,100
0
800
0

4,166
2,700
3,750
50
4,000
0
800
0

4,166
2,700
3,000
100
1,500
0
0
0

4,166
2,200
3,000
75
1,500
0
0
0

4,166
2,000
2,550
75
4,500
3,501
800
0

4,166
0
2,800
50
5,500
2,000
800
0

4,166
0
1,700
83
5,500
800
800
1,000

4,166
2,700
1,750
0
3,500
960
800
1,000

4,174
2,700
3,750
0
3,500
1,600
800
1,000

50,000
25,800
30.550
533
47,200
8,861
8,000
3,000

21,536
21,487
8,594
919
21,918
1,000
9,532
0

110,000
55,000
120,000

16,700
25,000
16,700

0
2,250
0

0
1,700
1,020

0
5,500
2,780

0
6,500
3,040

0
750
3,500

0
0
0

5,000
0
0

5,000
0
3,400

3,500
3,300
2,040

1,000
1,000
610

1,000
1,000
0

1,200
3,000
310

16,700
25,000
16,700

5,500
27,075
10,950

6,200
650
650
10,000 1,150 1,150
22,900 2,600 2,600
32,300 3,600 3,600
1,000
0
0
304,744 22,916 22,886

650
1,150
2,600
3,600
250
30,846

650
1,150
2,600
3,600
250
35,356

650
1,150
2,600
3,600
250
27,966

0
0
0
0
250
11,716

0
0
0
0
0
15,941

650
0
2,600
3,200
0
32,442

650
650
3,000 1,250
2,200 2,200
3,600 3,600
0
0
26,326 29,734

6,200
10,000
22,900
32,300
1,000
304,744

3,758
6,000
17,444
31,885
3,091
1
209,416

154

144

34

284

59

558

PINAL A M A :
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

GSF

CAIDD
HOHOKAM
MSIDD
TUCSON A M A :
USF AVRA VALLEY
CLEARWATER
PIMA MINE ROAD
LOWER SANTA CRUZ
GSF KAI – RED ROCK
T O T A L (USF + GSF):
Remaining CAP Capacity:

11,000
60,000
30,000
30,000
11,231

84

114

1

650
350
0
0
1,600 1,300
2,800 1,100
0
0
29,206 19,409
294

91

174

266

2,256

The total includes deliveries to three facilities not included in the 2004 Plan; RWCD received 12,500 AF, BKW Farms received 1,627 AF and
MWD received 4,600 AF.

8

Line Two shows the operational capacity of the CAP available after it makes its priority
deliveries and its deliveries to New Waddell Dam. Although the CAP is capable of
delivering approximately 180,000 acre feet per month, the available capacity does not
always total that because of unique situations, i.e. 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. In June and July,
capacity is constrained at the New River siphon due to the high volume of downstream
demand.
Lines Three through Eighteen represent the AWBA’s 2004 Plan of Operation. This
section identifies the AWBA’s partners for 2004 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 facility permits and the amount of that
capacity that is available to the AWBA in 2004. The capacity available does not always
equal the storage permit capacity because the storage facility operators may have
agreements with other storage partners. Line Nineteen lists the total amount of AWBA
storage scheduled for the year 2004. Line Twenty lists the CAP capacity remaining after
the AWBA’s deliveries are scheduled.
No recovery is scheduled in 2004. The AWBA will continue to work with CAWCD to
pursue recovery concepts in 2004 and beyond.

NEW FACILITIES
All facilities included in this Plan have previously been utilized by the AWBA.
Additionally, while new recharge facilities are being developed by CAP, there will be
none available for use until 2005 when the Tonopah Desert project is slated to become
operational. In developing this and future Plans of Operation, the AWBA evaluates
storage at all available facilities.

INTERSTATE WATER BANKING
The Plan does not include an interstate water banking component. However, in the
event that conditions change and opportunities may present themselves, the Plan may
be amended to include interstate water banking as was done in 2002.

PRICING
On June 19, 2003, the CAWCD board adopted final water delivery rates for 2004. The
rate for AWBA and other M&I Incentive recharge is $70 per acre foot. The delivery rate
is the pumping energy rate 2 component ($61 per acre foot) plus 10 percent of the fixed
OM&R charge ($4.60 per acre foot) plus a component to recover lost revenues from
federal deliveries ($4.00 per acre foot). The components of the rate are the same as
those in the 2001-2003 rates. For 2004, the pumping energy rate 2 was calculated
using the average of the actual or forecast above threshold energy rates for the
previous three years.
9

In 2004, the AWBA increased the cost share for the GSF partners to $28 per acre foot.
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
2004 Water and Facility Rates – Intrastate
CAP’s delivery rate to AWBA

$70 per acre foot

Groundwater Savings Facility operator portion of delivery rate

$28 per acre foot 1

Underground Storage Facility rate paid by AWBA
GRUSP (SRP)

$18.60 per acre foot
2

Avra Valley (CAP)

$11.00 per acre foot

CAVSARP (Tucson Water)

$12.10 per acre foot

2

Hieroglyphic Mtns. (CAP)

$8.00 per acre foot

Pima Mine Road (CAP)2

$11.00 per acre foot

Lower Santa Cruz (CAP/Pima County)
2

Agua Fria Recharge Project (CAP)
1
2

2

$11.00 per acre foot
$8.00 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 $42/af.
See discussion below. This is O&M component only.

The Master Water Storage Agreement executed on July 1, 2002 describes the cost
components that can be paid by the AWBA for storage at CAP facilities. On October 2,
2003, the CAWCD adopted a new policy regarding storage facility rates. Pursuant to
the policy, the AWBA will pay an O&M component for all water stored; that component
is calculated by CAP annually for each AMA based on a rolling ten year average.
Additionally, for water stored for other than M&I firming purposes, the AWBA will pay a
capital charge component. The capital charge is based on the total projected costs and
projected storage of water over the lives of the facilities in the AMA and will not change
annually unless there are significant changes in CAWCD’s costs for recharge facilities in
that AMA. There is no administration cost component in the facility cost because the
AWBA pays the CAP administrative costs on an annual basis.
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 cost was set by agreement dated December 31,
2001 with a 3% annual increase. For CAVSARP, the cost includes an administration
component, a capital component and an operations and maintenance component. The
cost was set by agreement dated March 3, 2003 with a 3% annual increase.

10

The estimated total cost of the AWBA’s 2004 Plan of Operation is slightly more than
$19.6 million which includes the USF use fees and the CAP delivery rate minus the
cost recovery from the GSF operator by the CAWCD.

11

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 and an estimate of funds to be collected during the year, the
funds to be expended, and the credits that will accrue to those accounts based
on the 2004 Plan.
Table 4
2004 PLAN OF OPERATION
FUNDING1
AVAILABLE
EXPENDED
Withdrawal Fee3
Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA
Four Cent Tax4
Maricopa County
Pima County
Pinal County
Other
General Fund

California
Nevada
TOTAL

CREDITS 2
AMOUNT
LOCATION

$2,700,000
$610,000
$1,404,000

$2,700,000
$610,000
$1,402,796

58,000
7,000
35,000

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$33,922,123
$5,498,040
$700,004

$8,963,759
$5,225,999
$700,004

98,000
59,000
18,000

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$0

$0
$0
$0
$0

0
0 AF
0 AF
0 AF

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$19,602,5584

275,000

(not applicable)
(not applicable)
$44,834,167

1

Does not include groundwater savings facility partners' payment. The AWBA’s partners
make payments directly to the CAWCD.
2
Estimate based on historical average losses for each facility minus the 5% cut to the
aquifer.
3
The withdrawal fees available for 2004 are those projected to be collected for annual
reports filed in March 2004. There is no carryover of withdrawal fees into 2004 due to the
$9 million legislative transfer.
4
As previously discussed, the CAWCD Board resolved to retain the 4¢ ad valorem tax
levied in the tri-county area. Therefore, the money collected in tax year 2004 is available to
the AWBA to offset some of the costs associated with water purchases. The AWBA Fund
has sufficient carryover to fund the 2004 Plan in Pima and Maricopa counties, however, the
money retained by CAWCD must be utilized to reduce water costs in Pinal County.
Consequently, while the total cost of the Plan is $19,602,558, this is offset by the $700,004
projected to be levied in Pinal county so the total debit to the AWBA Fund is $18,902,554.

12

Since inception, the AWBA has primarily utilized only the general fund and
county ad valorem property tax revenues to purchase and store water based on
an early philosophy of emphasizing development of M&I firming credits. The
exception was Pinal County which has required expenditure of groundwater
withdrawal fees on an annual basis to permit the AWBA to meet the demand for
AWBA participation in that county. In 2003, the AWBA proposed fully funding the
Plan through expenditure of groundwater withdrawal fees in light of the number
of water management issues pending on the horizon, including the potential
obligation to provide credits to facilitate Indian water rights settlements. However,
the legislative transfer of $9 million resulted in use of the ad valorem tax
revenues in addition to withdrawal fees in 2003. In 2004, the AWBA will fund the
Plan through expenditure of both groundwater withdrawal fees and ad valorem
tax revenues.
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
1997-2003
EXPENDED
Withdrawal Fee
Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA
Four Cent Tax
Maricopa County
Pima County
Pinal County
Other
General Fund

California
Nevada
TOTAL
1

CREDITS 1
AMOUNT
LOCATION

$4,226,496
$4,014,596
$6,349,837

73,000
58,000
215,969

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$32,220,641
$8,234,724
$2,120,987

762,183 AF
129,765 AF
83,884 AF

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$10,695,000
$2,054,489
$2,325,112
$6,315,399

395,678 AF
61,612 AF
39,748 AF
294,318 AF

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$8,642,699

61,000

$76,504,980

1,779,479 AF

Actual credits used for 1997-2002; credits estimated for 2003

13

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT
The AWBA staff held meeting with the GUACs for the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs
as required by statute. Additionally, the Plan was discussed at a meeting of the Mohave
County Water Authority in Lake Havasu City. The Plan was distributed to the public and
Table 2 was posted on the web page for public review and comment. No written
comments were received from the public.
Phoenix GUAC
In general, the GUAC supported the Plan and had no requests for modification. There
was discussion and questions regarding the increased CAP water costs in 2004, the
CAWCD decision to retain the 4¢ ad valorem tax revenues and potential impacts to the
AWBA and the potential for future general fund appropriations.

Pinal GUAC
General discussion regarding the Plan included: GSF partners cost share increased to
$28 per acre foot; the status and definition of CAP’s proposed emergency water pool
and the AWBA’s willingness to take less water to make emergency water available;
observation that absent general fund appropriation, Pinal County is limited by annual
revenues collected for withdrawal fees and 4¢ ad valorem taxes; the potential for
interstate recovery in 2004; the status of Indian water rights settlements and the
perceived status of the GSF program and whether it will continue in the long term. In
general, the Pinal GUAC supported the Plan and requested no changes be made.

Tucson AMA
The Tucson GUAC had no specific comments regarding the Plan. There was general
discussion and questions regarding the GSF program, interstate water banking and how
recovery of interstate credits would occur. It was noted at the meeting that the Tucson
area will be in a situation similar to Pinal county beginning in 2005 because there will be
no carryover of funds. Consequently, annual storage will be limited by the annual
withdrawal fee and 4¢ ad valorem tax revenues unless the AWBA receives a general
fund appropriation.

14