ARIZONA WATER BANKING AUTHORITY
ANNUAL PLAN OF OPERATION

2005

Herbert R. Guenther, Chairman
December 2004

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.

2004 PLAN OF OPERATION
In 2004, the AWBA’s eighth full year of operation, the AWBA recharged more than
304,000 acre feet of Colorado River water and Arizona’s total use of Colorado River
water is forecast to be 2.795 million acre feet by the Bureau of Reclamation data dated
November 29, 2004. The CAP will adjust pumping from Lake Havasu into the canal to
1

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 third year of full utilization of the normal year
entitlement (see Figure 1).

ARIZONA USES
(Million Acre Feet)

Diversion

3.0
2.0
1.0

0.35
1.22

0.21

0.30

1.14

1.16

1.23

1.47

1.33

0.0
2002

2003

2004

Year
CAP

OTHER

BANK

Figure 1
The Bureau of Reclamation forecasts total use of Colorado River water in the Lower
Basin to be 7.41 million acre feet in 2004 (see Figure 2).

LOWER BASIN USES
(Million Acre Feet)

Diversion

9.0
6.0
3.0

0.33

0.30

0.29

2.81

2.82

2.80

5.28

4.41

4.33

0.0
2002

2003

2004

Year
CALIFORNIA

ARIZONA

NEVADA

Figure 2
The AWBA recharged water at both USFs and GSFs in 2004. Table 1 lists the AWBA's
recharge partners for 2004, 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
2004. 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
2

because credits are computed by subtracting approximately 3-5% for losses and 5% for
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

Phoenix

Pinal

Tucson

Facility
Agua Fria (CAP)
GRUSP
Hieroglyphic Mtn. (CAP)
Chandler Hts Citrus ID
New Magma IDD
Queen Creek ID
SRP
Tonopah ID
CAIDD
Hohokam ID
MSIDD
Avra Valley (CAP)
CAVSARP
Lower Santa Cruz (CAP)
Pima Mine Road (CAP)
Kai-Red Rock

Type

Permit Capacity

Amount Delivered

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

100,000 AF
200,000 AF
35,000 AF
3,000 AF
54,000 AF
28,000 AF
200,000 AF
15,000 AF
110,000 AF
55,000 AF
120,000 AF
11,000 AF
60,000 AF
50,000 AF
30,000 AF
11,231 AF

17,201
62,973
22,382
576
49,203
9,146
8,000
2,646
19,7001
18,382
23,7002
6,752
6,000
38,107
18,939
1,100

Total

1,082,231 AF

304,807 AF

1,2

These deliveries include 3,000 AF to CAIDD and 7,000 AF to MSIDD for interstate water banking
purposes

While the Plan originally had projected about 60% of the storage at USFs, the actual
storage was closer to 57% at USFs and 43% at GSFs. This was the second year that
storage at USFs exceeded storage at GSFs. This was again due, in part, to lack of
funds limiting the amount of water that could be stored in the Pinal GSFs. The trend of
a higher percentage of storage at USFs 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 2004 and a comparison between
2004 and previous years.

Deliveries

RECHARGE BY TYPE
(Million Acre Feet)
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

0.14

2002

0.17

0.11
0.10

0.20
2003

0.13
2004

Years
GROUNDWATER SAVINGS

UNDERGROUND STORAGE

Figure 3
3

2005 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. In addition to these critical factors, the AWBA
takes into consideration recommendations made by the Groundwater Users Advisory
Councils (GUAC) of the three AMAs regarding water management objectives and
priorities for storage. In 2004, the Tucson GUAC provided guiding principles with
respect to storage in the Tucson AMA 1 . In 2003, the Phoenix GUAC stated that they
would prefer to see increased storage in the West Salt River Valley. That preference
was included in development of this Plan.
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 distributed the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for
water year 2005 to the states by letter dated November 19, 2004. The 2005
AOP stated that the Normal condition is the criterion governing operation of Lake
Mead. Under a Normal declaration, there is 2.8 million acre feet of water
available for use within Arizona. The Bureau of Reclamation does not anticipate
that there will be any unused state apportionment available in 2005. Arizona’s
on-river use is forecast to be 1.2 million acre feet, leaving 1.6 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 respect 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 (M&I) firming with the Central

1

For 2005, the Tucson GUAC recommended that the AWBA: (1) utilize all available funds and capacity
until either was exhausted; and (2) utilize available capacity at CAVSARP, then Pima Mine Road while
ensuring at least a proportionate share in the northwest USF and GSF facilities based on magnitude of
CAP M&I subcontracts.

4

Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District. For a number of reasons, the
amount of CAP water available to the AWBA was the significant 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. In 2005, there were increased orders for M&I Incentive water as well as
an increase in the amount of M&I subcontract water ordered. Additionally, the
Salt River Project ordered more than 120,000 acre feet of CAP water. Second,
the drawdown of Lake Pleasant was reduced in 2005. Over the last three years,
a significant quantity of water has been taken from Lake Pleasant for delivery to
customers. CAP has determined that it is no longer feasible to have a net
outflow from Lake Pleasant and will operate to insure that there is a net inflow
into the reservoir. The end result is less water available for delivery to customers.
With a 1.6 million acre foot diversion, the CAP 2005 Operating Plan
accommodates the delivery of approximately 1.58 million acre feet of water.
CAP's plan delivers approximately 1.454 million acre feet of water to higher
priority users leaving less than 129,000 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. While CAP staff believe that 1.8
million acre feet can be safely moved through the system, there are areas within
the system that can become bottlenecks depending on the magnitude of
downstream deliveries. In 2005, 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 2005 Operating Plan has planned maintenance at three
pumping plants in the Tucson aqueduct for a week in the fall of 2005. This
maintenance restricts deliveries to the southern end of the canal for this time
period. While this factor imposed some temporal limitations on deliveries, it was
not a significant limiting factor in developing this Plan.

III.

Available Funds
The AWBA has significantly reduced funds available in 2005 in all of the AWBA
Fund accounts. Due to legislative sweeps and expenditure of funds eliminating
all carryover in the withdrawal fee accounts, the AWBA will only have revenues
collected in March of 2005 available for use in this Plan. However, by Senate Bill
1402 signed by the governor in May of 2004, an additional $2 million will be taken
from the withdrawal fee accounts by the legislature in fiscal year 2005. In 2005,
there is again no state general fund appropriation available to the AWBA. In
2004, the CAWCD Board resolved to continue to retain the county ad valorem
property taxes collected in tax year 2005 and not transfer those revenues to the
AWBA Fund. While the property tax revenues retained by CAP can be used to
offset the cost of AWBA water deliveries in the tri-county CAP service area, those
funds are not shown in the AWBA fund accounts. The impact of availability of
5

funds in developing the Plan differs by geographic location. Within the Phoenix
AMA/Maricopa County, there were adequate revenues to fund the Plan. In the
Pinal AMA/Pinal County, the availability of funds was a limiting factor in this Plan.
In the Tucson AMA/Pima County, the availability of funds was initially perceived
to be a limiting factor in this Plan. However, due to the reduced quantity of water
available for storage by the AWBA, revenues were not a limiting factor in
developing this Plan. Nonetheless, the availability of funds is expected to be a
consideration in the Tucson area in 2006 and beyond. For more specific
information about the cost of the Plan, please refer to the pricing section
The total amount of revenue available in the AWBA Fund in 2005 is more than
$16.2 million. This amount includes (1) carryover from previous years in the
Maricopa County ad valorem account; and (2) withdrawal fees projected for
March of 2005. Of that amount, $14.40 million is available in Maricopa County,
and approximately $610,000 and $1.18 million are available in Pima and Pinal
County, respectively. There are additional funds available at CAP in the form of
the retained ad valorem property tax revenues. Estimated CAP ad valorem tax
balances at the end of 2004 are: Maricopa County ($16.7 million); Pima County
($3.2 million); and Pinal County ($0).
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 2005,
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 2005. 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 previously discussed, the Tucson AMA provided
the AWBA with priorities for USF facilities. To the extent possible, those priorities
were met. However, facility operational constraints impacted storage in the
Tucson AMA.
As the AWBA had sufficient facility capacity to store all of the CAP water
available, storage facility capacity was not considered a limiting factor in
development of the 2005 Plan.

6

Table 2 shows the AWBA's 2005 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 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 2005 Plan of Operation. This
section identifies the AWBA’s partners for 2005 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 2005. 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 2005. Line Twenty lists the CAP capacity remaining after
the AWBA’s deliveries are scheduled.
The AWBA will, as a high priority task, work with the CAWCD and stakeholders in early
2005 to begin the development of a recovery plan. While no recovery is scheduled in
2005, the recovery of long-term storage credits may be necessitated sooner than
originally anticipated because of potential requests from California or Nevada to develop
Intentionally Created Unused Apportionment. In addition, a recovery plan will assist the
AWBA in determining appropriate locations for water storage.

7

Table 2
WATER BANKING AUTHORITY

ARIZONA

Water Delivery Schedule

2004

Calendar Year 2 0 0 5

Deliveries
(AF)

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

1

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

63,000 65,000 114,000 148,000 180,000 197,000 198,000 182,000

Oct

Nov

123,000 81,000

Dec

Total

48,000 55,000 1,454,000

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

7,253

8,078

13,688

8,324

8,340

2,988

6,463

14,798

13,620 15,417

12,211 17,546

1,000
0
720

1,000
0
450

300
247
0 4,000
0
0
0
0
500
0
13,620 15,417

0
0
0
0
0
12,211

AMA
TOTAL
0
2,416
1,500
0
0
2,500
1,600
800
AMA
TOTAL
1,500
0
580
AMA
TOTAL
650
6,000
0
0
0
17,546

0

0

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

USF

GSF

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

200,000
35,000
100,000
3,000
18,000
54,000
28,000
200,000

0
6,800
5,000
533
6,300
35,084
7,645
8,000

0
0
500
0
0
0
0
800

0
100
0
0
0
0
0
800

0
100
0
50
0
0
0
800

0
0
1,000
50
1,050
0
0
800

0
0
1,000
50
1,050
4,000
0
800

0
0
0
100
1,050
1,500
0
0

0
0
0
75
1,050
3,000
0
0

0
0
0
75
1,050
6,000
2,285
800

0
0
0
50
1,050
6,500
2,000
800

0
1,767
0
83
0
6,000
800
800

0
2,417
1,000
0
0
5,584
960
800

PINAL A M A :
11
12
13

GSF

CAIDD
HOHOKAM
MSIDD

110,000
55,000
120,000

9,000
9,500
9,000

0
275
300

0
1,000
0

0
5,600
1,960

0
2,625
880

0
0
1,440

0
0
0

2,000
0
0

2,000
0
1,750

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

3,225
10,000
6,939
10,700
1,000
128,726

338
0
2,040
3,000
0
7,253

338
0
2,040
3,800
0
8,078

338
0
2,040
2,800
0
13,688

0
0
819
1,100
0
8,324

0
0
0
0
0
8,340

338
0
0
0
0
2,988

338
0
0
0
0
6,463

338
0
0
0
500
14,798

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,500
0
920

TUCSON A M A :
14
15
16
17
18
19

USF

AVRA VALLEY
CLEARWATER
PIMA MINE ROAD
LOWER SANTA CRUZ
GSF KAI – RED ROCK
T O T A L (USF + GSF):

20

Remaining CAP Capacity:

128,726

Permitted Requested
Capacity Capacity
(AF)
(AF)

0

0

69,362
0
6,800
5,000
533
6,300
35,084
7,645
8,000
27,500
9,000
9,500
9,000

3,225
10,000
6,939
10,700
1,000
128,726

This total includes 2,646 acre feet delivered to the Tonopah Irrigation District. Additionally, 3,000 acre feet of the deliveries to CAIDD and 7,000
acre feet of the deliveries to MSIDD were for interstate water banking purposes pursuant to the Amended 2004 Annual Plan of Operation.

8

19,700
18,382
23,700

31,864

.
1

62,973
22,382
17,201
576
0
49,203
9,146
8,000

0

6,752
6,000
18,939
38,107
1,100
1
304,807

NEW FACILITIES
There are no new storage facilities included in the 2005 Plan.

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 and 2004.

PRICING
On June 17, 2004, the CAWCD board adopted final water delivery rates for 2005. The
rate for AWBA and other M&I Incentive recharge is $73 per acre foot. The delivery rate
is the pumping energy rate 2 component ($62 per acre foot) plus 10 percent of the fixed
OM&R charge ($4.70 per acre foot) plus a component to recover lost revenues from
federal deliveries ($6.00 per acre foot). The components of the rate are the same as
those in the 2001-2004 rates. For 2005, the pumping energy rate 2 was calculated
using the average of the actual or forecast above threshold energy rates for the
previous three years.
In 2005, the AWBA increased the cost share for the GSF partners to $30 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.
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.

9

Table 3. 2005 Water and Facility Rates for Intrastate Banking
CAP’s delivery rate to AWBA

$73 per acre foot

Groundwater Savings Facility operator portion of delivery rate

$30 per acre foot 1

Underground Storage Facility rate paid by AWBA
GRUSP (SRP)

$19.15 per acre foot
2

Avra Valley (CAP)

$12.00 per acre foot

CAVSARP (Tucson Water)

$12.50 per acre foot

2

Hieroglyphic Mtns. (CAP)

$8.00 per acre foot

2

Pima Mine Road (CAP)

$12.00 per acre foot
2

Lower Santa Cruz (CAP/Pima County)
2

Agua Fria Recharge Project (CAP)
1
2

$12.00 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 $43/af.
See pertinent discussion. This is O&M component only.

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.
The estimated total cost of the AWBA’s 2005 Plan of Operation is approximately
$7.3 million which includes the USF use fees and the CAP delivery rate minus
the cost recovery from the GSF operator by the CAWCD.

10

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 to be utilized by the AWBA
including any funds carried over from previous years and an estimate of funds to
be collected during the year, the funds to be utilized and the entity that holds the
funds, and the credits that will accrue to those accounts based on the 2005 Plan.
Table 4. Funding for 2005 Annual Plan of Operation
Funds Available ($)
AWBA
CAP

Funds Utilized ($)
AWBA
CAP

Credits (AF)

Withdrawal Fees
Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$662,5001
$610,000
$1,182,5001

-

$662,455
$610,000
$1,182,500

$0
$0
$0

13,000
7,000
26,000

Four Cent Tax
Maricopa County
Pima County
Pinal County

$13,764,413
$0
$0

$16,763,187
$3,243,847
$0

$2,792,112
$0
$0

$0
$2,060,640
$0

53,000
23,000
0

$0
$0
$0
$0

-

$0
$0
$0
$0

-

0
0
0

Other
General Fund
Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA
Interstate Banking
Nevada
California

(not applicable)
(not applicable)
Total Funds Available
$36,226,447

1

Total Funds Expended
$7,307,707

Credits
122,000

The withdrawal fees available for use in 2005 are reduced by $2 million due to legislative transfer

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 that previously 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 2004, the AWBA funded the Plan through
expenditure of both groundwater withdrawal fees and ad valorem tax revenues in
an effort to eliminate carryover of groundwater withdrawal fees. The AWBA faces
a similar situation in 2005. The 2005 Plan was developed expending all available
withdrawal fees and requires utilization of some of the CAP funds, as well.

11

Table 5 provides an estimate of the AWBA funds expended and the credits that have
accrued to the various accounts based on the AWBA’s recharge activities since
inception.

Table 5. Cumulative Totals of Long-term Storage Credits 1997-2004
FUNDS
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

$8,878,303
$4,722,728
$7,775,048

149,873 AF
66,231 AF
253,051 AF

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$39,393,624
$13,212,072
$2,600,367

867,960 AF
188,169 AF
94,500 AF

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$10,695,000
$2,042,572
$2,325,112
$6,327,316

396,499 AF
59,937AF
39,748AF
296,814 AF

Phoenix AMA
Tucson AMA
Pinal AMA

$10,076,945

120,411 AF

$97,354,087

2,136,694 AF

Actual credits used for 1997-2003; credits estimated for 2004

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT
The AWBA staff held meetings with the GUACs for the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson
AMAs as required by statute. The Plan was distributed to the public and Table 2 was
posted on the AWBA web page for public review and comment.

Phoenix GUAC
In general, the GUAC supported the Plan and had no requests for changes to it. There
were some questions regarding CAP’s retention of the 4¢ ad valorem tax revenues and
how those funds would be expended to meet the AWBA’s goals. The GUAC also
requested information regarding interstate water banking.

Pinal GUAC
12

General discussion regarding the Plan included: the anticipated length of time that the
AWBA will utilize GSF facilities for storage; the manner in which recovery could take
place in the Pinal AMA; and the status of the agreements for interstate water banking.
The Pinal GUAC did not submit written comments to the Plan and supported it in
general.

Tucson AMA
General discussion regarding the Plan included: storage facility priority and the manner
in which the AWBA attempted to meet the recommendations; interstate water banking;
the potential for interstate recovery in 2005 for California; the reasons for the decreased
water available to the AWBA; and the potential for additional water coming available in
2005. A request was made to modify Table 2 to include subtotals for the AMA. A
written comment was received from the Tucson GUAC that requested more storage at
the Pima Mine Road facility. Table 2 was adjusted accordingly to fully maximize use of
the Pima Mine Road facility.

Public Comment
A written comment was received requesting alteration of the recovery language.

13