Arizona Department of Water Resources September 2010 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 1 Executive Summary ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Herbert Guenther Deputy Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Karen Smith Assistant Director, Hydrology Frank Corkhill Assistant Director, Water Management Sandra Fabritz-Whitney Atlas Team (Current and Former ADWR staff) Linda Stitzer, Rich Burtell – Project Managers Kelly Mott Lacroix - Asst. Project Manager Phyllis Andrews Carol Birks Joe Stuart Major Contributors (Current and Former ADWR staff) Tom Carr John Fortune Leslie Graser William H. Remick Saeid Tadayon-USGS Other Contributors (Current and Former ADWR staff) Matt Beversdorf Roberto Chavez Laura Grignano (Volume 8) Pam Nagel (Volume 8) Kenneth Seasholes (Volume 8) Larri Tearman Patrick Brand Jenna Gillis Sharon Morris Mark Preszler Jeff Tannler (Volume 8) Dianne Yunker Climate Gregg Garfin - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Ben Crawford - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Casey Thornbrugh - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Michael Crimmins – Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, University of Arizona The Atlas is wide in scope and it is not possible to mention all those who helped at some time in its production, both inside and outside the Department. Our sincere thanks to those who willingly provided data and information, editorial review, production support and other help during this multi-year project. Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 Atlas Purpose and Scope 1 SECTION 1.1 Atlas Organization 1 SECTION 1.2 Arizona Water Management and Planning Overview 2 SECTION 1.3 Water Budgets 5 SECTION 1.4 Water Resource Characteristics Summary 1.4.1 Geography 1.4.2 Hydrology 1.4.3 Climate 1.4.4 Environmental Conditions 1.4.5 Population 1.4.6 Water Supplies 1.4.7 Cultural Water Demand 1.4.8 Water Resource Issues 7 7 10 31 37 41 50 57 68 REFERENCES 74 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 83 DEFINITIONS 86 APPENDIX A: PLANNING AREA VOLUME CONTENT 94 APPENDIX B: DATA SOURCES AND METHODS 98 B.1 B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5 B.6 B.7 B.8 B.9 B.10 B.11 B.12 B.13 B.14 Adequate and Assured Water Supply Determinations Aquifers Climate Contamination Sites Cultural Water Demands Drought Efluent Environmental Conditions Geology Land Ownership Lands Survey Physiographic Regions Population Recharge Facilities 99 100 101 103 103 106 106 107 108 108 108 109 109 109 i Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 B.15 B.16 B.17 B.18 B.19 B.20 B.21 B.22 B.23 B.24 Reservoirs Rural Watershed Initiative Partnerships Springs Stockponds Streams Surface Water Rights Water Protection Fund Water Quality Wells Water Issues APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF ARIZONA WATER LAW AND MANAGEMENT C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 C.8 Surface Water Groundwater Colorado River Water and the Central Arizona Project Efluent Underground Water Storage Water Exchanges Dams and Reservoirs Arizona Drought and Conservation Programs APPENDIX D: FEDERAL AGENCIES AND LAWS D.1 D.2 D.3 D.4 Key Federal Agencies Colorado River Management Federal Reserved Rights Summary of Key Federal Water Laws 110 111 111 112 112 115 115 116 117 119 122 123 124 127 129 129 129 130 130 136 137 138 140 140 APPENDIX E: ARIZONA CLIMATE AND DROUGHT 142 APPENDIX F: ARIZONA WATER PROTECTION FUND 148 APPENDIX G: INDIAN WATER RIGHTS CLAIMS AND SETTLEMENTS 162 G.1 G.2 G.3 G.4 Colorado River Entitlements Congressionally Authorized Settlements Current Settlement Negotiations Unresolved Claims 164 164 167 168 APPENDIX H: SURFACE WATER RIGHT AND ADJUDICATION FILINGS 170 APPENDIX I: RURAL WATERSHED INITIATIVE 176 ii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 FIGURES Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Figure 1-3 Figure 1-4 Figure 1-5 Figure 1-6 Figure 1-7 Figure 1-8 Figure 1-9 Figure 1-10 Figure 1-11 Figure 1-12 Figure 1-13 Figure 1-14 Figure 1-15 Figure 1-16 Figure 1-17 Figure 1-18 Figure 1-19 Figure 1-20 Figure 1-21 Figure 1-22 Figure 1-23 Figure 1-24 Figure 1-25 Figure 1-26 Figure 1-27 Figure 1-28 Figure 1-29 Arizona Planning Areas and Groundwater Basins Schematic of a Water Budget Suricial Geology and Physiographic Regions of Arizona Measured Well Yields in Arizona Generalized Cross-section of Water Bearing Formations in The Eastern Plateau Planning Area Generalized Geologic Cross-Section for the Basin and Range Province Generalized Hydrologic Cross-Section from the Mogollon Rim to the Town of Payson Recent Depths to Groundwater in Arizona Groundwater Level Changes in Arizona (1992-1995) to (2002-2005) Arizona Watersheds, USGS Streamgages and Large Reservoirs Major Streams and Reservoirs in Arizona Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs in Arizona May 1st Reservoir Storage on the Colorado, Gila and Salt/Verde Rivers on May 1st, 1980-2008 Arizona Meteorologic Stations and Average Precipitation and Temperature Average Monthly Precipitation and Temperature by Planning Area, 1971-2000 Arizona winter (November-April) precipitation departures from average reconstructed from tree rings (1000-1988) Average Water-Year Temperature and Total Precipitation by Planning Area, 1930-2002 (excludes the AMAs) Arizona Biotic Communities and Ecoregions Instream Flow Claims, Riparian Areas and Arizona Water Protection Fund Grant Locations Arizona Population 1970-2009 High Growth Rate Communities (2000-2009) Assured and Adequate Water Supply Determinations and Designations in Arizona Average Annual Water Supplies Utilized in Arizona, 2001-2005 (in AF and % of total) Registered Wells and Surface Water Diversion Points in Arizona ADWR Index and Automated Wells in 2008 Common Groundwater Quality Exceedences Contamination Sites in Arizona Comparison of Arizona’s Average Annual Water Demand to its Population, 1971-2005 Change in Average Annual Water Demand in Arizona 3 5 8 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 25 27 32 34 35 36 38 39 41 44 49 50 54 56 58 59 60 iii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Figure 1-30 Figure 1-31 Figure 1-32 Figure 1-33 Figure E-1 Figure E-2 Figure F-1 Figure H-1 Figure I-1 iv Planning Areas Average Annual Planning Area Water Demand by Sector and Water Source During 2001-2005 Cultural Water Demand Centers in Arizona Average Annual Water Demand in Arizona by Sector, 2001-2005 (in AF and percentage of total) Average Annual Agricultural Water Demand for Selected Planning Areas Average water-year (October-September) temperature (left) and total water-year precipitation in Arizona from 1930-2002 Planning area water-year (October-September) precipitation departures from average for the 1942-1957 drought period Arizona Water Protection Fund Grant Locations General Stream Adjudications in Arizona Rural Watershed Initiative Participants 61 62 64 65 66 145 146 161 174 190 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 TABLES Table 1-1 Table 1-2 Table 1-3 Table 1-4 Table 1-5 Table 1-6 Table 1-7 Table 1-8 Table 1-9 Table 1-10 Table 1-11 Table 1-12 Table 1-13 Table 1-14 Table 1-15 Table 1-16 Table 1-17 Table E-1 Table F-1 Table H-1 Typical components of a water budget 6 Land ownership in Arizona 10 Generalized Basin Hydrogeology 11 Summary of basin groundwater data 12 Flow characteristics of major Arizona streams 24 Planning area and basin historic and projected population 42 High growth communities in Arizona 43 Adequacy determinations outside of the AMAs 45 Assured water supply applications in the AMAs 46 Designated water providers in Arizona as of May 2010 46 Arizona v. California Decree accounting of the consumptive use of Colorado River water in Arizona (in acre-feet/year) 51 Count of surface water right and adjudication ilings by planning area 53 Annual efluent generation and use by planning area (c. 2006) 57 Average annual cultural water demand (2001-2005)1 63 Average annual planning area industrial demand by category 67 Average annual water demand on Arizona Indian Reservations (2001-2005) 68 Percent of 2004 survey respondents reporting issue was a moderate or major concern 71 Arizona mean, high capacity and low capacity reservoir levels from 1971 through 2005, expressed in percent of total reservoir capacity (design lood pool) 144 AWPF Funded Projects through FY 2008 by Planning Area 150 Count of Surface Water Right and Adjudication Filings by Planning Area 175 v Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 vi Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 Atlas Purpose and Scope Considerable investment in water resource development and planning has occurred in many parts of Arizona, particularly within the State’s active management areas (AMAs) where major water supplies, regulations imposed by the Arizona Groundwater Code and large metropolitan areas with signiicant inancing capabilities exist. Outside of the AMAs, smaller communities may lack inancial capacity for water supply development and mandatory water management provisions do not exist. Nevertheless, a number of non-AMA communities have recognized the need for water resource planning and have developed renewable water supplies, conservation programs and water management plans. However both within and outside the AMA, the need for planning, management and comprehensive and updated water resource data is ongoing. the Department’s website (http://www.azwater. gov). Figure 1-1 shows the planning areas and groundwater basins and should be referenced in subsequent sections of this volume. Included in this volume is a discussion of the organization of the Atlas, an overview of water management and planning in Arizona, a discussion on water budgets for planning purposes, a summary of water resource characteristics for the State and several appendices that describe data sources and methods of analysis, provide information on water law, management and programs, and Indian water rights claims and settlements. Atlas data and information have been compiled from a number of sources. New investigations, except as noted, were not undertaken. This volume summarizes the content of the planning area volumes, which should be The purpose of the Arizona Water Atlas (Atlas) consulted for more detailed information on speis to support water planning and development ciic planning areas, groundwater basins and efforts by providing water-related information communities. on a local, regional and statewide level. The Atlas is also an educational resource for the general 1.1 Atlas Organization public intended to be updated on a regular basis. In addition, the Atlas project has resulted Each Atlas planning area volume contains an in development of a statewide water resources overview of the planning area and a separate data repository by the Arizona Department of water resource characteristics section for each Water Resources (Department). The Atlas divides Arizona into seven planning areas (Figure 1-1). “Planning areas” are composed of groundwater basins and are an organizational concept that provide for a regional perspective on water supply, demand and resource issues. There is a separate Atlas volume for each planning area (Volumes 2-8), this executive summary (Volume 1) and a water sustainability assessment (Volume 9). Volume 9 is anticipated to be completed in 2011. All completed volumes are posted on Navajo Generating Station, Eastern Plateau Planning Area. Section 1.0 Atlas Purpose and Scope - Section 1.1 Atlas Organization 1 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 groundwater basin or AMA within the planning area. A groundwater basin is a relatively hydrologically distinct body or related bodies of groundwater. A.R.S. § 45-402(13) The overview section of each volume includes a discussion of planning area geography, hydrology, climate, environmental conditions, population and growth, water supply, cultural water demand and water resource issues. Each basin or AMA section includes maps and tables that display a variety of water resource characteristics including; geography, land ownership, climate, surface water conditions, perennial/intermittent streams and major springs, groundwater conditions, water quality, cultural water demand and assured or adequate water supply determinations. References and supplemental readings are provided as well as appendices that contain a list of Arizona Water Protection Fund projects, Community Water System annual report data with a list of systems that have submitted System Water Plans, information on surface water right and adjudication ilings, and a summary of rural watershed partnership issues. Appendix A of this volume contains a detailed list of the content of the planning area volumes. Appendix B contains a discussion of the data sources and methods for each of the water resource characteristics included in the Atlas. Section 1.4 of this volume is organized similarly to that of the planning area volumes and summarizes the data and information in them at a statewide level. This volume also contains supporting background information and is intended to be a companion volume to the planning area volumes. The concluding volume of the Atlas (Volume 9) will use data from Atlas Volumes 1-8 as well as from other studies and stakeholder input to conduct a water resource sustainability assessment for the state. This assessment will identify current and future water resource vulnerabilities such as drought sensitive water supplies and the impact of current and projected growth on water supply availability. 2 Agriculture in the Douglas INA. 1.2 Arizona Water Management and Planning Overview Water management in Arizona involves a complex system of rules and management authorities that differ by legally deined water type and area. The system is summarized here and described in more detail in Appendix C. A fundamental component is that laws governing surface water are distinct from those governing groundwater. Surface water is subject to the doctrine of prior appropriation, based on the tenet of “irst in time, irst in right.” Two general stream adjudications are in progress covering the Gila River and Little Colorado River systems to determine the nature, extent and priority of surface water uses and rights. Rights to groundwater are subject to the beneicial use doctrine. Outside of the AMAs there is essentially no restriction on withdrawing groundwater as long as it is put to reasonable and beneicial use. The only exception is within three areas designated as Irrigation Non-Expansion Areas (INAs), where irrigation of new agricultural lands is restricted to prevent further groundwater declines. Within the AMAs the authority to withdraw groundwater is subject to a system of rights and permits pursuant to the Arizona Groundwater Management Act. A.R.S. § 45-401 et seq. (Code). The Code was adopted in 1980 to settle disputes among groundwater users, to secure federal funding for the Central Arizona Project (CAP), and to mitigate severe Section 1.1 Atlas Organization - Section 1.2 Arizona Water Planning and Management Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.2 Arizona Water Management and Planning Overview 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 approve a subdivision plat and the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) cannot issue a public report for the sale of lots without an AWS determination. Developers must obtain a Certiicate of AWS or demonstrate that the subdivision will be served by a water provider whose service area has been issued a designation The Phoenix, Prescott and Tucson AMAs have of an AWS. a management goal of safe-yield by 2025. A.R.S. § 45-562(A). The management goal Outside of the AMAs, A.R.S.§ 45-108 requires of the Pinal AMA is to allow development of subdivision developers to obtain a Water Adnon-irrigation uses and to preserve existing equacy Report that demonstrates that suficient agricultural economies for as long as feasible. water of adequate quality is available for at least A.R.S. § 45-562(B). The goal of the Santa Cruz 100 years, demonstrate that the subdivision will AMA is to maintain a safe-yield condition and be served by a municipal provider that has been prevent local water tables from experiencing designated as having an adequate water supply, long-term declines. A.R.S.§ 45-562(C). (See or disclose any “inadequate” determination (to the initial buyer) in the public report and all proAppendix C). motional materials. The ability to market lots Within the AMAs, mandatory water metering without demonstrating an adequate water supand reporting requirements for groundwater ply is an issue in a number of rural areas where rightholders has resulted in the systematic water supplies are stressed. However, legislacollection of water use data, which is compiled tion adopted in June 2007 (SB 1575) authorizes in AMA management plans. A series of ive a county board of supervisors to adopt a proconsecutive management plans are statutorily vision requiring a new subdivision to have an required for each AMA. A.R.S.§§ 45-564 adequate water supply in order to be approved through 568. The management plans contain by the platting authority. If the county does not conservation requirements for the agricultural, adopt the provision, the legislation allows a city municipal and industrial water use sectors, or town to adopt a local ordinance that requires as well as water use data, and provide the a demonstration of adequacy. As of June 2010, framework for the day-to-day implementation Cochise County, Yuma County, the Town of of Code mandates and Department policies for each AMA. overdraft conditions in several parts of the state.1 The Code established management goals for each AMA, a data reporting system, mandatory conservation requirements, and 100-year assured water supply requirements for new subdivisions in the AMAs. The Code also contains provisions that address water supplies for subdivided lands. Within the AMAs new subdivisions are subject to Assured Water Supply (AWS) provisions. A.R.S. §§ 45576 et seq. The Code and associated AWS Rules prohibit the sale or lease of subdivided land without demonstration of a 100-year assured water supply. Water use must also be consistent with the AMA management goal, which requires use of renewable (non-groundwater) supplies or replenishment of groundwater use as well as other requirements. Local governments cannot 1 Cochise County, Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. As of June, 2010, only Cochise County, Yuma County, the Town of Clarkdale and the Town of Patagonia had adopted the provisions of SB 1575. Overdraft is a condition where groundwater withdrawals exceed recharge to the aquifer Section 1.2 Water Management and Planning Overview 4 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Clarkdale and the Town of Pa- Figure 1-2 Schematic of a Water Budget tagonia had adopted the provi- (Source: Leake and others, 2000) sions of SB 1575. Developers also have the option to obtain an Analysis of AWS (within an AMA) or an Analysis of Adequate Water Supply (outside an AMA). An Analysis is for master-planned communities that are typically developed in phases. An Analysis veriies that one or more of the requirements to obtain a Certiicate of AWS or a Water Adequacy Report are met. As each phase is developed, either a Certiicate of AWS or a Water Adequacy Report is required, but the work that has already been completed for the Analysis can be used. If the Analysis has proven physical availability of the water supply, that demonstrated volume of water can be withdrawn for subsequent Certiicates of AWS or Water Adequacy Reports within a ten year period. and formation of a Statewide Water Advisory Group (SWAG) focused on programs for water resources development and management programs outside of AMAs (2006). In August 2009, Governor Brewer established the Blue Ribbon Panel on Water Sustainability to improve the long-term sustainability of Arizona’s water supplies through increased conservation and recycling statewide with a focus on challenges to increasing wastewater reuse. Legislation passed Groundwater cannot be transported between in 2010 (H.B. 2661) established the Water Regroundwater basins outside of the AMAs or source Development Commission (WRDC), from a groundwater basin outside an AMA tasked with assessing current and future water into an AMA, except for speciic transfers as needs in Arizona including identiication of speciied in statute. A.R.S. §§ 45-544 and 45- future supplies and inancing mechanisms for 551. These statutes are designed to protect water supply acquisition and infrastructure. The hydrologically distinct sources of groundwater WRDC must prepare a report including recomand the economies in rural areas by ensuring the mendations and suggested legislation by Octogroundwater is not depleted in one groundwater ber 2011. (See Section 1.4.8) basin to beneit another. 1.3 Water Budgets A number of statewide efforts have supported water resource planning, information needs and A water budget is a key component in water management efforts outside the AMAs. These planning and management. The water resource include establishment of the Rural Watershed data discussed in Section 1.4 and found in the Initiative Program (1998), adoption of the 2004 planning area volumes can be used to help conArizona Drought Plan and associated legisla- struct a water budget, which is an accounting of tion (H.B. 2277) (see Section 1.4.5), initia- inlows and outlows of water from a basin over tion of the Statewide Water Conservation and a speciied period of time, shown in Figure 1-2. Drought Program, establishment of a Rural Wa- A water budget can include natural processes ter Legislative Study Committee (2005-2007), such as precipitation and evaporation as well 5 Section 1.2 Water Management and Planning Overview - 1.3 Water budgets Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Table 1-1 Typical components of a water budget Inflow Outflow Surface Water • Precipitation** • Streamflow from precipitation events and snowmelt** • Baseflow from groundwater* • Irrigation return flow • Effluent discharge* • Evaporation* • Evapotranspiration (e.g., riparian vegetation*) • Streamflow exiting basin* • Surface water diversions (agricultural, municipal, industrial, stock water)** Groundwater • Natural Recharge (mountain front and stream channel from precipitation and basin • Evapotranspiration (e.g., riparian underflow)** vegetation*) • Artificial and incidental recharge* • Underflow exiting the basin • Baseflow to surface water* * related or cursory data are presented in the Atlas ** detailed data is presented in the Atlas as those processes inluenced by development such as diversions and efluent discharge. Typical surface water and groundwater components of inlow and outlow are listed in Table 1-1. Streamlow and groundwater recharge are often the largest components of inlow to a basin. Cultural water demand and ET are often the largest component of outlow from a basin. In the Atlas, the term “cultural” water demand refers to the quantity of water diverted from streams and reservoirs, pumped from wells or treated and delivered for municipal, industrial and agricultural purposes. This term should not be confused with “consumptive use”, which refers to the amount of cultural water demand that is lost from the hydrologic system. For example, not all surface water diverted to irrigate crops is permanently lost; a portion of the water applied to ields may low back to streams (return low) or iniltrate to underlying aquifers (incidental recharge). Estimates of natural groundwater recharge, streamlow, precipitation and cultural water demands are presented by basin in Volumes 2-8. Other components of outlow and inlow are not well quantiied in the Atlas or are not quantiied at all due to lack of data Those not quantiied are often dificult to estimate but should be considered when constructing a water budget. Section 1.3 Water Budgets These include incidental recharge, irrigation return low, baselow, evapotranspiration, evaporation and underlow. Incidental recharge is water that percolates to the aquifer after human use such as excess water applied to irrigate agricultural lands or turf facilities, efluent discharge to water courses or septic tank emissions. The amount of incidental recharge is affected to a large extent by population, the population not served by a centralized wastewater treatment facility, irrigation eficiency and the method of efluent discharge. Artiicial recharge is water (other than groundwater) that is stored in an aquifer for future use via Underground Storage Facilities (USFs) (see Appendix C). Water is often lost from municipal and agricultural water distribution systems due to leaks and breaks from water lines and storage tanks, illegal connections and evaporation. These may be components of incidental recharge or cultural demand. In some cases water line losses can be signiicant. One third of the respondents to a system water loss question in the 2003 Rural Water Resources Questionnaire (ADWR, 2004) reported losses of over 10% with losses of up to 60% reported. Within the AMAs, there are system water loss requirements for municipal, ag6 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 ricultural and industrial water users. Reducing system losses eliminates unnecessary pumping and related costs and may postpone or eliminate the need to secure other supplies to meet system water demands. 1.4.1 Geography Arizona covers about 114,000 square miles of land with great geographical diversity. There are three main physiographic regions in the state. The regions and their relationship to the Evapotranspiration, primarily from riparian planning areas are shown in Figure 1-3. vegetation, has been dificult to quantify accurately over large areas but may represent a Physiographic Regions large water demand “sector” in some basins, such The Basin and Range Province of southern as in the Upper San Pedro Basin. This demand and western Arizona is characterized by long, has not been evaluated on a statewide basis and broad, alluvial valleys separated by north-south has not been quantiied in the Atlas, however trending mountain ranges. Thick, productive maps showing riparian vegetation associated regional aquifers are found in the basins of this with streams are presented in the Atlas. province. The Upper Colorado River, Lower Colorado River, Southeastern Arizona and Evaporation from reservoirs and ponds is signif- AMA (except Prescott AMA) planning areas icant and varies widely across the state. Evapo- are primarily within this province. ration rates range from less than 3 feet/year in the mountains of central Arizona to greater than The Colorado Plateau Province covers the 8 feet/year along the Colorado River in western northern portion of the state and is characterArizona (Farnsworth and others, 1982). Re- ized by sedimentary rocks that have eroded into gardless of the variability, the total quantity of canyons and plateaus. The Colorado Plateau water lost to evaporation from these sources is Province includes the Eastern Plateau, Western substantial. Average evaporative losses from Plateau and small parts of the Central Highlands reservoirs and ponds in Arizona were estimated and Upper Colorado River planning areas. This to total 221,400 acre-feet in 2000. An additional province contains regional aquifers within sand1,993,000 acre-feet of evaporative losses was stone and limestone layers and relatively thin estimated from Lakes Powell, Mead, Mohave deposits of alluvium form unconined aquifers and Havasu on the Colorado River. (BOR, along some streams. 2004) Evaporative losses are also associated with uncovered water conveyance systems and The Central Highlands transition zone is irrigation. located between the two provinces and includes most of the Central Highlands Planning Area, 1.4 Water Resource Characteristics the easternmost part of the Upper Colorado Summary River Planning Area, the Prescott AMA and the northern part of the Southeastern Arizona Summarized in this section are data and Planning Area. It is characterized by a relatively information on a number of water resource narrow band of mountains and most of the characteristics discussed in detail in the planning state’s perennial streams. Groundwater is found area volumes of the Atlas. The appropriate in alluvial deposits, layered sedimentary rocks, planning area volume should be consulted for thin alluvial deposits along major streams and more detailed information. fractured crystalline, sedimentary and volcanic rocks (ADWR, 1994a,b). Much of this region has minimal water storage capabilities and high runoff compared to the Basin and Range Province. 7 Section 1.3 Water Budgets - 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 8 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Planning Areas The Eastern Plateau Planning Area occupies the northeastern quarter of Arizona and consists of one groundwater basin. Its southern boundary is deined by the Mogollon Rim, an escarpment almost 2,000 feet high in some places, that extends from central Arizona to the Mogollon Mountains in New Mexico. Relatively high elevation plateaus and mountains, volcanic cinder cones and peaks, steep cliffs, and deeply incised sandstone canyons characterize the planning area geography. Few perennial or intermittent streams occur, except at higher elevations. The Southeastern Arizona Planning Area encompasses 14 geographically diverse groundwater basins in the southeastern corner of the state. A unique feature of the planning area is mountain ranges, known as “sky islands” that are isolated from each other by valleys of desert grasslands and desertscrub. Most of the planning area is within the Mexican Highland section of the Basin and Range Province; a higher elevation area with valleys ranging from 2,500 to 4,000 feet above sea level and mountains and valleys covering about equal areas. The planning area includes drainages of the San Pedro and upper Gila rivers and the headwaters of the Santa Cruz River. Nine groundwater basins compose the Upper Colorado River Planning Area, located in the northwestern portion of Arizona south of the Colorado River. Arizona’s three physiographic regions are found in the planning area. The planning area includes portions of the Colorado River and associated lakes (Mead, Mohave and Havasu) impounded by several dams that inluence cultural uses, groundwater conditions and habitat in a signiicant portion of the planning area. Headwaters of the Santa Cruz River, Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. The planning area includes drainages of the San Pedro and upper Gila rivers and the headwaters of the Santa Cruz River. evational range (from 1,500 feet to over 12,600 feet), resulting in a wide diversity of vegetation types and ecosystems, the greatest of any planning area. Topography varies from desert basins to deeply incised canyons to high elevation mountains. Because of the high elevations and associated higher precipitation, this planning area contains the state’s greatest concentration of perennial streams and its most productive water producing watersheds, the Salt and Verde. The Western Plateau Planning Area covers the northwestern corner of Arizona and includes six groundwater basins. It includes the Grand Canyon, incised by the Colorado River and its tributaries, with an average depth of 4,000 feet. South and east of the Colorado River, the Coconino Plateau marks the southwestern edge of the Colorado Plateau. In the northwest corner of the planning area, the Virgin River cuts through the Beaver Dam Mountains creating the Virgin River Gorge. Other signiicant geographic features are numerous high plateaus, steep cliffs, deeply incised canyons and few surface water features. The Central Highlands Planning Area, composed of ive groundwater basins, stretches across most of central Arizona. The planning Eleven groundwater basins compose the Lower area contains diverse topography and a large el- Colorado River Planning area, located in south9 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 western Arizona. The planning area is relatively low elevation - generally less than 3,500 feetand is very arid; a condition that has shaped its topography and surface water characteristics. Its geography consists primarily of widely-scattered, small mountain ranges of mostly barren rock and broad, lat valleys (or plains). With the exception of the Colorado River, there are no perennial streams; broad sandy washes are the main surface water feature, lowing only in response to signiicant precipitation events. land may be sold or traded, and is often leased for grazing and farming. The percentage of land ownership types statewide and for each planning area are listed in Table 1-2. Land ownership maps for each basin are found in the planning area volumes of the Atlas. 1.4.2 Hydrology The AMA Planning Area extends from the international border through central Arizona to the northern boundary of Maricopa County. The northernmost AMA, the Prescott AMA, is discontiguous from the other four AMAs. Because of its geographic extent and location in the state, this planning area exhibits a wide range of geographic features, from low elevation, broad, semi-arid Sonoran desert valleys to mountain ranges with summits over 9,000 feet. The topographic variability results in broad variations in the amount of precipitation, temperature range and vegetation type. Groundwater Hydrology Anderson and others (1992) divided the alluvial groundwater basins of south-central Arizona into ive categories based on similar hydrologic and geologic characteristics, summarized in Table 1-3. This table includes similar information for the Plateau basins that were not included in their study as well as typical groundwater responses to well pumpage. General groundwater characteristics for each planning area are described briely in this section. Groundwater data including major aquifers, well yields, natural recharge estimates and water in storage are summarized in Table 1-4 for each groundwater basin within the planning areas and referenced to the basin categories. The distribution and type of land ownership in planning areas has implications for land and water use. Large areas of private land typically provide opportunities for land development and associated water demand, whereas federal lands are typically maintained for a purpose with little associated cultural water demand. State owned Figure 1-3 shows a suricial geology map of Arizona. Well yields generally relect aquifer composition and productivity. Aquifers composed of coarse grained alluvium often yield more water to wells than ine grained alluvium or crystalline and sedimentary rocks. Well yields measured across the state are shown on Figure 1-4. Table 1-2 Land ownership in Arizona (Source: ALRIS 2004) Planning Area Land Ownership Type Bureau of Land Management Forest Service Indian Reservation Local/State Parks Military National Parks Other Private State Trust Wilderness (USFS/BLM) Wildlife Refuge Eastern Southeastern Plateau % Arizona % Upper Colorado River % Central Western Highlands % Plateau % Lower Colorado River % Active Management Areas % Statewide % 1.11 14.23 34.38 3.68 29.62 24.67 10.36 16.86 10.38 63.93 0.01 0.00 1.46 0.14 14.75 8.03 17.09 14.96 0.08 1.05 0.25 0.27 22.95 25.80 2.30 7.58 0.07 0.22 6.34 0.13 25.56 16.68 46.76 22.40 0.02 0.29 0.02 0.26 0.11 6.26 13.64 17.24 0.00 0.00 16.23 0.00 10.95 8.92 0.00 16.66 0.02 23.30 2.99 0.88 7.45 6.09 8.10 18.62 1.39 0.42 0.81 0.44 34.64 21.30 14.04 23.06 0.23 3.61 4.01 0.30 18.15 13.30 0.18 3.30 6.22 9.52 3.40 3.79 2.72 4.16 0.00 0.02 0.51 0.00 0.00 14.15 1.20 2.27 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 10 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Table 1-3 Generalized Basin Hydrogeology 1,2 BASIN CATEGORY Central HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS GEOLOGY OF MAJOR AQUIFERS Recent Stream Alluvium Basin Fill and Younger Volcanics Up to 300 feet in thickness of coarse material along major streams Upper Basin Fill -Typically less than 1,000 feet of fine- to course-grained deposits becoming courser near the basin margins and at land surface Colorado River Occur at significant depths with relatively little known of their extent or character; include conglomerate Plateau 3 Sand and gravel along major streams Deposited in channels cut into basin fill Common beneath floodplains Older alluvial deposits underlain by marine estuarine sediments (Bouse Formation) Up to 500 feet of sediment that may include consolidated lake deposits (e.g. Verde Formation); limited in areal extent Basaltic lava flows found locally 4 in some basins Primarily cemented sandy gravel (fanglomerate) Not a major aquifer Sandstone, siltstone and conglomerate interbedded with volcanic rocks in a few basins (e.g. Cottonwood Wash and Muddy Creek formations) Lower Basin Fill -Up to 5,000 feet of fine-grained sediments that include evaporite deposits and become coarser near the basin margins Pre-Basin and Range Sediments Highland Coconino, Dakota, and Navajo sandstones (C, D, and N Aquifers), Muav and Redwall Coconino Sandstone (C Aquifer), Redwall Limestone (R Aquifer), limestones (R Aquifer), and other sedimentary rocks (Bidahochi, and volcanic, igneous and Chinle, Kayenta, Mesa Verde, metamorphic rocks locally Moenave, and Moenkopi formations) 5 Southeast West Relatively thin layers of sand and gravel Limited to areas along the lower Gila River Upper Basin Fill - typically about 300 feet of lacustrine silt and clay Upper Basin Fill - thin and heterogeneous Lower Basin Fill - typically greater than 1,000 feet of coarse- Lower Basin Fill - coarse- to finegrained sediment becoming to fine-grained sediment coarser near basin margins becoming coarser near the basin margins Moderately thick conglomerate Conglomerate, sandstone and volcanic rock occurring at relatively shallow depths (e.g. Muddy Creek Formation) Not a major aquifer Not a major aquifer Older Consolidated Rocks Not a major aquifer Not a major aquifer Natural Aquifer Inflows Mostly stream infiltration with some underflow and mountain-front recharge Mostly stream infiltration with very minor underflow and mountain-front recharge Mostly stream infiltration and underflow with some mountainfront recharge Natural Aquifer Outflows Mostly evapotranspiration with some underflow and minor baseflow Mostly evapotranspiration with minor baseflow and very minor underflow Mostly baseflow and evapotranspiration with very minor underflow Mostly discharge to springs and baseflow with minor to some leakage between units Mostly evapotranspiration with some baseflow and minor underflow Mostly evapotranspiration with some underflow and minor baseflow Direction of Groundwater Flow From areas of recharge along basin perimeter toward central basin axis and then down valley Away from the Colorado River toward its floodplain where evapotranspiration occurs; also some flow parallel to the river and locally towards the river where irrigation has reversed the flow gradient From areas of recharge along basin perimeter toward central basin axis Downgradient from permeable outcrops, along bedding planes and locally along faults and solution channels From areas of recharge along basin perimeter toward central basin axis Down valley Pressure Conditions Locally confined due to fine-grained deposits of basin fill; otherwise, unconfined Confined in the fanglomerate; otherwise unconfined Typically unconfined Depth to Ground Water From land surface to as much as 700 feet bls near the mountain fronts From land surface to a few hundred feet bls GROUNDWATER RESPONSES TO DEVELOPMENT (WELL PUMPING) Mostly mountain-front recharge Mostly mountain-front recharge where sandstones and and stream infiltration with minor limestones outcrop, with minor to underflow some leakage between units Can be confined over relatively Aquifer in lower basin fill is often large areas by overlying siltstone confined; otherwise unconfined and claystone layers From land surface to a few tens of feet bls; hundreds of feet or Typically several hundred feet to over 3,000 feet bls in some areas more bls for sandstone and limestone aquifers Above land surface (flowing wells) to more than 500 feet bls at basin perimeter Mostly stream infiltration with some underflow and mountainfront recharge Typically unconfined Few feet to more than 1,300 feet bls near the mountain fronts Mostly loss of water from storage and, near major Over time may increase stream Mostly a loss of water from Mostly a loss of water from rivers, may eventually decrease baseflow and Most well water derived from the river; Initial loss of water from storage; infiltration and decrease baseflow storage with relatively large storage; near the Gila River, may evapotranspiration and locally increase stream may locally decrease evapotranspiration may eventually decrease and evapotranspiration; could groundwater level declines eventually decrease baseflow and evapotranspiration infiltration. Groundwater level declines expected and increase stream infiltration, but not evapotranspiration and increase eventually lead to groundwater possible; over time may decrease and increase stream infiltration but locally may rise or stabilize where irrigation cause much loss of water from storage stream infiltration level declines spring discharge and baseflow return flows are significant Notes: Primary source - Anderson and others (1992); secondary sources - ADWR (1994b), USGS (1984) and Anderson and Freethy (1995) Actual hydrogeologic conditions may vary considerably within individual basins and basin categories. Table 1-4 specifies which basins are grouped in each category. 3 The Hydrologic Characteristics and Responses to Well Development listed for the Plateau basin category apply to the regional sandstone and limestone aquifers which are the primary sources of water. 4 Gravel beds and lake deposits are important in the Aubrey and Truxton valleys, respectively, of Peach Springs Basin. 5 The D Aquifer also includes the Cow Springs and Entrada Sandstones; the N Aquifer also includes the Wingate Sandstone; and the C Aquifer also includes the Kaibab Limestone and Upper Supai Formation. 1 2 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 11 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Table 1-4 Summary of basin groundwater data BASIN AREA (in square miles) BASIN CATEGORY 1 MAJOR AQUIFER(S) MEDIAN WELL YIELDS 3 (in gallons per minute) 2 Measured ESTIMATED NATURAL RECHARGE 4 (in 1000 acre-feet/year) ESTIMATED WATER IN STORAGE 4 (in million acre-feet) Reported NUMBER OF ADWR INDEX WELLS 5 LAST ADWR WELL SWEEP 5 Year # of Wells Measured Eastern Plateau Planning Area Little Colorado River Plateau 26,700 Plateau Recent Stream Alluvium, Volcanic Rock (Lakeside-Pinetop Aquifer) and Sedimentary Rock (Bidahochi Formation, C, D, N, Springerville, and White Mountain Aquifers) 95 (85 wells) 500 (386 wells) 319 (C Aquifer), 5.4 (D Aquifer), 2.6 to 20.2 (N Aquifer) 413 (C Aquifer), 15 (D Aquifer), 526 (N Aquifer) 94 2001 932 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Aravaipa Canyon 517 Recent Stream Alluvium and Basin Fill --- 350 (36 wells) 7 to 16.7 5 to 5.1 (to 1,200 feet) 3 1996 60 Bonita Creek 457 Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill and Volcanic Rock --- 1,145 (14 wells) 9 1 to 2 (to 1,200 feet) 0 NA NA Cienega Creek 606 Recent Stream Alluvium and Basin Fill --- 250 (35 wells) 8.5 to 25.5 5.1 to 11 (to 1,200 feet) 14 2005 117 Donnelly Wash 293 Basin Fill --- 63 (4 wells) 3 0.14 to 2 (to 1,200 feet) 0 1996 25 Douglas 949 Basin Fill, locally interbedded with Volcanic Rock 718 (64 wells) 600 (656 wells) 15.5 to 22 26 to 32 (to 1,200 feet) 27 2004 356 Dripping Springs Wash 378 Recent Stream Alluvium and Sedimentary Rock (Gila Conglomerate) --- 395 (12 wells) 3 to 9 0.15 (to 1,200 feet) to <1 2 1996 34 Duncan Valley 550 Recent Stream Alluvium and Sedimentary Rock (Gila Conglomerate) --- 850 (165 wells) 6 to 14.2 9 to 19 (to 1,200 feet) 11 1987 182 Southeast Lower San Pedro 1,624 Recent Stream Alluvium and Basin Fill 1,295 (10 wells) 1,000 (181 wells) 24 to 29 11 (to 1,200 feet) to >27 19 2006 205 Morenci 1,599 Recent Stream Alluvium and Volcanic Rock --- 600 (53 wells) 15 3 (to 1,200 feet) 4 1978 6 Safford 6 4,747 Recent Stream Alluvium and Basin Fill 772 (52 wells) 600 (1,494 wells) 105 >27 to 69 (to 1,200 feet) 50 1997 559 San Bernardino Valley 387 Recent Stream Alluvium and Volcanic Rock --- 450 (3 wells) 9 1.6 to 2 (to 1,200 feet) 4 2007 70 San Rafael 229 Recent Stream Alluvium and Basin Fill --- 145 (12 wells) 5 4 to 5 (to 1,200 feet) 10 2005 36 Upper San Pedro 1,825 Recent Stream Alluvium and Basin Fill 335 (39 wells) 600 (353 wells) 35.8 19.8 to 59 (to 1,200 feet) 59 2006 688 Willcox 1,911 Recent Stream Alluvium and Basin Fill 622 (64 wells) 750 (1,007 wells) 15 to 47 42 to 59 (to 1,200 feet) 47 2005 845 Upper Colorado River Planning Area Big Sandy 1,988 Bill Williams 3,350 Detrital Valley 892 Highland / Southeast Highland / West West Hualapai Valley 1,212 Lake Havasu 252 Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill and Sedimentary Rock (R Aquifer) --- 300 (87 wells) 22 9.5 to 21 (to 1,200 feet) 18 2008 104 Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill and Volcanic Rock 2 (3 wells) 280 (195 wells) 32 10 to 23 (to 1,200 feet) 24 1979 117 32 (6 wells) 35 (3 wells) 1 1 to 7 (to 1,200 feet) 11 2006 82 967 (10 wells) 900 (33 wells) 2 to 3 3 to 21 (to 1,200 feet) 16 2006 101 Basin Fill --- 1,500 (17 wells) 35 1 to 2 (to 1,200 feet) 1 1998-99 30 Recent Stream Alluvium --- 1,000 (96 wells) 183 1.2 to 8 (to 1,200 feet) 3 NA NA Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill and Sedimentary Rock (Muddy Creek and Chemehueve Formations) Basin Fill, Sedimentary Rock (Muddy Creek and Chemehueve Formations) and Volcanic Rock Colorado River Lake Mohave 980 Meadview 190 West Sedimentary Rock (Muddy Creek Formation) 33 (5 wells) --- 4 0.06 (to 700 feet) to 1 (to 1,200 feet) 1 2006 16 Peach Springs 1,409 Plateau Basin Fill and Sedimentary Rock (R Aquifer) --- 250 (7 wells) NA 1 (to 1,200 feet) to >4 3 1995 34 Sacramento Valley 1,587 West Basin Fill and Volcanic Rock 167 (9 wells) 100 (36 wells) 1 to 4 3.6 to 14 (to 1,200 feet) 16 2006 177 Central Highlands Planning Area Agua Fria 1,263 Salt River 5,232 Central / Highland Highland Basin Fill and Sedimentary Rock (Conglomerate) --- 300 (49 wells) 9 0.6 (to 1,200 feet) to 3.5 7 2008 207 Recent Stream Alluvium, Volcanic Rock (Pinetop-Lakeside Aquifer) and Sedimentary Rock (Gila Conglomerate and C and R Aquifers) --- 170 (140 wells) 178 >8.7 (to 1,200 feet) 1 NA NA Basin Fill and Sedimentary Rock (C and R Aquifers) --- 120 (51 wells) 17 to 37 2 to 9.4 (to 1,200 feet) 13 2008 216 Tonto Creek 955 Upper Hassayampa 787 West Basin Fill --- 125 (61 wells) 8 1 to 1.1 (to 1,200 feet) 5 2004 101 Verde River 5,661 Highland Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill interbedded with Volcanic Rock, Sedimentary Rock (Verde Formation and C and R Aquifers) and Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks 102 (55 wells) 260 (262 wells) 107 to >148 13 to 28 (to 1,200 feet) 130 2009 269 Section 1.4 Water Resource Characteristics Summary 12 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Table 1-4 Summary of basin groundwater data (cont) BASIN AREA (in square miles) BASIN CATEGORY 1 MAJOR AQUIFER(S) MEDIAN WELL YIELDS 3 (in gallons per minute) 2 Measured ESTIMATED NATURAL RECHARGE 4 (in 1000 acre-feet/year) ESTIMATED WATER IN STORAGE 4 (in million acre-feet) Reported NUMBER OF ADWR INDEX WELLS 5 LAST ADWR WELL SWEEP 5 Year # of Wells Measured Western Plateau Planning Area Coconino Plateau 5,812 Volcanic Rock, Basin Fill, and Sedimentary Rock (Moenkopi and Chinle Formations and C and R Aquifers) --- 45.5 (16 wells) NA 3 2 NA NA Grand Wash 959 Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill interbedded with Volcanic Rock and Sedimentary Rock (Cottonwood Wash and Muddy Creek Formations) --- --- NA NA 2 NA NA Kanab Plateau 4,247 Recent Stream Alluvium and Sedimentary Rock --- 70 (10 wells) NA NA 3 NA NA Paria 408 Sedimentary Rock (N Aquifer) --- 520 (3 wells) NA 1.5 (to 1,200 feet) 1 NA NA Shivwits Plateau 1,821 Recent Stream Alluvium --- 5 (17 wells) NA NA 0 NA NA Virgin River 434 Basin Fill and Sedimentary Rock (Muddy Creek Formation) --- 650 (53 wells) >30 1.7 (to 1,200 feet) 6 1991 65 Plateau West Lower Colorado River Planning Area Butler Valley 288 Basin Fill 1,590 (5 wells) 2,200 (17 wells) <1 to 1.1 2 (to 1,200 feet) to 20 (to 1,000 feet) 13 2004 24 Gila Bend 1,284 Basin Fill 2,221 (107 wells) 2,700 (242 wells) 10 to 37 17 to 61 (to 1,200 feet) 31 2008 241 Harquahala 766 Basin Fill 1,614 (84 wells) 1,620 (157 wells) <1 to <1.2 13 to 27 (to 1,200 feet) 34 2004 115 Lower Gila 7,309 Recent Stream Alluvium and Basin Fill 1,824 (56 wells) 1,600 (597 wells) >9 to 88 100 (to 1,200 feet) to 246 33 1992 589 McMullen Valley 649 Basin Fill 1,132 (90 wells) 1,500 (167 wells) 1 14 to 15.1 (to 1,200 feet) 25 2004 118 Parker 2,229 Recent Stream Alluvium and Sedimentary Rock (Bouse Formation) --- 100 (75 wells) 241 14 to 24 (to 1,200 feet) 6 1995-97 348 Ranegras Plain 912 Basin Fill 1,994 (14 wells) 1,150 (68 wells) <1 to 6.1 9 to 27 (to 1,200 feet) 19 2004 124 San Simon Wash 2,284 Basin Fill --- --- 11 6.7 to 45 (1,200 feet) 0 NA NA West Colorado River West Tiger Wash 74 Basin Fill --- --- <1 0.7 to 2 (to 1,200 feet) 2 2004 5 Western Mexican Drainage 610 Basin Fill --- 50 (3 wells) 1 3 to 4.1 (to 1,200 feet) 1 2004 6 Yuma 792 Basin Fill 5,098 (3 wells) 2,456 (327 wells) 213 34 to 49 (to 1,200 feet) 11 1992 587 Colorado River Active Management Areas Phoenix 7 5,646 Central Pinal 8 Recent Alluvium, Basin Fill with and without interbedded basalt, and Sedimentary Rock (conglomerate) 1,470 (2,354 wells) 1,280 (2,397 wells) 24.1 80.4 (to 1,000 feet) 442 2009 795 Recent Stream Alluvium and Basin Fill 1,010 (1,342 wells) 1,000 (1,582 wells) 82.8 35.2 (to 1,000 feet) 163 2007 1,066 4,000 Prescott 485 Santa Cruz 716 Highland Basin Fill and Igneous and Metamorphic Rock 644 (137 wells) 763 (78 wells) 7 3 (to 1,000 feet) 93 2009 103 Recent Stream Alluvium and Basin Fill 628 (97 wells) 800 (115 wells) 61.1 0.16 52 2005 186 Recent Stream Alluvium and Basin Fill (Fort Lowell Formation and Tinaja Beds) 630 (879 wells) 520 (1,063 wells) 60.8 61 to 70 137 2005 1,065 Central Tucson 3,866 Notes: NA = Not Available 1 See Table 1-3 for generalized hydrogeologic characteristics of basin categories and response to well development. 2 Primarily from ADWR (1994b). See 'Groundwater Hydrology' section in overview of Atlas Volumes 2 through 8 for additional information and sources on major aquifers. 3 Measured well yields from ADWR's GWSI and reported well yields from Wells55 for large (>10-inch) diameter registered wells. 4 See basin groundwater data tables in Atlas Volumes 2 through 8 for recharge and storage estimate data sources. Data sources for AMA storage estimates described in overview of Atlas Volume 8 (Section 8.0.2). 5 Current as of 2008. 6 In 2007, water levels in 338 wells were measured in a sweep of the San Simon Valley Sub-basin of the Safford Basin. 7 Storage estimates do not include Carefree, Fountain Hills, Lake Pleasant and Rainbow Valley sub-basins. 8 Storage estimates do not include Aguirre Valley and Santa Rosa sub-basins. Section 1.4 Water Resource Characteristics Summary 13 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 14 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 The planning area volumes contain a groundwater hydrology summary in the overview section and water level and well yield maps and water level hydrographs for each groundwater basin in the planning area. Eastern Plateau A signiicant portion of the Eastern Plateau Planning Area is underlain by Mesozoic to Paleozoic sedimentary and volcanic rocks that form the area’s regional aquifers (Figure 1-3). The sedimentary rocks include sequences of sandstones and limestones generally separated by low permeability shales and siltstones. The three largest regional aquifers are the C-, D-, and N-aquifers but several local aquifers are also important water sources. Figure 1-5 shows a generalized cross-section of most of the planning area’s water-bearing formations. Major ground- water recharge areas are located along the planning area’s southern and eastern boundary. Discharge from the regional aquifers is primarily to springs and baselow to streams. Groundwater in storage for the Little Colorado River Plateau basin aquifers is estimated to exceed 500 million acre-feet (maf) (ADWR, 1990). Southeastern Arizona The Southeastern Arizona Planning Area is generally characterized by alluvial basins with relatively large reserves of groundwater in gently sloping valleys separated by mountain ranges (Figure 1-6). The principal water-bearing deposits in the southeast basins consist of moderately thick sediments which were deposited prior to, and during the formation of the Basin and Range province. Basin-ill sediments include ine-grained clays and silts to coarser-grained Figure 1-5 Generalized Cross-section of Water Bearing Formations in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALE MAJOR AQUIFERS GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS ALLUVIUM 8000 7000 Water-bearing in places Volcanic rock Volcanic rock BIDAHOCHI FORMATION TERTIARY Includes zones of non-water-bearing shaly siltstone MESA VERDE GROUP QUATERNARY AND TERTIARY Water-bearing ELEVATION IN FEET ABOVE DATUM CRETACEOUS Black, shaly siltstone and gypsum MANCOS SHALE 6000 DAKOTA SANDSTONE MORRISON FORMATION 5000 Non-water bearing DAKOTA/COW SPRINGS AQUIFER (D-Aquifer) COW SPRINGS SANDSTONE ENTRADA SANDSTONE CARMEL FORMATION JURASSIC 4000 NAVAJO SANDSTONE NAVAJO/LUKACHUKAI AQUIFER (N-Aquifer) KAYENTA FORMATION Luckachukai Member 3000 WINGATE SANDSTONE Rock Point Member CHINLE FORMATION 2000 Reddish-brown shaly siltstone Varicolored shaly siltstone, mudstone and claystone TRIASSIC SHINARUMP CONGLOMERATE MOENKOPI FORMATION KAIBAB LIMESTONE 1000 Reddish siltstone and gypsum COCONINO-DE CHELLY AQUIFER (C-Aquifer) COCONINO SANDSTONE PERMIAN SUPAI FORMATION Red siltstone, mudstone, fine sandstone and gypsum 0 Source: ADWR, 1989 15 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Figure 1-6 Generalized Geologic Cross-Section for the Basin and Range Province Stream alluvium Fault Fault Gravel Pre development water table Upper Basin Fill Fault Consolidated rocks Fault Middle Basin Fill Consolidated rocks Lower Basin Fill Pre-Basin and Range sediments Not to scale Source: Based on FIgureADWR, 3 in the ADWR1993 Salt River Valley Modeling Report (#6), 1993 sand and gravels. The major groundwater inlow components are mountain front recharge and stream iniltration and potentially underlow from adjacent basins. Groundwater outlow consists of evapotranspiration, pumpage, discharge to streams as baselow and underlow to basins, including into Mexico. Estimates of the total groundwater in storage for the 14 groundwater basins that comprise the planning area range from about 150 to 250 maf. Upper Colorado River The Upper Colorado River Planning Area is characterized by semi-arid to arid alluvial basins with few perennial streams. As shown in Figure 1-3, there are extensive outcrops of sedimentary and volcanic rocks of varying ages throughout the planning area. Large areas of basin ill covered by alluvial and suricial deposits are found in the western part of the planning area, primarily in the west basins. Most basins are categorized as West or Colorado River basins (Table 1-4). Groundwater inlow from streambed iniltration during runoff events, and outlow to spring discharge and pumpage, is relatively small in the west basins of the planning area. In the Colorado River basins, groundwater inlow is from iniltration of Colorado River water and Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary outlow is primarily from pumpage and evapotranspiration. Estimates of the total groundwater in storage for the nine groundwater basins that comprise the planning area range from about 30 to 100 maf. Central Highlands The Central Highlands Planning Area is characterized by a band of mountains consisting of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks (Figure 1-3). High elevations, steep topography, relatively high runoff and small water storage capabilities are unique to this planning area as compared to the alluvial basins located in the southern part of the State. Numerous springs occur where permeable water-bearing formations overlie lower permeability formations or bedrock (Figure 1-7). Alluvial and suricial deposits are relatively limited, occurring primarily in the western part of the planning area and along parts of the Verde and Salt river drainages. Groundwater inlow is from streambed iniltration, underlow and mountain front recharge. Outlow is primarily evapotranspiration, spring discharge and baselow. Estimates of the total groundwater in storage for the ive planning area basins range from about 25 to 50 maf. 16 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Western Plateau The Western Plateau Planning Area is characterized by relatively lat-lying, alternating sequences of sandstones, limestones and shales. As shown in Figure 1-3, Mesozoic to Paleozoic sedimentary and volcanic rocks cover most of the planning area. Faults and folds in these rocks affect groundwater movement along a regional gradient. The westernmost basins contain basin-ill sediments that consist of silt, sand and gravel. Groundwater data for the planning area is limited due to its relatively small population and associated lack of water development. Groundwater inlow is generally from mountain front recharge and baselow and outlow is to spring discharge. Estimates of groundwater in storage for three of the six groundwater basins that comprise the Western Plateau Planning Area total about 6 maf. shown in Figure 1-3, much of the basin is covered by Quaternary suricial deposits and Holocene to Tertiary alluvial deposits. The basin ill can have very productive water-bearing units. With the exception of iniltration of Colorado River water, and stream iniltration along the Gila River drainage, groundwater inlow is minimal due to the aridity of the area. Groundwater outlow is primarily due to well pumpage and evapotranspiration. Estimates of the total groundwater in storage for the nine groundwater basins that comprise the planning area range from about 200 to 520 maf. Active Management Areas With the exception of the Prescott AMA, a large portion of the AMA Planning Area is located in the Basin and Range physiographic province. Basin-ill deposits are the principal water-bearing sediments in these basins. The basins are characterized by relatively small to moderate amounts of mountainLower Colorado River The groundwater basins of the Lower Colorado front recharge and streamlow iniltration while unRiver Planning Area contain alluvial valleys with derlow in and out of the basins can be signiicant. signiicant volumes of groundwater in storage. As Groundwater pumping is a large outlow component. The aquifer system of Figure 1-7 Generalized Hydrologic Cross-Section from the the Prescott AMA is comMogollon Rim to the Town of Payson posed of basin-ill deposits (Source: Parker and Flynn, 2000) that include thick sequences of productive volcanic rocks. Natural recharge occurs via surrounding consolidated rock and from streamlow iniltration. The estimated groundwater in storage for the entire planning area (which does not include estimates for six sub-basins) ranges from 180 to 189 maf. Water levels in wells, and changes in water levels over time, can vary substantially in the basins depending on well location and local hydrogeologic conditions. Detailed water level data for each basin are presented in the planning area volumes. 17 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 18 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Streamlow data for major Arizona streams are listed in Table 1-5 and associated gage locations are mapped in Figure 1-11 along with the location of major (>20,000 acre-feet) reservoirs. The general location of intermittent and perennial streams and major springs (>10 gallon per minute [gpm] discharge rate) across Arizona are shown on Figure 1-12. More precise locations and data for these surface water features are included in planning area volumes of the Atlas. Areas of signiicant groundwater level decline exist in the AMAs and within agricultural areas of the Southeastern Arizona Planning Areas. Depths to groundwater data across the state are displayed in Figure 1-8. As shown, water levels can be quite deep in the sedimentary rocks of the eastern plateau and relatively shallow along watercourses that drain the basins. Groundwater level changes across the state over an approximately ten-year period are shown on Figure 1-9. Signiicant groundwater level rises in some parts of the AMA Planning Area are primarily due to use of CAP water instead of groundwater and cessation of agricultural pumping. However, areas of signiicant groundwater level decline also exist in the AMAs and within agricultural areas of the Lower Colorado River and Southeastern Arizona planning areas. Surface Water Hydrology The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) divides the United States into successively smaller hydrologic units based on surface hydrologic features. A 6-digit code corresponds to accounting units, which are used by the USGS for designing and managing the National Water Data Network. Figure 1-10 shows watersheds in Arizona at the accounting unit level as well as the location large reservoirs (>500 af or >50-acre surface area) and USGS streamlow gages. All or parts of 18 accounting unit watersheds are found in Arizona. Detailed information on these and other surface water features are found in the planning area volumes. 19 Eastern Plateau Planning Area Portions of ive watersheds occur in this planning area. The largest are the Little Colorado River Watershed, which occupies the southern two-thirds of the planning area, and the Lower San Juan River Watershed drained primarily by Chinle Creek, which lows north to the San Juan River, a tributary to the Colorado River. The Little Colorado River was formerly perennial throughout its length but is now intermittent in many reaches. A number of perennial and intermittent streams occur at higher elevations in the Little Colorado River Watershed (Figure 1-12). Upper Little Colorado River, Eastern Plateau Planning Area. The Little Colorado River was formerly perennial throughout its length but is now intermittent in much of the middle and lower reaches. Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 20 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 21 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 22 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 23 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Table 1-5 Flow characteristics of major Arizona streamsa USGS STATION AVERAGE SEASONAL FLOW (% of annual flow)d LOCATION STREAM PERIOD OF RECORD No. Name Drainage Area (in mi2) Map Keyb Basin Planning Area Winter 10/1921-current (real time) 16 Spring 44 Summer 24 ANNUAL FLOW/YEAR (in acre-feet)e Fall Colorado River 9380000 at Lees Ferry 111,800 1 Little Colorado River Plateau Eastern Plateau 16 Colorado River 9421500 below Hoover Dam 171,700 2 Lake Mohave Upper Colorado River 4/1934-current (real time) 24 29 26 21 Colorado River 9521000 at Yuma 242,900 3 Yuma Lower Colorado River 1/1904-11/1983 (discontinued) 17 44 25 14 Colorado River 9427520 below Parker Dam 182,700 4 Parker Lower Colorado River 11/1934-current (real time) 23 28 28 20 Salt River 9502000 below Stewart Mountain Dam 6,232 5 Phoenix AMA Active Management Areas 10/1934-current (real time) 24 33 34 9 Salt River 9498500 near Roosevelt 4,306 6 Salt River Central Highlands 1/1913-current (real time) 41 31 13 15 Verde River 9511300 near Scottsdale 6,615 7 Phoenix AMA Active Management Areas 3/1961-current (real time) 45 22 15 18 Verde River 9508500 below Tangle Creek above Horseshoe Dam 5,858 8 Verde River Central Highlands 8/1945-current (real time) 51 17 11 20 Gila River 9474000 at Kelvin 18,011 9 Lower San Pedro Southeastern Arizona 1/1911-current (real time) 31 23 32 14 Gila River 9448500 at head of Safford Valley near Solomon 7,896 10 Safford Southeastern Arizona 10/1920-current (real time) 41 18 20 22 Verde River 9506000 near Camp Verde 5,009 11 Verde River Central Highlands 4/1934-current (real time) 59 17 11 14 Black River 9490500 near Fort Apache 1,232 12 Salt River Central Highlands 11/1912-current (real time) 42 35 9 15 Virgin River 9415000 at Littlefield 5,090 13 Virgin Western Plateau 10/1929-current (real time) 32 33 15 20 Little Colorado River 9402000 near Cameron 26,459 14 Coconino Plateau Western Plateau 6/1947-current (real time) 34 26 27 14 San Francisco River 9444500 at Clifton 2,766 15 Morenci Southeastern Arizona 10/1910-current (real time) 41 20 16 22 White River 9494000 near Fort Apache 632 16 Salt River Central Highlands 10/1917-current (real time) 28 48 12 12 Tonto Creek 9499000 above Gun Creek near Roosevelt 675 17 Tonto Creek Central Highlands 12/1940-current (real time) 61 12 8 19 Bill Williams River 9426000 below Alamo Dam 4,633 18 Bill Williams Upper Colorado River 10/1939-current (real time) 54 16 16 14 Clear Creek 9399000 near Winslow 621 19 Little Colorado River Plateau Eastern Plateau 6/1906-9/2007 (discontinued) 39 49 2 9 Big Sandy River 9424450 near Wikieup 2,742 20 Bill Williams Upper Colorado River 3/1966-current (real time) 80 5 4 10 Agua Fria River 9512800 near Rock Springs 1,111 21 Agua Fria Central Highlands 1/1970-current (real time) 75 7 7 11 Blue River 9444200 near Clifton 506 22 Morenci Southeastern Arizona 11/1967-current (real time) 39 22 14 25 Big Bonito Creek 9489700 near Fort Apache 119 23 Salt River Central Highlands 10/1957-9/1981 (discontinued) 29 49 11 12 Eagle Creek 9447000 above pumping plant near Morenci 622 24 Morenci Southeastern Arizona 4/1944-current (real time) 49 14 15 22 East Verde River 9507980 near Childs 331 25 Verde River Central Highlands 9/1961-current (real time) 59 16 10 15 West Clear Creek 9505800 near Camp Verde 241 26 Verde River Central Highlands 12/1964-current (real time) 54 20 8 18 Gila River 9479500 near Laveen 20,615 27 Pinal AMA Active Management Areas 1/1940-9/1994 (discontinued) 67 6 13 15 San Carlos River 9468500 near Peridot 1,026 28 Safford Southeastern Arizona 4/1914-current (real time) 61 5 13 21 Santa Cruz River 9486500 at Cortaro 3,503 29 Tucson AMA Active Management Areas 10/1939-current (real time) 27 10 39 24 Santa Maria River 9424900 near Bagdad 1,129 30 Bill Williams Upper Colorado River 4/1966-current (real time) 74 6 5 15 Chevelon Creek 9398000 near Winslow 785 31 Little Colorado River Plateau Eastern Plateau 1/1906-12/2006 (discontinued) 49 33 6 11 San Pedro River 9471000 at Charleston 1,234 32 Upper San Pedro Southeastern Arizona 3/1904-current (real time) 14 5 65 16 Little Colorado River 9394500 at Woodruff 8,072 33 Little Colorado River Plateau Eastern Plateau 3/1905-current (real time) 27 12 46 15 Carrizo Creek 9496500 near Show Low 439 34 Salt River Central Highlands 6/1951-current (real time) 28 49 10 13 North Fork White River 9491000 near McNary 78 35 Salt River Central Highlands 6/1945-9/1985 (discontinued) 15 57 16 13 Cibecue Creek 9497800 near Chrysotile 295 36 Salt River Central Highlands 5/1959-current (real time) 45 17 18 21 Dry Beaver Creek 9505350 near Rimrock 142 37 Verde River Central Highlands 10/1960-current (real time) 61 21 3 15 San Pedro River 9472000 near Redington 2,927 38 Lower San Pedro Southeastern Arizona 6/1943-9/1995 (discontinued) 19 2 64 16 Minimum 1,383,521 (1963) 5,919,516 (1934) 682,711 (1961) 5,534,256 (1993) 114,962 (2003) 152,798 (2002) 96,980 (2002) 131,073 (2002) 56,398 (1961) 48,953 (1956) 99,934 (2002) 45,188 (2002) 73,140 (1977) 10,215 (2000) 30,415 (1951) 27,446 (2002) 2,853 (2002) 1,275 (1975) 3,852 (1967) 2,448 (2002) 1,528 (1975) 9,487 (2002) 13,828 (1961) 12,311 (1953) 1,499 (2002) 11,152 (2002) 0 (1969) 4,070 (2002) 1,706 (1956) 0 (1996, 2002) 10,715 (1956) 6,778 (2002) 5,524 (2000) 3,758 (1956) 12,673 (1951) 10,066 (1961) 253 (1996) 297 (1997) Median 9,375,509 9,183,655 9,628,539 7,229,140 585,878 518,499 298,074 294,733 324,351 273,008 222,679 233,904 141,935 138,315 91,606 149,177 66,297 33,963 46,697 27,011 19,692 38,091 41,267 34,398 34,036 34,542 9,420 28,677 38,655 15,063 32,651 33,203 26,860 22,232 32,442 23,535 21,978 21,399 Mean Maximum 20,322,048 10,885,307 (1984) 21,350,096 10,109,870 (1984) 25,969,073 10,090,123 (1909) 20,409,560 8,918,956 (1984) 3,276,254 711,279 (1993) 2,422,315 644,942 (1916) 1,794,415 454,965 (1993) 1,583,014 409,875 (1993) 2,375,969 370,675 (1993) 1,559,116 337,069 (1993) 990,650 299,621 (1993) 818,301 280,932 (1993) 506,912 174,502 (1983) 816,449 162,519 (1973) 678,755 146,532 (1915) 345,424 144,517 (1993) 469,256 113,232 (1978) 701,711 82,317 (1993) 183,890 60,719 (1978) 421,461 58,901 (1993) 360,541 57,664 (1992) 176,695 50,373 (1983) 102,805 49,530 (1979) 405,530 48,850 (1993) 208,558 46,674 (1993) 133,245 45,858 (1993) 1,189,109 45,227 (1993) 296,181 43,480 (1993) 182,136 41,897 (1993) 168,005 40,551 (1980) 99,909 38,756 (1952) 152,798 38,636 (1914) 165,791 35,839 (1919) 124,556 35,030 (1993) 73,140 34,855 (1983) 128,176 32,597 (1993) 105,727 31,271 (1978) 131,073 31,033 (1955) YEARS OF ANNUAL FLOW RECORD 83 70 60 61 65 89 44 57 93 77 24 45 72 55 79 45 62 63 51 36 31 30 23 58 38 38 52 73 53 32 44 84 74 41 31 43 42 50 Sources: USGS 2008a & 2005b Notes: Streams considered major if calculated median or mean annual flows exceed 20,000 and 30,000 acre-feet, respectively. Representative stations, listed in order of largest mean flows. See Figure 1-11. Other stations exist on some streams, but are not included here. c Period of record current as of November 2008; all other data retrieved from USGS in 2005 or 2007 (AMAs only). d Seasonal flows based on average monthly values and may not sum to 100% due to rounding. e Annual flows are for calendar years and only listed if stations have at least 20 complete years of record. a b Section 1.4 Water Resource Characteristics Summary 24 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resource Characteristics Summary 25 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Lake Powell, Eastern Plateau Planning Area. Recent storage volumes in Lake Powell are much below average due to drought and continued releases of water for downstream storage and use. The Colorado River forms the extreme northwestern boundary of the planning area with a mean low of 10.9 maf measured at a gage at Lees Ferry below Glen Canyon Dam (Table 1-5, Figure 1-11). Changes in reservoir storage in Lake Powell, much of which is located in Utah, are shown on Figure 1-13. As shown, recent storage volumes are much below average due to drought and continued releases of water for downstream storage and use. Ninety-three other large reservoirs are located in the planning area. of the Middle Gila and Upper Gila watersheds. Reservoir releases maintain an average of about 260,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) of low in the Gila River below the dam. Portions of the San Pedro River and other watercourses are perennial (Figure 1-12). The Rio de Bavispe Watershed in the southeast part of the planning area drains south into Mexico. A portion of the Santa Cruz Watershed including the headwaters of the Santa Cruz River is found in the southwest corner of the planning area. The Santa Cruz River lows southward into Mexico before turning north and reentering the U.S. east of Nogales, Arizona in the Santa Cruz AMA. There are 21 active streamgages in the planning area; the highest mean low, 370,675 AFA, was measured at a gage on the Gila River at Kelvin, located below the conluence with the San Pedro River (Table 1-5). Storage volumes in San Carlos Reservoir are shown in Figure 1-13 and indicate wide luctuations during the 1980-2008 time period. There are 21 other large reservoirs in the planning area, with 12 located in the Safford Basin. The largest of the 69 major springs in the planning area is Warm Springs, located at the headSeventy-seven major springs have been iden- waters of the San Carlos River, with a measured tiied in the planning area, primarily clustered discharge of almost 3,400 gpm. A number of near Tuba City, in the vicinity of Pinetop-Lakeside and in the Saint Johns-Concho area. The largest is Silver Spring northeast of Show Low with a measured discharge of over 3,600 gpm. Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Portions of ive watersheds are found in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. Major drainages are the Gila River and its major tributary in the planning area, the San Pedro River. The Gila River is perennial from the New Mexico border to the Safford Valley but becomes intermittent east of Safford due to irrigation diversions and seasonal low variations. Gila Gila River, Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. River lows are impounded in San Carlos Res- The Gila River is perennial from the New Mexico ervoir behind Coolidge Dam at the boundary border to the Safford Valley. Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 26 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Figure 1-13 May 1st Reservoir Storage on the Colorado, Gila and Salt/Verde Rivers on May 1st, 1980-2008 Salt/Verde Rivers (combined storage in Roosevelt, Apache, Canyon and Saguaro Lakes and Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoirs) Colorado River 26,000 2,200 24,000 22,000 2,000 20,000 1,800 1,600 16,000 1,000 acre-feet 1,000 acre-feet 18,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 1,400 1,200 1,000 8,000 800 6,000 600 4,000 400 2,000 200 2008 Year Salt/Verde Storage 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 Lake Powell Storage Lake Powell Average 1984 Year 1982 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 0 1980 Lake Mead Storage Lake Mead Average 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 0 Salt/Verde Average Gila River (San Carlos Reservoir) 1,200 1,000 1,000 acre-feet 800 600 400 200 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 0 1980 Data sources: BOR 2010a, SRP 2008 and Gila Commisioner (various dates) Year Gila River Storage 27 Gila River Average Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 leases from dams. Other than these controlled releases, the largest mean annual low (over 82,000 acre-feet) in the planning area was recorded at a gage on the Bill Williams River located below Alamo Dam (Table 1-5). There are 61 major springs in the planning area including several located below Hoover Dam and others in the vicinity of Kingman. The largest is Spencer, located in north-central Peach Springs Basin with a measured discharge of 1,730 gpm. Bill Williams River, Upper Colorado River Planning Area. With the exception of the Bill Williams River, the major tributaries to the Colorado River in the planning area are ephemeral and contribute little to its low. Central Highlands Planning Area Included in the Central Highlands Planning Area are portions of three watersheds: the Agua large springs also occur downstream of the Fria-Lower Gila River, Salt and Verde. The Salt and Verde watersheds are the major water proTown of Pima near the Gila River. ducing watersheds in the state. The Agua FriaLower Gila River Watershed is drained by the Upper Colorado River Planning Area The Bill Williams Watershed as well as por- Agua Fria and Hassayampa rivers, neither of tions of four others occur in the Upper Colo- which are perennial throughout their lengths. rado River Planning Area. With the exception of the Bill Williams River, the major tributaries to the Colorado River in the planning area are ephemeral and contribute little to its low. Lake Mead, created by Hoover Dam, and the reservoirs impounded by Parker and Davis dams further downstream, store large volumes of Colorado River water for downstream users (Figure 1-11). There are six other large reservoirs in the planning area. Historic storage volumes in Lake Mead are shown in Figure 1-13. The Bill Williams Watershed is drained by the Bill Williams River and its major tributaries, the Big Sandy and Santa Maria rivers and by Burro Creek. A number of perennial and intermittent streams exist in the watershed (Figure 1-12). Construction of Alamo Dam on the Bill Williams River in 1968 signiicantly impacted streamlow below the dam, which historically had produced some of the largest loods in Arizona history (Webb and others, 2007). Mean annual streamlow at gages along the Colorado River exceed 10 maf and are controlled by re- Oak Creek, Central Highlands Planning Area Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 28 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 The Salt River Watershed is drained by the Salt River and its many tributaries including Tonto Creek. The Salt River originates in the high elevations of the White Mountains and is perennial throughout the planning area. There are numerous perennial streams particularly in the high elevation eastern portion of the Watershed including the Black and White rivers (Figure 1-12). The Salt River is impounded behind four dams in its lower reaches – Roosevelt, Horse Mesa, Mormon Flat and Stewart Mountain, which provide water supply storage and lood Virgin River, Western Plateau Planning Area. Average annual low on the Virgin River measured at the control for the Phoenix metropolitan area. Littleield gage is about 174,500 AFA. The Verde River Watershed is drained by the Verde River, which is perennial throughout its length. Almost all the major perennial tributaries to the Verde River drain areas to its north and east and include Oak Creek, West Clear Creek, and the East Verde River. The Verde River is impounded in its lower reach behind Bartlett and Horseshoe dams, which store water for use in the Phoenix area. Changes in the combined storage volume of the Salt and Verde reservoirs are shown in Figure 1-13, which illustrate the effects of prolonged drought from the late-1990s through the mid-2000s. There are another 19 large reservoirs in the planning area including Lake Pleasant, which stores primarily CAP water for use in the CAP service area of Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties (Appendix C). Over ten streamlow gages in the planning area report annual mean lows in excess of 30,000 acre-feet (Table 1-5). The largest low in the planning area was measured on the Salt River near Roosevelt with an average mean low of over 644,900 acre-feet. There are 143 major springs in the planning area (Figure 1-12), primarily located along upper and lower Oak Creek, south of Camp Verde, below the Mogollon Rim north of Payson and near McNary. The highest measured discharge rate is 21,647 gpm at Fossil Creek Springs in the Tonto Creek Basin. 29 Western Plateau Planning Area Portions of three watersheds occur in this planning area: Upper Colorado River-Lake Powell; Little Colorado River; and Lower Colorado River, Lees Ferry to Lake Mead. The Colorado and Little Colorado rivers are the major drainages in the area. Perennial streams include the Colorado River, Virgin River, a 13-mile stretch of the Little Colorado River below Blue Springs, the Paria River, and Havasu and Diamond creeks. Flow in the Colorado River downstream from Lake Powell is controlled by releases from Glen Canyon Dam, which has signiicantly impacted low volumes and historic seasonal variations in low. Prior to construction of Glen Canyon Dam, low in the Colorado was highly unpredictable with wide year-to-year variability and spring looding. This is relected in seasonal low records at the gage at Lees Ferry (Table 1-5). Average annual low on the Virgin River measured at the Littleield gage is about 174,500 AFA, and about 162,500 AFA on the Little Colorado River near Cameron (Table 1-5). In addition to Lake Powell and the easternmost part of Lake Mead, there are 16 large reservoirs, most located in the Coconino Plateau Basin. Seventy-eight major springs have been identiied in the planning area. The largest by far is the Blue Springs area with an estimated discharge of over 101,000 gpm. A number of major Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 reservoirs in the planning area. Dam construction and diversions, including major diversions from Imperial Dam to California and Arizona, have fundamentally altered the character and the volume of low in the Colorado River. The United States is obligated by treaty to allow 1.5 maf of water to low annually to Mexico from the Colorado River (Appendix D). Average seasonal and annual lows at two Colorado River gages in the planning area are listed Colorado River, Lower Colorado River Planning in Table 1-5. Mean annual low at the Yuma gage Area is over 10 maf. Major and minor (1-10 gpm) springs issue from limestones and sandstones springs only occur in the Rio Sonoyta Waterin the vicinity of the Colorado River includ- shed in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin. ing Havasu Springs (28,500 gpm) and Tapeats The only major spring, Quitobaquito Springs, Spring (18,700 gpm). Estimated discharge from has a combined discharge of 28 gpm. the Littleield Springs along the Virgin River is 8,980 to 22,400 gpm. A group of major springs Active Management Area Planning Area with discharge rates between 11 and 90 gpm are The AMA planning area encompasses portions also found in the north-central part of the Kanab of six watersheds. From north to south they are: Plateau Basin. the Verde River, the Agua Fria River-Lower Gila River, the Salt River, the Middle Gila River, the Lower Colorado River Planning Area Santa Cruz River and the Rio Asuncion. The entire Lower Gila River below Painted Rock Dam Watershed and the Rio Sonoyta The Verde River Watershed is drained by the Watershed (in the U.S.) and portions of the Verde River, which is perennial and joins the Lower Colorado River below Lake Mead and Salt River below Stewart Mountain Dam. The Agua Fria River-Lower Gila River watersheds Agua Fria River-Lower Gila River is drained by are found in the planning area. Major surface the largely ephemeral Agua Fria River and Haswater drainages are the Colorado River, Gila sayampa rivers and the Gila River. The Agua River, San Cristobal Wash, Centennial Wash and San Simon Wash, which lows south to the Rio Sonoyta in Mexico. The area is extremely arid and the Colorado River is the only perennial stream. Drainages to the Colorado River are ephemeral and contribute little to low with the exception of the Gila River during lood events. This section of the Gila River lows only in response to precipitation events, irrigation return low or releases from upstream dams. In the planning area it is impounded behind Painted Rock Dam, primarily a lood control structure that is normally dry. Dams on the Colorado River in the planning area include Imperial, La- Salt River, AMA Planning Area. guna and Morelos. In total, there are 15 large Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 30 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Fria River is impounded by New Waddell Dam at the northern boundary of the Phoenix AMA and only lows below the dam when water is released during major lood events. The Gila River enters the Pinal AMA, lows through the Middle Gila Watershed and becomes part of the Agua Fria River – Lower Gila River Watershed below its conluence with the Salt River. The Gila River is now primarily ephemeral due to upstream diversions except the reach downstream of the conluence of the Salt River where discharge from the City of Phoenix 23rd and 91st Avenue wastewater treatment plants and return low from agricultural areas maintains perennial low in both the Gila and Salt rivers. Upstream of the treatment plants, the Salt River, which drains the Salt River Watershed, is ephemeral below Granite Reef Diversion Dam. A large portion of the AMA Planning Area falls within the Santa Cruz River Watershed, drained by the Santa Cruz River, which lows north from Mexico to the Gila River. It is largely ephemeral with two segments of perennial low due to wastewater discharges. A small part of the Rio Asuncion Watershed is located along the international border. This watershed drains southwest to the Sea of Cortez and contains a perennial stream, Sycamore Creek. AMA Planning Area, Granite Reef Diversion Dam. The Salt River is ephemeral below Granite Reef Diversion Dam. largest spring is Del Rio Spring in the northern part of the Prescott AMA with a discharge of 874 gpm. 1.4.3 Climate Climate is a critical factor in water resource planning and management. A more detailed discussion of Arizona’s climate is found in Appendix E. Arizona’s climate can be characterized by ive features: warm temperatures, aridity, and strong seasonality, year-to-year (interannual) variability and decade-to-decade persistence in precipitation. Elevational differences result in signiicant climate variability across the state. In addition to the perennial streams mentioned State precipitation variability and the location previously, non-efluent dependent perennial of meteorological stations are shown in Figure reaches in the planning area include: Seven 1-14. Data for these stations and precipitation Springs Wash and Camp, Cave, Sycamore, maps are presented in Volumes 2-8 for each baQueen and Arnett creeks in the Phoenix AMA; sin. Sabino, Romero, Cienega and Rincon creeks in the east central part of the Tucson AMA; and Precipitation in Arizona is characterized by Sonoita Creek in the Santa Cruz AMA. Season- two distinct precipitation seasons: the summer al and annual lows at gages on the Salt, Verde, “monsoon” season, generally from July to midGila and Santa Cruz rivers are listed in Table September and a winter season from November 1-5. Of these, the largest mean low was mea- through mid-April (Figure 1-15). Winter presured on the Salt River below Stewart Mountain cipitation is more hydrologically effective than Dam at almost 711,300 AFA. There are a total summer precipitation because it is more wideof 16 large reservoirs in the planning area. Rela- spread, is generally of low intensity and long tively few major springs (13) have been identi- duration, coincides with cooler temperatures ied with most located in the Tucson AMA. The and lower evaporation rates and, when stored as 31 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 32 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 33 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resource Characteristics Summary Figure 1-15 Average Monthly Precipitation and Temperature by Planning Area, 1971-2000 Temperature Precipitation Lower Colorado Eastern Plateau 80 4 1.0 95 3.5 90 0.8 1.5 80 0.6 75 70 0.4 Temperature (˚F) 60 2 Precipitation (in.) 2.5 Temperature (˚F) Precipitation (in.) 85 70 3 65 50 1 60 0.2 0.5 55 0 40 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 50 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Central Highlands Southeastern Arizona 80 2.5 3 85 80 2.5 70 2 75 70 65 1.5 60 1 55 50 40 0.5 Temperature (˚F) Precipitation (in.) 50 1 Temperature (˚F) Precipitation (in.) 2 60 1.5 0.5 45 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 30 Dec 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr Upper Colorado May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 40 Dec Western Plateau 3 80 3.0 80 75 75 2.5 2.5 70 70 60 55 1 60 1.5 55 50 1.0 50 45 0.5 0.5 45 40 0.0 40 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 35 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Active Management Areas 100 5.0 90 4.5 80 4.0 3.5 60 Precipitation (in.) Temperature (°F) 70 50 40 30 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 20 1.0 10 0.5 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Time (month) Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Time (month) 34 Source: WRCC 2008 Non-AMA figures by CLIMAS Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Temperature (˚F) 1.5 Precipitation (in.) 65 Temperature (˚F) Precipitation (in.) 65 2.0 2 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 cipitation reconstructed from tree-ring records show dry episodes longer and more severe than any that have occurred during the last 100 years. Notable multi-year droughts occurred in almost every century over the last 1,000 years (Figure Arizona’s precipitation is also characterized by 1-16). a high degree of year-to-year variation. The strongest inluence on interannual climate and Temperature and associated evapotranspiration weather variations in Arizona is the El Niño- rates also vary widely across Arizona. Average Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a multi-season to daily temperatures range from the mid 90’s (˚F) multi-year variation in equatorial Paciic Ocean below 500 feet elevation to the high 50’s at eltemperatures and associated atmospheric cir- evations above 8,000 feet. A signiicant feature culation. Decadal-scale Paciic Ocean circula- of Arizona temperature records since 1930 is the tion persistence can result in long-term drought, trend toward increasing temperatures during the which can signiicantly reduce water supplies last 30-40 years (Figure 1-17). In some regions, as demonstrated in the extremely dry conditions increased temperatures are due primarily to the between 1999 and 2005 and during the 1950s. urban heat island effect from heat-retaining When these sustained circulation patterns are paved areas and buildings replacing desert landcharacterized by warm tropical Paciic Ocean scapes in major urban areas. Temperatures in temperatures, the result can be above average rural communities have also increased, though precipitation such as the post-1976 wet period not at the same rate and not in every town. High which lasted until approximately 1998. Pre- temperatures typically result in higher cultural snow, is released gradually, resulting in greater iniltration. Summer rainfall is more localized, of higher intensity and short duration and subject to high evaporation rates. Figure 1-16 Arizona winter (November-April) precipitation departures from average reconstructed from tree rings (1000-1988) Data are presented as a 20-year moving average (e.g. the value for 1951 is the average of 1942-1961) to show variability on decadal time scales. Average precipitation for the period is 5.8 in. annually. Source: University of Arizona Laboratory of TreeRing Research and CLIMAS. Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 35 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Figure 1-17 Average Water-Year Temperature Figure 1-17 Average Water-Year andTemperature Total Precipitation byby and Total Precipitation Planning Area, 1930-2002 Planning Area,1930-2002 (excludes theAMAs) AMAs) (excludes the 20 63 18 51 Precipitation 12 Precipitation (in.) 52 Temperature (°F) 14 Precipitation (in.) 1930-2002 average 5-year running average Southeastern Arizona 64 16 53 Temperature (°F) Temperature Eastern Plateau 54 62 61 16 14 10 60 50 1930-2002 average 5-year running average 49 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 8 1930 2000 1940 1950 Time (year) 1960 1970 1980 1990 12 59 1930 2000 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 10 1930 2000 1940 1950 1960 Time (year) Time (year) 1970 1980 1990 2000 Time (year) Central Highlands Upper Colorado River 63 16 64 62 25 14 12 10 Precipitation (in) 62 61 Temperature (ºF) Precipitation (in) Temperature (ºF) 63 60 59 20 15 61 8 58 60 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 6 1930 2000 1940 1950 Time (year) 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 57 1930 1940 1950 Time (year) 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 10 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Time (year) Time (year) Lower Colorado River Western Plateau 61 74 59 18 58 16 56 14 8 Precipitation (in) 57 Temperature (ºF) 73 Precipitation (in.) Temperature (ºF) 60 72 12 71 55 Source: WRCC 2008 Modified from CLIMAS figures 54 1930 4 10 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Time (Year) 36 6 2000 8 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 Time (Year) 1990 2000 70 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Time (Year) Section 1.4 2 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Time (Year) Summary of Atlas Volume Sections Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 water demands and increased evaporation and evapotranspiration rates. 1.4.4 Environmental Conditions Environmental conditions relect the geography, climate and cultural activities in an area and may be a critical consideration in water resource planning, management and development. Among conditions that should be considered are biotic communities (Figure 1-18), riparian habitat and restoration activities, instream low claims, threatened and endangered species, protected areas such as parks, monuments and wil- AWPF site in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area derness areas, and unique and managed waters. Maps, tables and a discussion of environmental rivers and streams and associated riparian habiconditions speciic to each planning area are in- tat. The general location of riparian vegetation cluded in Volumes 2-8. adjacent to perennial streams and AWPF grants is shown on Figure 1-19. As of iscal year 2008, Vegetation type relects climate and geography 164 AWPF grants had been issued. A complete and has varying sensitivity to drought, disease list of the grants keyed to a map is presented and wildire as well as water demand via evapo- in Appendix F. Also shown on Figure 1-19 are transpiration. A number of areas of the state ex- instream low water right claims. An instream perienced high pinon and ponderosa pine tree low right is a non-diversionary appropriation mortality in the early 2000s due to a combina- of surface water for recreation and wildlife use. tion of severe drought, high tree densities and a As of 2008, 69 applications were pending, and subsequent bark beetle infestation. Wildire risk 37 certiicates and one permit had been issued. increases with the number of dead trees, which provide fuel. Several major wildires occurred The presence of a listed threatened and enduring the severe drought years between 2002 dangered species pursuant to the Endangered and 2005, including Arizona’s largest ire in Species Act (ESA) may be an important conrecorded history, the Rodeo-Chediski that con- sideration in water resource management in a sumed about 462,000 acres in the Central High- particular area. For example, the Roosevelt lands and Eastern Plateau planning areas. In ar- Habitat Conservation Plan was developed to eas severely burned, peak stream lows after the minimize and mitigate the impacts from operatire were substantially greater than previously ing Roosevelt Dam and Lake on several endanmeasured, in part due to reduction in rainfall in- gered species including the southwestern wililtration when surface organic matter is burned. low lycatcher. The plan includes acquisition Increased peak lows can degrade stream chan- and protection of riparian habitat along the San nels, increase sediment production and cause Pedro, Verde and Gila rivers, and other river lood damage (Neary and others, 2003). systems, and other conservation measures to protect habitat. In the Upper San Pedro Basin, A vegetation type of considerable concern in Fort Huachuca’s Biological Opinion regarding Arizona is riparian vegetation. The Arizona Wa- protection of several endangered species makes ter Protection Fund (AWPF) program provides Fort Huachuca responsible for both direct and funds for protection and restoration of Arizona’s indirect effects of its actions, including water Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 37 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 38 Section 1.4 Summary of Atlas Volume Sections Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 39 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 ments, wilderness areas, preserves and wildlife refuges exclude large scale water development within their boundaries. These areas are identiied in each planning area volume and may represent a substantial amount of land within a basin or planning area (See Table 1-2). LCR MSCP mitigation site in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has designated nineteen “unique waters” in the state that have exceptional recreational or ecological signiicance and/or provide habitat for threatened or endangered species. These include portions of Aravaipa and Bonita creeks in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area, Oak Creek in the Verde River Basin and a number of streams in the White Mountains. No degradation of a unique water is allowed under the ADEQ Surface Water Quality Standards rules. use in the community related to the Fort. The Defense Authorization Act of 2004, Public Law 108-136, Section 321, stipulates how Section 7 of the ESA applies to Fort Huachuca and directs the Secretary of the Interior to prepare reports (through the Upper San Pedro Partnership) to Congress on steps to reduce the overdraft and Other “managed” waters in Arizona include restore the sustainable yield of groundwater in Fossil Creek and a portion of the Verde River the Sierra Vista Subwatershed by 2011. in the Central Highlands Planning Area designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Flows of AriTo comply with the requirements of the ESA, zona’s major rivers (the Colorado, Salt, Verde state and federal water, power and wildlife in- and Gila rivers) are impounded behind dams terests created the Lower Colorado River Multi- and managed for electrical generation purposes Species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP). and to store water to meet downstream low obThe LCR MSCP is a cooperative, habitat con- ligations pursuant to decrees, settlements and servation program that identiies speciic mea- interstate compacts. These actions have fundasures to address the needs of 26 threatened, en- mentally altered low regimes and ecosystems dangered and other species that rely on habitat along these river systems. associated with the lower Colorado River (USDOI, 2004). The Pima County MSCP is another example of a large scale plan to comply with the “take” provisions of the ESA and is part of a larger planning effort known as the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, which covers 5.9 million acres in Pima County.2 The plan directs growth to areas with the least natural, historic, and cultural resource values as well as sets aside sensitive habitat through land acquisitions. (Pima County, 2006) Protected areas such as national parks, monuAravaipa Creek, Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. As deined in the ESA, to take means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in other conduct.” 16 U.S.C. section 1531 [18]. 2 40 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 1.4.5 Population Arizona is the nation’s second fastest growing state, growing at a rate of about 3% per year. Growth from 1970 to 2009 is shown in Figure 1-20. Arizona grew by about 1 million residents per decade between 1970 and 1990, and then grew from 3.6 million to 5.1 million inhabitants, a 40% increase, in the decade from 1990 to 2000. Although the annual growth rate has recently slowed to about 2%, by July 2009, population had increased by 1.58 million people, a 30.3% increase since the 2000 census (ADOC, 2009). Figure 1-20 Arizona Population 19702009 7 Population (millions) 6 Rapid population growth and drought conditions can have signiicant impacts on water supplies and infrastructure in some areas. Figure 1-21 and Table 1-7 identify Arizona communities with population growth greater than 2% per year between the 2000 Census and the Department of Commerce 2009 estimate.3 The highest growth rates and greatest concentration of high growth rate communities are located in the AMAs, particularly in smaller communities near larger cities. It should be noted that some high growth rates may be due in part to annexation of unincorporated land with its associated population. This is the case with the town of Marana in the Tucson AMA. Although some incorporated cities, such as Sierra Vista, did not experience more than a 3% annual growth rate, unincorporated areas adjacent to them grew rapidly. 5 4 3 2 1 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 Year Population Growth and Water Use The state has limited mechanisms to address the connection between land use, population growth and water supply. The Growing Smarter Plus Act of 2000 (Act) links growth and water management planning by requiring counties with a population greater than 125,000 (2000 Census) to include water resources planning in their comprehensive plans. These counties include Maricopa, Mohave, Pima, Pinal, Yavapai Between 2000 and 2009, Pinal County grew 98.2%, the most rapid of any county in Arizona. During that time period some rural Arizona counties – Yavapai, Mohave and Yuma, grew at rates comparable to that of Maricopa County, which contains the rapidly growing Phoenix metropolitan area (ADOC, 2009). Table 1-6 lists historic and projected planning area and groundwater basin population. While most planning areas show substantial growth, the AMA planning area growth rate continues to outpace the rest of the state with a projected 85% of the state’s population in 2030, an increase from Main Street Yuma, Lower Colorado River Planning Area. In 2005, the Arizona Legislature passed 78% in 1980. House Bill 2277, expanding water use reporting and planning statewide. 3 For some communities the estimates for 2009 show less population than previous estimates for 2006, which are presented in Atlas Volumes 2-8. These declines relect adjustments to growth rates used to generate estimates, not an actual decline in population. Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 41 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Table 1-6 Planning area and basin historic and projected population Basin 1980 1985 Little Colorado River Sub-total 175,451 175,451 192,452 192,452 Aravaipa Canyon Bonita Creek Cienega Creek Donnelly Wash Douglas Dripping Springs Wash Duncan Lower San Pedro Morenci Safford San Bernardino Valley San Rafael Upper San Pedro Willcox Sub-total 74 5 1,695 27 16,600 329 3,225 19,300 8,620 27,638 20 143 50,999 9,064 137,739 101 13 2,178 68 20,397 273 3,151 17,599 6,940 29,293 51 140 57,079 9,418 146,701 Big Sandy Bill Williams Detrital Hualapai Valley Lake Havasu Lake Mohave Meadview Peach Springs Sacramento Valley Sub-total 434 5,532 757 11,361 17,487 13,653 104 1,804 7,245 58,377 490 4,835 853 15,660 21,932 22,152 278 1,384 8,910 76,494 Agua Fria Salt River Valley Tonto Creek Upper Hassayampa Verde River Sub-total 2,839 27,318 1,934 6,050 36,049 74,190 4,076 27,995 3,275 7,056 46,269 88,671 Coconino Plateau Grand Wash Kanab Plateau Paria Shivwits Plateau Virgin River Sub-total 6,977 10 2,815 237 4 99 10,142 7,349 11 3,664 362 6 150 11,542 Butler Valley Gila Bend Harquahala Lower Gila McMullen Valley Parker Ranegras Plain San Simon Wash Tiger Wash Western Mexican Draina Yuma Sub-total 5 3,437 359 9,873 280 11,339 1,024 4,852 <10 10 73,319 104,498 8 3,262 590 9,571 853 11,634 802 5,488 <10 15 87,337 119,560 Phoenix AMA Pinal AMA Prescott AMA Santa Cruz AMA Tucson AMA Sub-total Total 1,471,074 40,956 35,641 18,728 510,609 2,077,008 2,637,405 1,855,960 52,997 44,112 20,911 573,864 2,547,844 3,183,264 1990 1995 2000 Eastern Plateau 209,454 229,649 249,545 209,454 229,649 249,545 Southeastern Arizona 129 132 135 20 21 21 2,662 3,508 4,355 109 137 165 24,193 25,207 26,220 217 196 175 3,077 3,417 3,757 15,898 15,707 15,515 5,260 5,200 5,141 30,948 36,614 42,281 83 74 66 137 142 147 63,159 70,586 78,013 9,773 11,063 12,354 172,004 188,345 155,665 Upper Colorado River 546 844 1,142 4,138 4,414 4,691 949 1,161 1,373 19,960 28,752 37,544 26,377 35,484 44,591 30,651 41,100 51,549 453 637 823 965 1,372 1,780 10,575 14,075 17,575 94,614 127,839 161,068 Central Highlands 5,313 6,762 8,210 28,671 28,864 29,057 4,615 6,295 7,975 8,062 9,270 10,479 56,489 72,899 89,309 103,150 124,090 145,030 Western Plateau 7,722 8,443 9,164 12 14 15 4,513 5,222 6,233 487 521 528 8 10 12 200 866 1,532 12,942 15,076 17,485 Lower Colorado River 10 13 15 3,087 3,672 4,256 821 715 608 9,270 10,283 11,297 1,427 2,426 3,426 11,928 14,042 16,155 581 743 905 6,124 5,980 5,837 <10 <10 <10 20 27 33 101,355 127,141 152,928 134,622 165,042 195,460 Active Management Areas 2,150,726 2,571,732 3,118,049 62,423 74,494 99,143 54,917 68,634 90,061 27,747 31,950 37,049 654,576 766,720 835,504 2,950,389 3,513,530 4,179,806 3,660,836 4,347,230 5,136,738 2005 2010 2020 2030 274,386 274,386 299,227 299,227 343,049 343,049 378,392 378,392 140 23 4,880 185 28,911 186 3,683 18,710 5,066 45,110 74 158 87,671 13,862 208,659 144 24 5,404 205 31,609 197 3,609 21,905 4,990 47,938 82 169 97,329 15,369 228,974 151 26 6,672 245 37,790 220 3,610 29,180 5,021 52,282 95 177 113,044 16,973 265,486 159 28 7,820 285 41,800 288 3,655 34,736 5,113 56,570 105 182 125,700 18,237 294,678 1,423 5,482 2,142 40,539 56,192 58,404 1,000 2,228 22,192 189,599 1,704 6,272 2,910 43,533 67,792 65,259 1,176 2,676 26,808 218,130 2,166 7,068 3,628 55,261 89,215 79,878 1,495 3,391 34,099 276,201 2,541 7,700 4,212 64,789 106,614 91,747 1,755 3,969 40,020 323,347 10,389 30,299 9,032 11,414 101,898 163,032 12,568 31,541 10,088 12,348 114,487 181,032 16,104 33,978 12,641 15,072 138,296 216,091 19,135 36,094 14,538 18,362 155,456 243,585 11,525 15 8,077 547 12 1,860 22,036 13,886 15 9,921 566 12 2,188 26,588 16,081 15 12,552 637 12 2,783 32,080 17,500 15 14,688 695 12 3,267 36,177 15 6,415 780 12,594 3,991 17,137 978 7,119 <10 38 181,600 230,664 15 8,573 951 13,890 4,555 18,119 1,050 8,400 <10 42 210,272 265,867 15 10,268 1,697 17,192 5,696 20,037 1,128 10,622 <10 51 261,091 327,797 16 15,392 2,443 20,967 6,945 21,775 1,198 13,646 <10 59 305,904 388,345 3,650,464 136,130 112,359 47,201 952,670 4,898,824 5,987,200 4,341,229 212,699 137,244 49,101 1,059,194 5,799,467 7,019,285 5,561,461 464,909 176,560 60,706 1,285,487 7,549,123 9,009,827 6,763,848 624,128 217,862 70,343 1,488,999 9,165,180 10,829,704 Source: ADWR, 2009 42 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Table 1-7 High growth communities in Arizona1` Map Key & Rank City/Town 2009 Estimated Population 2000 Census Population 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Maricopa City Sahuarita Buckeye Queen Creek El Mirage Surprise Goodyear Marana Youngtown Avondale Gilbert Eloy Casa Grande San Luis Florence Chino Valley Prescott Valley Somerton Show Low Coolidge 39,429 24,968 52,764 25,429 33,610 109,482 61,916 34,191 6,513 76,900 217,521 19,005 45,993 27,629 25,794 13,080 38,958 11,713 12,368 12,159 21 22 23 24 25 26 Dewey-Humboldt Oro Valley Peoria Kingman Thatcher Taylor 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Star Valley Cave Creek Tolleson Chandler Carefree Litchfield Park Pinetop-Lakeside Lake Havasu City Wellton Fountain Hills Saint Johns Prescott Wickenburg Payson Douglas Snowflake Flagstaff Sierra Vista Bullhead City Pima Camp Verde Cottonwood Yuma Colorado City Scottsdale Eagar Phoenix Apache Junction 1,482 3,242 8,497 4,316 7,609 30,848 18,911 13,556 3,010 35,883 109,697 10,375 25,224 15,322 14,466 7,835 23,535 7,266 7,695 7,786 3,613 29,700 108,364 20,069 4,022 3,176 1,536 3,728 4,974 176,581 2,927 3,810 3,582 41,938 1,829 20,235 3,269 33,938 5,082 13,620 14,312 4,460 52,894 37,775 33,769 1,989 9,451 9,179 77,515 3,334 202,705 4,033 1,321,045 31,814 2 3 4,499 43,521 158,712 29,189 5,819 4,526 2,169 5,208 6,923 245,087 3,958 5,122 4,758 55,502 2,363 26,107 4,208 43,573 6,451 17,242 17,758 5,528 65,522 46,597 41,609 2,442 11,603 11,190 94,361 4,033 243,501 4,814 1,575,423 37,864 Percent Change Average Annual 2000-2009 Percent Change 2561% 670% 521% 489% 342% 255% 227% 152% 116% 114% 98% 83% 82% 80% 78% 67% 66% 61% 61% 56% 285% 74% 58% 54% 38% 28% 25% 17% 13% 13% 11% 9% 9% 9% 9% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 25% 47% 46% 45% 45% 43% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 41% 40% 39% 39% 35% 34% 33% 32% 29% 29% 29% 28% 27% 27% 24% 24% 24% 23% 23% 23% 23% 22% 22% 21% 20% 19% 19% 19% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Source: ADOC, 2009 High growth = community with greater than 2% average annual population increase between 2000-2009. Average annual percent increase for Arizona during 2000-2009 was 3%. 2 Dewey-Humboldt was incorporated in 2004; population shown is 2005 estimated census population and percent change is between 2005-2009. 3 Star Valley was incorporated in 2005; 2000 census data is for the Star Valley (Sun Valley) Census Designated Place. 1 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 43 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 44 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 and Yuma. The Act also required that 53 communities include a water resources element in their general plans. Brief discussion and references to completed plans are listed in Volumes 2-8 of the Atlas. list of water plans are found in Appendices of Volumes 2-8 of the Atlas. The Assured and Adequate Water Supply programs relate growth to water supply and demand to some extent but do not control growth or the location of growth if the demonstration criteria are met. These programs are discussed in Section 1.2, in Appendix C and in each of the planning area volumes which contain maps and tables of all assured and adequate water supply determinations at the basin and planning area level. Table 1-8 summarizes water adequacy determinations, which apply outside of the AMAs. As mentioned previously, in most non-AMA areas of the state, lots may be sold without an adequacy determination, but there must be disclosure to the initial buyer if the subdivision water supply is inadequate. Many applicants request an inadequate determination because the law does not prohibit development, it simply re- In 2005, the Arizona Legislature passed House Bill 2277, (A.R.S. 45 § 331-343), which expanded water use reporting and planning statewide and now requires all community water systems4 to submit a Water System Plan that includes a Water Supply Plan, a Drought Preparedness Plan and a Water Conservation Plan. It also requires all community water systems to submit an annual report of water withdrawals, diversions and deliveries. The reports and plans are intended to reduce community water systems’ vulnerability to drought, and to promote water resource planning to ensure that water providers are prepared to respond to water shortage conditions. Annual water report information and a Table 1-8 Adequacy determinations outside of the AMAs Subdivisions Planning Area Total Eastern Plateau Southeastern Arizona Upper Colorado River Central Highlands Western Plateau Lower Colorado River Total 304 293 409 552 86 348 1,992 Number of 1 Lots 18,790 >32,258 >68,823 >40,617 5,409 >36,942 >202,839 Lots with Inadequate Determinations Number 8,687 >8,881 >23,454 >12,983 2,235 >3,218 >59,458 Approx. Percent 46% 28% 34% 32% 41% 9% 29% Percent of Lots with Inadequacy Determinations by Reason 2 Physical/Continuous Planning Area Eastern Plateau Southeastern Arizona Upper Colorado River Central Highlands Western Plateau Lower Colorado River Insufficient Data3 Insufficient Supply4 Insufficient Infrastructure5 Multiple 74.2% 42.9% 51.4% 54.9% 62.3% 61.8% 5.3% 1.0% 4.7% 6.1% 3.3% 1.8% 0.7% 7.9% 8.2% 35.5% 24.4% 18.0% 6 Physical/Continuous plus Legal & Water Legal Water Quality Quality 0.7% 2.0% 6.1% 1.9% 1.4% 4.2% 1.6% 5.5% Legal7 Water Quality 0.7% 36.7% 1.9% 0.9% 4.0% 5.1% 0.9% 5.6% 1.6% 18.2% 5.5% Legal & Water Quality Unable to locate records 0.5% 6.0% 5.1% 3.7% 1.9% 4.9% 7.3% Source: ADWR 2008e Data on number of lots are missing for some subdivisions; actual number is larger. 2 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 3 Applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data was insufficient to make determination. 4 Existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria. 5 Distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling. 6 Multiple Physical/Continuous reasons cited. 7 Applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision. 1 Community water system is deined as a public water system that serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or that regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. A.R.S. § 45-341 4 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 45 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Table 1-9 Assured water supply applications in the AMAs Assured Water Supply Phoenix AMA Pinal AMA Prescott AMA Santa Cruz AMA Tucson AMA Total Certificates (# of Subdivisions) Analyses Designations Water Adequacy Reports (# of Subdivisions) 1,118 214 104 34 230 1,700 61 19 2 6 16 104 15 5 1 2 9 32 208 16 8 32 90 354 Source: ADWR 2008e quires disclosure. The reason for an inadequacy determination may range from an actual deiciencies in one of the criteria or failure of the developer to submit required information. To distinguish between an actual inadequacy and a failure to comply, Table 1-8 includes the number of different types of inadequacy determinations. Insuficient data was the primary reason for an inadequate determination in all planning areas. Analysis of AWS is generally used to prove that water will be physically available for master planned communities but may be used to demonstrate other criteria required for a Certiicate of AWS. “Designated” water providers have demonstrated an AWS for their entire service area. Because the Adequate Water Supply program was in effect in the planning area prior to 1980, some Water Adequacy Reports issued for older developments in the AMAs exist. Figure 1-22 shows the location of` assured and adTable 1-9 lists the number of different applica- equate water supply determinations across the tions approved under the assured water supply State. Table 1-10 lists all designated water proprogram. Certiicates of AWS are issued for viders keyed to Figure 1-22. subdivisions that meet the AWS criteria. An Table 1-10 Designated water providers in Arizona as of May 2010 Map Water Provider Name Key 1 American Ranch DWID 2 Apache Junction Water Utilities Communities Facilities District 9 Arizona Water Co - Pinetop/ Lakeside Baca Float Water Company Bachmann Springs Utility Company Beaver Dam Water Company Big Park Water Company Camp Verde Water System, Inc Cerbat Water Company 10 Chaparral City Water Company 11 12 13 14 15 16 City of Avondale City of Benson City of Bullhead City City of Chandler City of Cottonwood City of Douglas 3 4 5 6 7 8 46 Planning Area Groundwater Basin County Central Highlands Verde River AMA Phoenix Eastern Plateau AMA Designation Number Type Issue Date Yavapai 40-400437.0000 Adequate 3/14/2002 Pinal 26-400989.0000 Assured 2/1/2005 40-900000.0000 Adequate 10/25/1973 26-400800.0000 Assured 11/17/2004 Little Colorado River Navajo Plateau Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Southeastern Arizona Upper San Pedro Cochise 40-401893.0000 Adequate 7/5/2006 Western Plateau Central Highlands Virgin River Verde River Mohave Yavapai 40-700494.0000 41-400325.0001 Adequate Adequate 11/10/2009 5/7/2009 Central Highlands Verde River Yavapai 40-700446.0000 Adequate 4/15/2008 Upper Colorado Hualapai Valley Mohave 40-300106.0000 Adequate 7/14/1998 AMA Phoenix Maricopa 26-401242.0000 Assured 2/11/2004 AMA Southeastern Arizona Upper Colorado AMA Central Highlands Southeastern Arizona Phoenix Upper San Pedro Lake Mohave Phoenix Verde River Douglas Maricopa Cochise Mohave Maricopa Yavapai Cochise 86-002003.0001 41-401803.0001 41-400649.0001 86-002009.0001 40-700578.0000 40-900001.0000 Assured Adequate Adequate Assured Adequate Adequate 2/4/2008 7/14/2008 2/11/2008 6/4/2009 4/27/2009 5/17/1973 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Table 1-10 Designated water providers in Arizona as of May 2010 (cont) Map Water Provider Name Key Planning Area Groundwater Basin County Phoenix Pinal 17 City of El Mirage AMA 18 City of Eloy AMA 19 City of Flagstaff Eastern Plateau 20 21 City of Glendale City of Globe AMA Central Highlands Little Colorado River Plateau Phoenix Salt River 22 City of Goodyear AMA Phoenix 23 City of Holbrook Eastern Plateau 24 25 26 City of Kingman City of Lake Havasu City City of Mesa 27 City of Nogales 28 City of Page 29 30 31 32 33 City of Peoria City of Phoenix City of Prescott City of Safford City of Scottsdale 34 City of Show Low 35 City of St. Johns 36 37 38 39 City of Surprise City of Tempe City of Tucson City of Willcox 40 City of Winslow 41 City of Yuma 42 Copper Mountain Communities Facilities District (City of Casa Grande) 43 Empirita Water Company, LLC Southeastern Arizona 44 Flowing Wells Irrigation District 45 46 Golden Valley Water Improvement District Havasu Heights Domestic Water Improvement Distr Designation Number Type Issue Date Maricopa 26-400054.0000 Assured 11/2/1999 Pinal 26-402148.0000 Assured 2/20/2007 Coconino 40-900002.0000 Adequate 5/17/1973 Maricopa Gila 26-002018.0000 40-900003.0000 Assured Adequate 9/25/1997 5/15/1973 Maricopa 26-402090.0000 Assured 1/27/2008 Navajo 40-900005.0000 Adequate 5/17/1973 Upper Colorado Upper Colorado AMA Little Colorado River Plateau Hualapai Valley Lake Havasu Phoenix Mohave Mohave Maricopa 40-900007.0000 40-900008.0000 26-002023.0000 Adequate Adequate Assured 5/17/1973 6/18/1973 9/19/1997 AMA Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 26-401358.0000 Assured 4/19/2005 Coconino 40-900009.0000 Adequate 6/15/1973 Maricopa Maricopa Yavapai Graham Maricopa 26-400679.0000 26-002030.0000 86-401501.0001 40-900011.0000 26-400619.0000 Assured Assured Assured Adequate Assured 10/17/2002 12/31/1997 12/30/2009 5/17/1973 4/25/2002 Navajo 40-300412.0000 Adequate 4/15/1999 Apache 40-900012.0000 Adequate 5/16/1973 Maricopa Maricopa Pima Cochise 26-300431.0000 26-002043.0000 26-400957.0000 40-900017.0000 Assured Assured Assured Adequate 9/7/1999 12/31/1997 6/12/2007 5/17/1973 Navajo 40-900018.0000 Adequate 5/17/1973 Yuma 40-900019.0000 Adequate 5/17/1973 Pinal Pinal 26-400728.0000 Assured 7/21/2003 Cienega Creek Cochise 41-401435.0001 Adequate 12/10/2008 AMA Tucson Pima 26-700470.0000 Assured 4/14/2009 Upper Colorado Sacramento Valley Mohave 40-900004.0000 Adequate 7/13/1995 Upper Colorado Sacramento Valley Mohave 40-700420.0000 Adequate 5/8/2008 Little Colorado River Plateau AMA Phoenix AMA Phoenix AMA Prescott Southeastern Arizona Safford AMA Phoenix Little Colorado River Eastern Plateau Plateau Little Colorado River Eastern Plateau Plateau AMA Phoenix AMA Phoenix AMA Tucson Southeastern Arizona Willcox Little Colorado River Eastern Plateau Plateau Lower Colorado Yuma Eastern Plateau AMA 47 Johnson Utilities L.L.C. Phoenix AMA Phoenix Pinal 86-400665.0001 Assured 1/2/2009 48 Johnson Utilities L.L.C. - Pinal AMA Pinal Pinal 86-401382.0001 Assured 12/1/2008 49 Joshua Valley Utility Company Upper Colorado Sacramento Valley Mohave 40-900006.0000 Adequate 7/26/1985 50 Little Park Water Company Central Highlands Verde Valley Yavapai 41-400324.0001 Adequate 5/7/2009 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 47 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Table 1-10 Designated water providers in Arizona as of May 2010 (cont) Map Water Provider Name Key Planning Area Groundwater Basin County Designation Number Type Issue Date Apache 40-700641.0000 Adequate 4/8/2010 Pima 26-401922.0000 Assured 9/25/2006 51 Livco Water Company 52 Metro Water District - West AMA Little Colorado River Plateau Tucson 53 Metropolitan Domestic Water AMA Tucson Pima 26-401062.0000 Assured 7/31/2006 54 Park Valley Water Company, Inc and Fools Hollow Eastern Plateau Little Colorado River Plateau Navajo 40-402065.0000 Adequate 10/16/2007 55 Pineview Water Company, Inc. Eastern Plateau Little Colorado River Plateau Navajo 40-402066.0000 Adequate 9/20/2007 56 Sahuarita Water Company LLC AMA Tucson Pima 86-401203.0001 Assured 1/27/2009 AMA Pinal Little Colorado River Plateau Pinal 26-402008.0000 Assured 12/27/2007 Navajo 40-401841.0000 Adequate 1/17/2006 Santa Cruz 26-700558.0000 Assured 3/30/2010 Tucson Pima Pinal Pinal Phoenix Maricopa Tucson Pima Tucson Pima Parker La Paz Parker La Paz Little Colorado River Apache Plateau Little Colorado River Navajo Plateau Upper Hassayampa Maricopa Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Tucson Pima 86-700205.0000 26-401284.0000 26-402208.0000 26-402254.0000 26-400765.0000 40-900010.0000 40-500041.0000 Assured Assured Assured Assured Assured Adequate Adequate 1/5/2009 1/25/2005 10/30/2007 5/7/2007 6/26/2003 5/17/1973 3/14/2008 40-900013.0000 Adequate 5/17/1973 40-900014.0000 Adequate 12/21/1982 40-900016.0000 26-700409.0000 26-401752.0000 Adequate Assured Assured 5/17/1973 12/10/2008 11/10/2005 57 Eastern Plateau 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Santa Cruz Water Company Snowflake Municipal Water Company Sopori Domestic Water Improvement District Spanish Trail Water Company Town of Florence Town of Gilbert Town of Marana Town of Oro Valley Town of Parker Town of Quartzsite 67 Town of Springerville Eastern Plateau 68 Town of Taylor Eastern Plateau 69 70 71 Town of Wickenburg Tubac Water Company, Inc Vail Water Company Valley Pioneers Water Company Voyager at White Mountain Lakes Water Company 58 59 72 73 74 75 76 Walnut Creek Water Company Wickenburg Ranch Water Co., LLC Willow Springs Utilities, LLC Eastern Plateau AMA AMA AMA AMA AMA AMA Lower Colorado Lower Colorado Central Highlands AMA AMA Santa Cruz Upper Colorado Sacramento Valley Mohave 40-900015.0000 Adequate 2/1/1995 Eastern Plateau Little Colorado River Plateau Navajo 40-700359.0000 Adequate 2/19/2008 Upper Colorado Sacramento Valley Mohave 40-401425.0000 Adequate 6/27/2005 Central Highlands Upper Hassayampa Yavapai 40-700417.0000 Adequate 2/11/2008 AMA Tucson Pinal 26-402225.0000 Assured 4/15/2008 Source: ADWR 2010 Source:"ADWR"2010 48 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resource Characteristics Summary 49 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 1.4.6 Water Supplies Arizona’s water supplies include water from the Colorado River (including Central Arizona Project water), instate surface water, groundwater and reclaimed water or efluent. Water supply availability and use varies substantially throughout the State’s planning areas as shown in Figure 1-30. The average annual percentage and volume of surface water (Colorado River and instate surface water), groundwater, and efluent utilized from 2001-2005 is shown in Figure 1-23. Statewide, water diverted from streams has been the largest supply used, however groundwater is the dominant supply in most planning areas. While groundwater levels in wells may vary over time, groundwater is generally a reliable water supply in most parts of the state while in-state surface water supplies may luctuate widely from year to year due to precipitation variability. Efluent reuse is increasing and although it represented just 3% of the total water supply in Arizona, it was an important supply in some planning areas. In some areas, water quality conditions, including designated sites of environmental contamination, affect the use of certain water supplies. Figure 1-23 Average Annual Water Supplies Utilized in Arizona, 2001-2005 (in AF and % of total) Effluent 205,400 3% Surface Water 4,089,800 54% Colorado River Water and the Central Arizona Project Colorado River water supplies derive primarily from snow in the Rocky Mountains of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. Arizona has an annual allotment of 2.8 maf of Colorado River water for consumptive use. Consumptive use (CU) is deined here as diversions from the mainstream of the Colorado River minus returns. The right or authorization to beneicially use Colorado River water is deined as an entitlement. Entitlements are created by decree, through a contract with the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) or by Secretarial reservation (See Appendices C and D). Of the state’s total Colorado River allotment, over 1.3 maf is available for use by municipal, industrial and agricultural users along the Colorado River in the Upper and Lower Colorado River planning areas. A summary of Arizona v. California decree accounting and entitlements are listed in Table 1-11 for basins in these planning areas. In addition, the Navajo Generating Station and the community of Page in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area divert water from Lake Powell for municipal and industrial use pursuant to Arizona’s 50,000 AFA Upper Basin allocation. (BOR, 2007) The remaining amount of Colorado River water may be diverted annually via the CAP delivery system to users in the Phoenix, Tucson and Casa Grande areas (shown on Figure 1-1). CAP water is diverted from the Colorado River at Lake Havasu into Groundwater 3,247,900 43% CAP Canal, Phoenix AMA Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 50 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Table 1-11 Arizona v. California Decree accounting of the consumptive use of Colorado River water in Arizona (in acre-feet/year) Basin/Year 1 1971-75 Bill Williams Agricultural Industrial Municipal Environmental Detrital Valley Agricultural Industrial Municipal Environmental Lake Havasu Agricultural Industrial Municipal 4 Environmental Lake Mohave Agricultural Industrial Municipal Environmental Lower Gila 4 6 Agricultural Industrial Municipal 5 Environmental Parker Agricultural Industrial Municipal 4 Environmental Sacramento Valley Agricultural Industrial Municipal Environmental Yuma 4 6 Agricultural Industrial Municipal Environmental TOTAL Central Arizona Project 1976-80 1981-85 1986-90 1991-95 1996-00 2001-05 2 Current Entitlement3 0 0 84 0 None None 0 0 0 0 20 18 24 None None None 0 0 0 0 116 146 104 None 0 0 Unspecified 0 5,554 8,075 8,872 None None 11,604 13,376 15,053 13,013 0 0 29,254 14,300 14,064 7,828 15,456 15,927 12,561 5,306 16,317 20,209 216 295 47,172 220 298 73,885 158 581 83,109 103 6,062 96,123 80 7,857 107,700 0 9,669 72,326 0 8,851 144,535 175 44,192 14,300 14,064 7,828 15,456 15,927 12,561 5,306 16,317 309,367 0 2 40 209,015 0 5 59 258,612 0 6 22 312,237 0 7 743 241,267 0 19 1,800 278,826 0 62 1,773 260,818 0 80 665 272,980 0 265 6,262 334,058 0 829 148 354,197 0 1,070 13,128 338,033 0 1,770 8,768 407,512 0 1,815 11,822 425,204 0 1,891 19,719 429,193 0 2,339 18,368 389,668 0 1,876 11,785 693,486 0 8,004 56,238 0 0 0 None None None 8,066 7,934 4,416 8,719 8,984 7,086 2,993 676,165 1,046 13,272 0 1,397,867 631,711 1,021 10,146 0 1,312,178 564,313 839 12,174 0 1,288,105 571,245 610 13,137 0 1,459,633 543,251 469 15,255 0 1,407,284 560,581 2,250 21,625 0 1,479,812 457,679 674 21,296 0 1,252,464 9,205 582,257 1,772 54,945 0 1,405,907 7 0 0 33,502 499,917 717,514 1,330,109 1,555,215 Unspecified Source: USBOR 2003-2009 Notes: 1 Where the reported consumptive use for individual users does not cover an entire 5-year period, the average is based on the years of record. 2 In 2003, the United States Bureau of Reclamation began deducting unmeasured return flows from the diversions by individual diverters. Prior to this time, Reclamation only deducted the total amount of unmeasured return flow from the total Lower Basin diversions. 3 4 Entitlement amounts do not include 72,000 AFA for the Ak-Chin (50,000 AFA) and Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian (22,000 AFA) water rights settlements, which are delivered by the CAP to reservations. The Havasu National Wildlife Refuge spans an area that is located in the Lake Mohave, Lake Havasu, and Sacamento Valley basins; Consumptive use has been prorated based on the percentage of the refuge land in each basin. 5 The Imperial National Wildlife Refuge spans the Parker and Lower Gila basins; consumptive use has been prorated based on the percentage of refuge land in each basin. 6 The Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (IDD) spans the Lower Gila and Yuma basins. Consumptive use has been prorated based on the percentage of IDD land area in each basin. The CAP diverts water out of Lake Havasu at the Mark Wilmer Pumping Plant located in the Bill Williams Basin. The water has multiple uses in Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties. 7 51 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 a 336-mile aqueduct system that lifts the water more than 2,900 vertical feet through a series of pumping plants to users in central Arizona. The Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) operates and maintains the CAP. When Colorado River water allocations were identiied in the Colorado River Compact in 1922, the river data showed an average annual “natural” low of approximately 16.4 maf at Lees Ferry below Lake Powell (See Appendix D). Natural low is the low without cultural depletions. A tree-ring based assessment completed in 2005 found that for the period 1521-1964, the mean annual low at Lees Ferry was about 14.2 maf (Hirschboeck and Meko, 2005). The Bureau of Reclamation’s current estimate of natural low for the period 1906 through 2007 is about 15 maf and their natural low data show a low of approximately 5.6 maf in 1977 and a high of 25.2 maf in 1984. This situation highlights the importance of the Colorado River dams and reservoirs to store water for use during dry periods. Currently, the Lower Basin (Arizona, California and Nevada) is fully utilizing its 7.5 maf annual allocation. Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) annual demand is approximately 4.2 maf and Mexico is utilizing its full 1.5 maf annual apportionment. There is a priority system associated with Colorado River contracts in the event of shortages of supply. Contract priority is an important consideration in water resource planning (see Volumes 4 and 7). The irst water to be shorted within Arizona is the CAP and water users of similar priority along the mainstream of the Colorado River. The Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA) was established in 1996 to store unused Colorado River water to meet future needs. The AWBA enabled Arizona to use its full allocation earlier than expected and stores water to be used in times of shortage to irm water supplies for Arizona. The primary functions of the AWBA are discussed in Appendix C. Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Salt River, Phoenix AMA. The Salt, Verde and Gila rivers are essential supplies for water users in central Arizona. Surface Water Arizona surface water supplies derive chiely from snow along the Mogollon Rim and high elevation mountains of east central Arizona and western New Mexico. The Salt, Verde and Gila rivers are essential supplies for water users in central Arizona. The Salt River Project (SRP), through the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association, annually delivers a total of almost 1 maf of surface water from the Salt and Verde rivers and groundwater to its service area in the Phoenix AMA. SRP manages several dams on the Salt and Verde rivers that produce hydroelectricity and has substantial surface water right claims in the Salt and Verde watersheds. Water supplies utilized by the towns of Cottonwood, Clarkdale, Camp Verde, Payson and others are derived from the watersheds of the Salt and Verde rivers. The water supplies of the upper Gila River communities of Safford, Thatcher and others are impacted by senior surface water rightholders downstream of their communities; the Globe-Equity Decree and by Indian water rights settlements (see Appendices C and G). Other surface water supplies utilized in Arizona include diversions from the Little Colorado River, San Pedro River, Bonita Creek and other smaller streams, runoff stored in local reservoirs and springs. These supplies may be more drought sensitive than the larger regional 52 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 systems. Communities that utilize local surface water supplies include Eagar, Flagstaff, Jerome, Tombstone and Williams. The Morenci Mine in the Morenci Basin uses surface water transported from the adjacent Salt River Basin in the Central Highlands Planning Area. Surface water is used for agricultural irrigation in every planning area, either from a local or regional source or from the Colorado River. river systems of the Gila River and the Little Colorado River (LCR). Figure 1-24 shows the location of surface water diversion points listed in the Department’s surface water rights registry. Locations of registered wells, many of which are referenced as the basis of claim in adjudication Statement of Claimants (SOCs) are also shown in Figure 1-24. Groundwater With the exception of the Lower Colorado River and AMA planning areas, groundwater is the primary water supply utilized for cultural uses, accounting for approximately 43% of the state’s total water supply annually during 20012005. While a number of hydrologic studies and groundwater models have been completed in the AMAs, there is often less known about the groundwater conditions outside AMAs where fewer comprehensive studies have been done. The legal availability of a surface water supply is an important consideration. As described in detail in Appendix H, the legal framework and process under which surface water right applications and claims are administered and determined is complex. Each type of surface water right iling has been assigned a unique number as explained in Appendix H and listed in Table 1-12 by planning area. The act of iling a statement of claim of right to use public waters (36) does not in itself create a water right. Arizona has two general stream adjudications in progress to determine the nature, extent The Department conducts water level and waand priority of water rights across the entire ter quality measurements periodically statewide Table 1-12 Count of surface water right and adjudication ilings by planning area1 TYPE OF FILING PLANNING AREA TOTAL BB2 3R3 4A3 333 364 385 396 Eastern Plateau 134 163 196 373 3,289 3,275 12,099 19,529 Southeastern Arizona 483 395 716 898 8,288 6,415 19,288 36,483 Upper Colorado River 0 224 329 469 2,858 2,084 0 5,964 Central Highlands 1 287 625 897 8,517 3,928 25,443 39,698 Western Plateau 0 415 207 554 1,177 1,270 324 3,947 Lower Colorado River 0 26 48 86 355 304 2,323 3,142 Active Management Areas 1 269 341 687 4,072 2,913 27,134 35,417 Total 619 1,779 2,462 3,964 28,556 20,189 86,611 144,180 Notes: 1 Based on a query of ADWR's surface water right and adjudication registries in February 2009. A file is only counted in this table if it provides sufficient information to allow a Point of Diversion (POD) to be mapped within the planning area. If a file lists more than one POD in a given planning area, it is only counted once in the table for that planning area. Several surface water right and adjudication filings are not counted here due to insufficient locational information. However, multiple filings for the same POD are counted. 2 Court decreed rights; not all of these rights have been identified and/or entered into ADWR's surface water rights registry. 3 Application to construct a reservoir, filed before 1972 (3R); application to appropriate surface water, filed before 1972 (4A); and application for permit to appropriate public water or construct a reservoir, filed after 1972 (33). 4 Statement of claim of rights to use public waters of the state, filed pursuant to the Water Rights Registration Act of 1974. 5 Claim of water right for a stockpond and application for certification, filed pursuant to the Stockpond Registration Act of 1977. 6 Statement of claimant, filed in the Gila or LCR General Stream Adjudications. 53 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 54 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 and maintains a repository for statewide groundwater well data, the Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI) database, available on the Department’s website (www.azwater.gov). The database includes well log data and historic groundwater level records. Approximately 1,700 wells are designated as Index Wells statewide out of over 43,700 GWSI sites and are typically measured once each year by the Department (Figure 1-25). The Department also operates a network of about 120 automated groundwater monitoring sites throughout the state. Hydrographs for Index Wells and Automated Groundwater MonEfluent recharge in the Phoenix AMA. itoring Sites are also available on the Department’s website. the regional aquifers of the Eastern Plateau are characterized by high levels of total dissolved As discussed in Section 1.4.2, some areas of the solids, and may be unsuitable for use without state have relatively deep basin-ill aquifers with treatment. substantial amounts of groundwater in storage. This is generally true for the southern part of As drought and growth stress the availability of Arizona including much of the Pinal, Phoenix surface water supplies, communities that historand Tucson AMAs. In other areas however, hy- ically have relied on surface water are exploring drologic conditions are less favorable. Aquifers groundwater resource options including drilling may be alluvial or unproductive, particularly additional wells and acquiring land for wellield in mountainous areas, or depth to groundwater development. may be very great. This is the case in the Payson area and in much of the Santa Cruz AMA, Efluent where thin alluvial or fractured rock aquifers Access to renewable water supplies, especially make them sensitive to precipitation events outside of the AMAs, may be physically or leand susceptible to drought. Poor water qual- gally limited. An exception is reclaimed water ity can also be an issue. For example, some of or efluent, which increases with population growth served by a sewer system. Efluent has met up to 8% of the municipal demand and 27% of the agricultural demand in the Eastern Plateau Planning Area and 28% of the industrial demand in the AMA Planning Area. Table 1-13 summarizes recent efluent use by planning area. While the percentage of reporting treatment facilities is low in some planning areas, data are available for the largest facilities. Of the 53% of total facilities for which treatment volumes and reuse data are available, 53% of that efluent has been reused primarily for turf irrigation, groundwater recharge, agricultural irrigation and for cooling purposes at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Automated well in the Prescott AMA Station in the Phoenix AMA. The highest per55 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 56 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Table 1-13 Annual efluent generation and use by planning area (c. 2006) Planning Area Percent of Reporting Facilities1 Volume Generated (acre-feet) Direct Use (acre-feet) Eastern Plateau Planning Area Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Upper Colorado River Planning Area Central Highlands Planning Area Western Plateau Planning Area Lower Colorado River Planning Area Active Management Areas Phoenix AMA Pinal AMA Prescott AMA Santa Cruz AMA Tucson AMA Arizona Total 83% 86% 53% 48% 71% 58% 43% 42% 33% 67% 50% 42% 53% 36,100 10,600 8,700 9,300 2,200 16,700 419,346 315,000 6,900 6,900 16,311 74,235 502,946 14,900 1,670 3,400 1,200 300 1,600 200,700 177,200 4,800 2,700 0 16,000 223,770 2 Permitted Recharge Facility Storage3 (acre-feet) 0 2,000 0 300 0 0 34,000 13,100 600 3,600 0 16,700 36,300 Created Wetland Delivery4 (acre-feet) 2,700 0 0 426 0 0 1,350 1,350 0 0 0 0 4,476 5 % use by Disposal reporting (acre-feet) facilities 18,500 6,930 5,300 7,374 1,900 15,100 183,296 123,350 1,500 600 16,311 41,535 238,400 49% 35% 39% 21% 14% 10% 56% 61% 78% 91% 0% 44% 53% Various sources, see Arizona Water Atlas Volumes 2-8 Facilities that have reported both volume generated and a disposal method. 1 2 Includes effluent used for irrigation, golf courses, and industrial use. The Upper Colorado River Planning Area includes an estimated 200 af of use at the Bagdad Mine. According to the GRIC annual report, 10,686 af of effluent (through exchange) was used for irrigation in the Phoenix AMA by the GRIC during 2008. This additional use is not included here. 3 Quantities delivered to constructed and managed facilities, minus annual recovery, evaporation and cut to the aquifer. The Fort Huachuca recharge facility in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area and the Green Valley Park Lakes recharge facility in the Central Highlands Planning Area are not permitted, but the estimated volume recharged is listed.. 4 Created wetland accessible to the public that is not permitted as a recharge facility. 5 Includes the following disposal methods: watercourse, evaporation pond, discharge to another facility and non-permitted infiltration basins. centage of reuse is in the Prescott AMA where 91% of the treated efluent is either recharged or used directly for golf course irrigation. A constraint on more reuse is that potential users, such as parks and golf courses, are often distant from treatment facilities and communities lack inancing to construct the necessary delivery infrastructure. ity programs is found in Appendices C and D. Water quality and contamination site information is compiled in maps and tables in both the overview and basin sections of Atlas Volumes 2-8. The most commonly exceeded DWS constituents in Arizona are arsenic, luoride and nitrate as shown on Figure 1-26. While there is no primary DWS for total dissolved solids (TDS), locations of concentrations in excess of 3,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which requires special well construction, are also shown on Figure 1-26. TDS levels in Arizona waters are typically elevated due to natural hydrogeologic factors or have resulted from irrigation practices. The location of contamination sites and impaired waters (a lake or stream not meeting one or more surface water quality standards as established in A.R.S. § 49-231) are shown on Figure 1-27. Contamination Sites Sites of environmental contamination and exceedences of drinking water standards (DWS) may impact the use of some water supplies. An inventory of primary DWS exceedences and Department of Defense (DOD), Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA), Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) and Water Quality Assurance Revolving 1.4.7 Cultural Water Demand Fund (WQARF), sites was conducted for each planning area. More information on water qual- Cultural water demand refers to the quantity 57 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 58 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 59 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 of water diverted from streams, reservoirs and springs; pumped from wells; or treated wastewater delivered for municipal, industrial and agricultural purposes (see also Section 1.3). Data presented here provide a general assessment of water demands in Arizona by municipal, agricultural and industrial users. These demand sectors are deined according to AMA regulatory deinitions (see Deinitions section). A general description of water demand data sources and methods is found in Appendix B and fully documented in each volume. As shown graphically in Figure 1-28, while the population of Arizona has increased signiicantly, water demand statewide has declined or remained stable due to retirement of agricultural lands, increased water use eficiency and efluent reuse. In addition, use of non-groundwater supplies (CAP, efluent, and surface water) has increased substantially compared to pre-1990 levels, primarily due to importation of CAP water to central Arizona. Figure 1-29 shows the demand and water supply use trends in each planning area. Recent (2001-2005) AMA water demand is comparable to that in the early 1980s despite a doubling of population between the 1980 and 2000 census and use of non-groundwater supplies has increased by 52%. By contrast, demand in the Lower Colorado River, Upper Colorado River and Southeastern Arizona planning areas has increased from the early 1980s. Average annual planning area water demand and the water supply used by each demand sector during 2001-2005 is shown in Figure 1-30 and summarized to the basin level in Table 1-14. These demands include water pumped from wells (including from the Colorado River Figure 1-28 Comparison of Arizona’s Average Annual Water Demand to Its Population, 1971-2005 8,000,000 6,500,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 5,500,000 5,000,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 Population Demand (acre-feet) 6,000,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 0 1971-1975 1976-1980 1981-1985 GW 1986-1990 Non-GW 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 Population Various data sources, see Arizona Water Atlas Volumes 2-8 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 60 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 accounting surface), diverted from streams, and reused efluent. Water that returns to the Colorado River (return low) for Colorado River contract accounting purposes (approximately 0.85 maf/year) in the Upper and Lower Colorado River planning areas (Table 1-11) is not subtracted from the total. The annual volume of water pumped and diverted during 2001-2005 was approximately 7.65 maf. and agricultural water supply. CAP water use includes both direct use and CAP water used “in-lieu” of groundwater pumping by the agricultural sector and recovery of CAP recharge credits by municipal users.5 A Groundwater Savings (GSF) Permit allows the permit holder to deliver the in-lieu water to the recipient who agrees to replace groundwater pumping with inlieu water, creating a groundwater savings. Water demand in the planning areas varies Municipal water demand centers, active signiicantly by volume, water source and agricultural lands and the general location demand sector. Approximately half of the state’s of major industrial water users are shown on water demand occurs in the AMAs where non- Figure 1-31. Average total water use in Arizona groundwater supplies such as CAP and in-state by demand sector for 2001-2005 is shown on surface water account for most of the municipal Figure 1-32. Figure 1-29 Change in Average Annual Water Demand in Arizona Planning Areas1 4,500,000 Non-groundwater Groundwater 2 4,000,000 3,500,000 Demand (acre-feet) 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 1971-1975 1976-1980 Active Management Area 1981-1985 1986-1990 Lower Colorado River Upper Colorado River 1991-1995 1996-2000 Southeastern Arizona 2001-2005 Eastern Plateau Central Highlands Various data sources, see Arizona Water Atlas Volumes 2-8 1 Water demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area is relatively small (<11,000 acre-feet) and not shown here due to scale. 2 Non-groundwater may include surface water, effluent, Central Arizona Project water and tailwater. In most basins outside of the AMAs, non-groundwater is surface water. 5 In AMA water budgets,“in-lieu” CAP water is accounted for as a debit to the groundwater supply because credits are accrued by the storer that may be recovered in the future through groundwater pumping. 61 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Active Management Areas 3,659,500 af (50%) CAP 37% Eff 4% GW 37% CAP 29% GW 45% SW 17% SW 30% Municipal 35% Agricultural 59% Eff 1% SW 15% GW 34% SW 65% Industrial 6% GW 85% Municipal 1.5% Industrial 0.5% Eff 28% CAP 2% GW 66% SW 4% GW 33% CAP 2% SW Eff 3% 4% SW 65% GW 93% Agricultural 98% Municipal 8% Industrial 7% SW 17% GW 83% GW 97% Agricultural 85% Lower Colorado River 2,900,000 af (38%) SW 2% Eff 6% Eff 27% Ind. 13% SW 9% Eff 8% SW 17% GW 83% GW 83% Upper Colorado River 174,000 af (2%) SW GW 43% 57% SW 26% Municipal 26% Industrial 49% Ag. 50% GW 65% Eastern Plateau 170,500 af (2%) SW 62% GW 95% GW 38% GW 67% Muni 40% SW 35% SW Eff 3% 2% Eff 7% Western Plateau 9,700 af (<1%) Southeastern Arizona 515,100 af (7%) Ag. 25% Municipal 29% Agricultural 58% GW 31% SW 42% GW 92% GW SW 35% 65% SW 3% Ag. 45% Ind. 10% GW 77% Muni. 33% Ind. 22% SW 23% Central Highlands 83,400 af (1%) SW 32% GW 68% 62 Figure 1-30 Figure 1-30 Average Annual Planning Area Water Demand by Sector and Average Annual Planning Area Water Demand by Sector and Water Source During 2001-2005 Source: ADWR 2008c Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resource Characteristics Summary Eff 1% Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resource Characteristics Summary Table 1-14 Average annual cultural water demand (2001-2005)1 Basin Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Total Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled through 2005 Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Well Pumpage Municipal Little Colorado River Sub-total 7,990 7,990 1,657 1,657 37,300 37,300 Aravaipa Canyon Bonita Creek Cienega Creek Donnelly Wash Douglas Dripping Springs Duncan Valley Lower San Pedro Morenci Safford San Bernardino San Rafael Upper San Pedro Willcox Sub-total 192 12 1,874 140 1,666 119 866 1,630 505 2,698 164 224 5,021 3,150 18,261 50 15 169 6 899 40 325 398 145 2,278 12 26 1,106 1,873 7,342 <300 3,200 600 <300 5,500 <300 600 2,300 1,400 3,300 <300 <300 17,300 2,700 37,650 Big Sandy Bill Williams Detrital Valley Hualapai Valley Lake Havasu Lake Mohave Meadview Peach Springs Sacramento Valley Sub-total 1,240 1,627 168 918 99 1,887 21 36 1,010 7,006 212 445 51 90 45 353 15 18 151 1,380 <300 900 <300 8,900 16,500 18,800 <300 350 2,100 48,000 Agua Fria Salt River Tonto Creek Upper Hassayampa Verde River Sub-total 1,776 1,593 1,948 1,890 11,093 18,300 310 412 280 312 1,659 2,973 1,800 4,000 2,400 2,600 15,200 26,000 172 11 220 12 17 268 700 38 1 119 4 2 136 300 500 <300 1,600 <300 <300 <300 2,700 Butler Valley Gila Bend Haraquahala Lower Gila McMullen Valley Parker Ranegras Plain San Simon Wash Tiger Wash tern Mexican Drainage Yuma Sub-total 18 146 157 718 338 1,749 522 7 7 20 2,689 6,371 21 391 212 850 240 191 138 1 1 5 693 2,743 <300 1,000 950 2,000 500 3,800 400 1,000 <300 <300 8,300 18,400 Phoenix Pinal Prescott Santa Cruz Tucson Sub-total Total 13,535 2,077 10,651 1,246 7,145 34,654 75,021 10,683 3,256 724 593 4,848 20,104 29,157 295,600 24,700 14,600 7,800 124,100 466,800 636,850 Coconino Plateau Grand Wash Kanab Plateau Paria Shivwits Plateau Virgin River Sub-total Industrial Agricultural Surface Water Diversions2 Municipal Eastern Plateau 54,407 13,100 4,100 54,407 13,100 4,100 Southeastern Arizona NR <1,000 NR NR NR NR <300 500 NR NR NR NR NR 47,300 NR NR NR NR 300 10,000 NR 15,900 7,500 300 8,200 NR 600 800 120,400 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR <300 1,900 9,900 <300 6,200 167,400 33,450 363,500 1,200 Upper Colorado <300 NR 15,600 <300 4,100 500 <300 NR NR <300 NR NR <300 <300 NR 600 30,400 400 NR NR NR <300 NR NR 1,600 NR NR 18,400 34,500 1,200 Central Highlands NR NR 1,500 <1,000 <300 8,100 <300 <1,000 NR <1,000 800 NR 3,200 11,100 600 12,250 14,100 750 Western Plateau NR NR 300 NR NR NR <1,000 NR 1,000 NR NR NR NR NR NR 700 2,100 NR 700 2,600 1,300 Lower Colorado 3 NR 9,700 NR 4,700 289,000 NR 500 36,500 NR 3,600 246,000 500 <300 89,100 NR <300 <1,000 500 NR 28,800 NR NR 3,900 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 500 232,200 32,000 9,600 935,700 33,000 Active Management Areas 88,800 429,900 701,300 13,200 439,600 3,700 1,400 3,500 800 1,500 13,000 NR 51,400 76,400 44,400 156,300 962,400 750,200 285,107 2,325,900 791,750 Effluent Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 28,707 28,707 18,000 18,000 3,600 3,600 NR NR 11,300 11,300 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1,100 NR NR NR NR NR 1,100 <1,000 NR NR NR NR NR 9,900 <1,000 NR 61,300 NR NR 4,300 NR 76,500 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 145 NR 500 NR NR 830 211 1,686 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR <300 3,700 NR NR NR 3,850 NR NR NR NR NR 64,900 NR NR NR 64,900 NR NR NR NR 2,433 715 NR NR NR 3,148 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 4,900 NR NR 800 5,700 NR 6,400 1,000 NR 16,000 23,400 NR NR 200 NR 980 1,180 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR <300 150 NR NR <1,000 NR NR 1,500 2,000 273 NR NR NR NR NR 273 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 300 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 2,000 2,300 NR 54,000 69,600 383,200 NR 630,600 NR NR NR NR 762,000 1,899,400 NR NR NR NR NR 220 NR NR NR NR 460 680 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 896 NR NR NR NR NR 896 10,300 900 80 NR 600 11,880 53,687 594,500 533,200 400 NR 32,100 1,160,200 3,244,400 41,600 500 1,900 NR 12,200 56,200 66,767 65,900 2,200 NR NR 100 68,200 68,200 55,100 1,700 1,400 NR NR 58,200 70,396 Various data sources see Arizona Water Atlas Volumes 2-8 Notes: NR = Not Reported 1 Amount shown is water pumped from wells (including from the Colorado River accounting surface) or diverted from streams and includes Colorado River return flow (0.85 MAF). Evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs, long-term storage credits (CAP and effluent), intentionally created surplus and system losses (approx. 0.3 MAF) are not included. To calculate totals, half of the less than (<) values were assumed. 2 Surface water supplies may include streamflow, spring discharge, spill/tail water and Central Arizona Project water. 3 Groundwater demand for agriculture in the Lower Gila and Yuma Basins includes water pumped from drainage wells. 63 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 64 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Agricultural Demand Figure 1-32 Average Annual Water DeAgriculture continues to be the largest water mand in Arizona by Sector, 2001-2005 demand sector in the state, accounting for 75% (in AF and percentage of total) of water demand (not counting return low) from 2001-2005 (Figure 1-32). Agricultural demand accounts for all but 2% of the total demand in Municipal the Lower Colorado River Planning Area, met 1,495,300 primarily by Colorado River water. Agriculture 20% is the largest demand sector in every planning Industrial, area except the Eastern Plateau (Figure 1-30). 403,100 5% While current agricultural demand has declined Agricultural in most planning areas from 1970-1980 levels, 5,613,800 since 1990 agricultural demand has increased 75% in the AMA, Lower Colorado River and Southeastern Arizona planning areas (Figure 1-33). Increasing agricultural use in the AMAs is due to a combination of new agricultural tribal lands, changes in cropping practices and cultivation of alfalfa rather than historic, lower water demand crops. planning areas. In the AMAs a mix of water supplies are utilized including groundwater, Agricultural use in the AMAs and INAs must CAP water, in-state surface water and efluent be reported to the Department annually and (Figure 1-30). In the Eastern Plateau Planning holders of Colorado River water entitlements Area, wastewater discharged from the Catalyst must report use annually to the Bureau of Paper Mill is applied to pasture and accounts Reclamation. Elsewhere, basin demand has for 27% of the agricultural water supply. been estimated based on acreage, crops grown Information on agricultural water demand by and irrigation method (see Appendix B). basin is found in Volumes 2-8. Surface water meets most agricultural demand in the Upper Colorado River, Lower Colorado Municipal Demand River, Eastern Plateau and Central Highlands Municipal demand is composed of water delivered by a public or private water system and pumped from domestic wells to serve individual homes or several homes. During 2001-2005, municipal demand accounted for about 20% of the statewide demand. Municipal water use data are reported annually in AMAs and in INAs (by users withdrawing more than ten acre-feet a year). In addition, beginning with the 2006 reporting year, community water systems statewide report annual water use to the Department. Domestic wells are generally Agriculture in the AMA Planning Area. Agriculture not metered and because there are no reporting continues to be the largest water demand sector in requirements anywhere in the state, domestic the state, accounting for 75% of water demand (not well demand must be estimated. counting return low) from 2001-2005 . 65 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 The percentage of municipal demand ranges from 1.5% in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area to 40% in the Western Plateau Planning Area. Municipal demand represents just 35% of the demand in the AMA Planning Area although most of the State’s population resides in AMAs. Principal municipal supplies are groundwater with the exception of the AMA planning area where a mixture of CAP, in-state surface water, efluent and groundwater are used (Figure 1-30). Information on municipal basin and individual water system demand is found in Volumes 2-8. Industrial Demand Industrial demand, generally consisting of mining, electrical generation, dairies, feedlots and turf irrigation accounted for about 5% of the state total from 2001-2005. Industrial demand is deined as water used by an industrial facility that is not served by a municipal water system. Industrial demand data are reported annually to the Department in the AMAs and INAs (by users withdrawing more than ten acre-feet a year) and collected for some types of industrial users by the USGS (USGS, 2007). Industrial demand is a signiicant demand sector in the Figure 1-33 Average Annual Agricultural Water Demand for Selected Planning Areas 3,000,000 Non-groundwater Groundwater 1 Demand (acre-feet) 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 1991-1995 1996-2000 Active Management Areas Lower Colorado River 2001-2005 Southeastern Arizona 1 Non-groundwater may include surface water, effluent, CAP water and tailwater. In most basins outside of the AMAs, non-groundwater is surface water. Source: ADWR, 2008f,g Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 66 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Eastern Plateau Planning Area accounting for agricultural irrigation. As Indian water right 49% of the demand and in the Central Highlands claims have been settled, several tribes includPlanning Area at 22%. Elsewhere, industrial sector ing the Gila River Indian Community (Phoenix demand ranges from 0.5% to 13% of the planning area Table 1-15 Average annual planning area industrial demand total (Figure 1-30). by category Planning area industrial demand by industrial category is listed in Table 1-15. The primary industrial user in the Eastern Plateau and Lower Colorado River planning areas is power plants. Mining is the predominant industrial user in the Central Highlands, Southeastern Arizona and Upper Colorado River planning areas. Golf courses are the largest industrial use in the AMA and Western Plateau planning areas. Groundwater meets most of the industrial demand in every planning area, although 28% of the industrial demand in the AMA Planning Area is met with efluent delivered to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Information on industrial basin and industrial category demand is found in Volumes 2-8. 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 Water Use (acre-feet) Type/Planning Area Power Plant Eastern Plateau Southeastern Arizona Upper Colorado River Lower Colorado River Active Management Areas Turf1 Eastern Plateau Southeastern Arizona Upper Colorado River Central Highlands Western Plateau Lower Colorado River Active Management Areas Dairy/Feedlot Eastern Plateau Southeastern Arizona Upper Colorado River Central Highlands Western Plateau Lower Colorado River Active Management Areas Mining 2 Eastern Plateau Southeastern Arizona Upper Colorado River Central Highlands Lower Colorado River Active Management Areas Other3 Eastern Plateau Southeastern Arizona Lower Colorado River Active Management Areas 52,918 6,000 0 285 52,200 56,943 5,200 0 700 61,700 63,279 5,700 4,900 7,670 69,410 1,266 1,596 0 2,910 920 440 53,300 1,326 1,806 440 3,010 920 440 70,100 1,596 2,316 530 3,334 920 440 77,800 472 262 0 790 30 3,400 10,370 524 272 0 790 30 3,500 13,600 546 502 80 790 30 3,700 19,200 11,144 48,195 16,740 17,900 350 54,900 11,445 47,085 17,800 14,100 380 53,700 6,241 25,831 16,610 14,160 550 45,800 17,092 290 2,600 16,900 15,530 290 2,900 18,000 11,452 290 1,200 21,620 Tribal Demand Tribal water demand is included in the totals described above and varies Source: ADEQ 2005, ADWR 2008 f,g, and USGS 2007 signiicantly throughout the 1 In the AMA Planning Area turf-related facilities include golf courses, schools, state although it is a rela- parks, cemeteries and common areas of subdivisions. Water use outside of tively small component of the AMAs is predominately by golf courses. planning area demands. As 2 Mining uses include both hard rock mines and sand and gravel operations. listed in Table 1-16, most 3 Other category includes large cooling facilities, new large landscape, paper tribal water demand is for mills and other industrial users. 67 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 AMA) and Tohono O’odham Nation (Pinal and Tucson AMAs) have expanded their irrigated agricultural acreage with a commensurate increase in water demand. Information on tribal water demand is found in Volumes 2-8. 1.4.8 Water Resource Issues A number of issues face communities and regions in Arizona including population growth and associated concerns about sustainable wa- ter supplies, lack of suficient data to make informed water management decisions, drought, legal questions related to surface water availability, aging water delivery infrastructure, insuficient inancial resources, water level declines, environmental protection, and Endangered Species Act (ESA) implications. These concerns have resulted in groundwater studies, regional planning, legislation, establishment of conservation easements and other activities. Issues vary from area to area and are discussed Table 1-16 Average annual water demand on Arizona Indian Reservations (2001-2005) Planning Area/Reservation Eastern Plateau Navajo Hopi San Juan Southern Paiute Zuni Southeastern Arizona San Carlos Apache Upper Colorado River Fort Mojave Hualapai Central Highlands Fort Apache Tonto Apache San Carlos Apache Yavapai-Apache Western Plateau Havasupai Kaibab-Paiute Navajo Lower Colorado River Cocopah Colorado River Indian Tribes Gila Bend Fort Yuma (Quechan) Tohono O'odham Active Management Areas Ak-Chin Fort McDowell Yavapai Gila River Pascua Yaqui Salt River Pima-Maricopa Tohono O'odham Yavapai-Prescott Population (2000 Census) 111,800 104,600 6,900 300 NA 8,300 8,300 2,200 800 1,400 21,200 20,400 100 NA 700 3,950 650 200 3,100 10,850 1,000 3,400 600 50 5,800 34,730 750 900 14,000 7,700 6,200 5,000 180 Groundwater/Surface Water (acre-feet) Agricultural Municipal Industrial 0/1,5501 11,040/160 02 ~5,300 0 NA ~300 0/4,000 200/3,750 700/60 0 46 310 0 658,000 135,600/131,6003 0 8,900/200 1,300/0 Sources: ACC (2005); ADWR (1992, 2007, 2008f,g,h,i); BIA (1998); BOR(2006), CAP (2008); ITCA (2008); Truini and others (2005); USGS (2007, 2008b) NA = Not Available 1 Navajo irrigated acreage estimated based on 2005 aerial imagery. Does not include dryland farming by the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. 2 Does not include water withdrawn from tribal lands leased by Peabody Energy for use at the Black Mesa Mines 3 Includes CAP water Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 68 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 for each planning area in Volumes 2-8. Appen- Upper Colorado River • Large master-planned communities dix I lists issues identiied by watershed groups proposed in Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley in Arizona organized by planning area. and Sacramento Valley basins Water resource issues have been identiied by • Potential for extensive solar power community groups, through the distribution of development and associated water demand surveys and from other sources. While not a • Unregulated lot splits and large number complete list, some of the key issues identiied of domestic wells with associated lack of in each planning area are listed below. regulation • Limited groundwater data in many areas Eastern Plateau and limited funding for studies, planning, • Accessibility of groundwater supplies in projects and infrastructure some areas due to hydrologic conditions and • Limited groundwater and Colorado River water quality problems water supplies • Infrastructure deiciencies that inluence • Colorado River accounting surface access to water supplies rulemaking and impacts on water users • Lack of inancial resources for infrastructure development or repair • Drought impacts on surface water supplies Central Highlands • Unregulated lot splits and large number • Ability to meet future water demands for of existing and projected private domestic many communities wells • Widespread water hauling on the Navajo • Signiicant projected growth Reservation and other locations • Limited and deep (costly) groundwater • Resolution of Indian water rights supplies available to meet current and settlements projected demands • Impact of mine pumping on tribal water • Drought-sensitive groundwater and supplies surface water supplies • Seasonal demand/peaking problems in Southeastern Arizona Payson/Pine/Strawberry area • Population growth and associated • Lack of access to water development on concerns about sustainable water supplies public lands • Water level declines and land subsidence in some areas • Increasing agricultural demand in some areas • Insuficient data to make informed water management decisions • Legal issues related to surface water availability and the legal nature of water supplies • ESA implications and environmental protection • Aging infrastructure and the lack of inancial resources to make capital improvements Colorado River, Upper Colorado River Planning Area. 69 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Roosevelt Lake, Central Highlands Planning Area. • Inter basin water transfer conlicts (Big Chino, Payson) • Sublow/adjudication decisions and potential impact on legal access to water • Limited funding for planning, projects, infrastructure, augmentation and studies • ESA issues involving critical habitat and pumping impacts on perennial streams • Environmental issues pertaining to Fossil Creek and the Verde River Lower Colorado River • Equitable Colorado River shortage sharing • Issues related to transfers of Colorado River entitlements • Colorado River accounting surface rulemaking and impacts on water users • Consequences related to compliance with the International Treaty with Mexico • Salinity control and water quality • Groundwater transportation issues; groundwater may be withdrawn and transported outside the planning area from three designated basins • Environmental protection and restoration • Local management of water resources to meet the needs of growing communities while maintaining the agricultural economy Active Management Area • Allowable groundwater pumping conlicts with meeting AMA goal • Feasibility of meeting AMA management goals by 2025 • Drought sensitivity of CAP supplies • Physical and legal access to limited Western Plateau renewable water supplies • Limited and deep (costly) groundwater • Need to construct infrastructure and supplies; physical accessibility issues in secure necessary funding to allow full use of areas renewable water supplies • Drought sensitive and inadequate surface • Concerns about the spatial disconnect water supplies in some areas between water storage (recharge) and • Need to develop water supply alternatives pumping location to meet current and future demands • Statutory differences between • Lack of suficient inancial resources groundwater and non-groundwater and for planning, projects, water supply conjunctive use development and studies; limited • Desire for environmental protection and groundwater data restoration in some areas with associated • Concerns regarding resource development allocation of water resources and environmental needs e.g. potential for • Mechanism needed to address water groundwater development to impact springs management problems in speciic in the Grand Canyon and on tribal lands geographic areas • Interstate stream issues involving the • Long term roles of the Central Arizona Virgin River Groundwater Replenishment District • Numerous water haulers with few hauling (CAGRD) and the Arizona Water Banking stations sometimes cut-off during drought Authority to ensure long-term availability of Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 70 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 renewable supplies • Increasing salinity in groundwater and soil from use of CAP, surface water and efluent In March 2003, the Department sent a questionnaire to over 600 rural water providers, cities and towns, counties and tribal governments in order to gather information on drought impacts in support of preparation of the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan. It was also hoped that information could be gathered about water supply and demand issues in rural Arizona to support other projects. Results from the survey were published in October 2004 (ADWR, 2004). Four priority issues were mentioned consistently: the need for additional water supplies for future needs, lowering water tables, aging infrastructure, and inadequate sources of capital to pay for infrastructure improvements. Interestingly, while many respondents reported that domestic wells were a signiicant source of water for households in their area, few mentioned that they caused any water supply problems. 360 rural water providers. Because of the direct contact effort, response was received from 246 water providers, a 65% response rate. The 2004 survey lacked the drought and growth impact focus of the 2003 survey but included questions about water demand and supply, water-level trends, metering and water quality. Results of the issues ranking portion of the 2004 survey, with 212 total responses, are summarized in Table 1-17. Shown is the percentage of respondents reporting that the listed issue was a moderate or major concern, with the highest three percentages in each planning area highlighted in bold. As shown, the lack of capital for infrastructure repair was most often identiied as an issue of moderate or major concern in every planning area. Although results vary between planning areas, other common priority issues were infrastructure in need of repair, inadequate storage capacity to meet peak demand and drought. A summary of survey results for each planning area are found in Volumes 2-7. Current and Future Developments in State To support this initial information gathering Water Planning effort and to collect additional information for the Atlas, the Department conducted a second, Several current statewide initiatives focus on brief, direct-contact survey in 2004, focused on assessing future water needs and promoting Table 1-17 Percent of 2004 survey respondents reporting issue was a moderate or major concern Planning Area Issue Inadequate storage capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate well capacity to meet peak demand Inadequate water supplies to meet current demand Inadequate water supplies to meet future demand Infrastructure in need of replacement Inadequate capital to pay for infrastructure improvements Drought related water supply problems Source: ADWR, 2005 71 Lower Colorado River (30 respondents) Southeastern Arizona (44 respondents) Upper Colorado River (23 respondents) Central Highlands (66 respondents) 31% 34% 30% 13% 43% 26% 28 25 26 18 14 10 13 20 13 15 43 6 31 32 35 32 43 23 49 41 39 36 29 45 56 61 44 38 71 58 26 39 39 38 29 6 Eastern Plateau (39 respondents) Western Plateau (10 respondents) Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 1. Increase the volume of reclaimed water reused for beneicial purposes in place of raw or potable water; 2. Advance water conservation, increase the eficiency of water use by existing users, and increase the use of recycled water for beneicial purposes in place of raw or potable water; 3. Reduce the amount of energy needed to produce, deliver, treat, and reclaim and recycle water by the municipal, industrial, and agricultural sectors; 4. Reduce the amount of water required to produce and provide energy by Arizona power generators; and 5. Increase public awareness and acceptance of reclaimed and recycled water uses and the need to work toward water sustainability. The Water Resource Development Commission was legislatively established in 2010 (H.B. Colorado River, Western Plateau Planning Area 2661) to assess current and future water needs in Arizona including identiication of future supplies and inancing mechanisms for water supply acquisition and infrastructure. The Commission must prepare a report including recommendations and suggested legislation by October 2011. The Commission is expected to integrate the indings from studies mentioned in this sub-section in its analysis. water sustainability. These efforts include the Blue Ribbon Panel on Water Sustainability, the Water Resource Development Commission, the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, Bureau of Reclamation appraisal and feasibility level studies, and Volume 9 of the Arizona Water Atlas. These efforts are discussed briely below and represent a compre- The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and hensive approach to evaluating Arizona’s future Demand Study is a comprehensive regional water needs. study involving the Bureau of Reclamation and representatives of the seven Colorado River Governor Brewer established the Blue Ribbon Basin States. Beginning in January 2010, the Panel on Water Sustainability in August 2009 study will deine current and future imbalances with a inal report due November, 2010. Its in water supply and demand in the Colorado purpose is to “advance water sustainability River Basin and adjacent areas of the Basin statewide by increasing reuse, recycling, and States that receive Colorado River water for conservation to protect Arizona’s water supplies and approximately the next 50 years. The study, natural environment while supporting continued to be completed by January 2012, will also economic development and to do so in an effective, develop and analyze adaptation and mitigation eficient and equitable manner”. The Panel’s goal strategies to resolve those imbalances (BOR, is to provide recommendations on statute, rule, 2010b). In Arizona the initial phase of the study and policy changes that, by the year 2020 will included generation of population, water supply signiicantly: Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary 72 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 and demand projections through 2060 for provide additional information and strategies to those areas of the state that use, or plan to use, address Arizona’s water needs now and in the future and hopefully resolve the most pressing Colorado River water (including CAP water). issues identiied within planning areas. At a more local level, several appraisal studies have been completed in rural Arizona under the Bureau of Reclamation’s Rural Water Program (RWP) including North Central Arizona, the Mogollon Highlands and the Sierra Vista Subwatershed. An appraisal study is also underway for the Central Yavapai Highlands. Under the RWP, an appraisal level study is conducted to evaluate water supply and demand conditions and prepare a preliminary assessment of alternatives to determine if there is a viable alternative to warrant a more detailed investigation at the feasibility level. Investigations have progressed to the feasibility level in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, North Central Arizona and Mogollon Highlands study areas. A feasibility study is a detailed investigation that identiies a preferred alternative to meet future needs. (BOR, 2010c) Volume 9 of this Atlas (Water Sustainability Assessment) will evaluate water resource vulnerability and sustainability conditions across Arizona to support and improve water planning and management decisions at the state, regional and local level. “Sustainability” will be deined differently in different parts of the state depending on local management goals. This assessment will compile and incorporate information from Atlas Volumes 2-8, other water supply and demand studies and previously conducted evaluations and public processes including those mentioned above. As Arizona continues to grow and water demands increase, local development of water resources will increasingly be inluenced by statewide and regional conditions. Water management and planning will need to extend beyond local boundaries as interrelationships often exist across the state, both rural and urban. The recent efforts summarized above should 73 Section 1.4 Water Resources Characteristics Summary Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 REFERENCES (* indicates reference only cited in appendices) Anderson, T.W., and G.W. Freethey, 1995, Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in Alluvial Basins in South-Central Arizona and Parts of Adjacent States: USGS Professional Paper 1406.D. Anderson, T.W., G.W. Freethey, and P. Tucci, 1992, Geohydrology and Water Resources of Alluvial Basins in South-Central Arizona and Parts of Adjacent States-Regional AquiferSystem Analysis: USGS Professional Paper 1406.B. _____, 1990, Geohydrology and Water Resources of Alluvial Basins in South-Central Arizona and Parts of Adjacent States: USGS Open-File Report 89-378. Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90: USGS Open-ile Report 94-476.* Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005a, Fort Mojave Tribal Utilities Authority Annual Report. _____, 2005b, Annual reports, small water providers, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division, July 2005.* _____, 2005c, Annual reports, private sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division.* Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC), 2009, Population Estimates for Arizona Counties and Incorporated Places Ranked by Population Percentage – 2009: Accessed June 2010 at www.azcommerce.gov. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2006, Active DOD, Superfund, WQARF, and LUST contamination sites in Arizona: GIS cover received February 2006. _____, 2005a, Active dairy farms and feedlots: Data ile received October 2005. _____, 2005b, Surface water sources for water providers: Data ile received June 2005.* _____, 2005c, ADEQWATP: Data ile received May 2005.* _____, 2005d, ADEQWWTP: Data ile received August 2005.* _____, 2005e, Azurite: Data ile received September 2005.* _____, 2005f, WWTP and permit iles: Miscellaneous working iles received July 2005.* _____, 2005g, Efluent dependent waters: GIS cover received December 2005.* _____, 2005h, ADEQSWI: Data ile received September 2005.* References, Acronyms and Deinitions 74 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 _____, 2004a, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data ile received August 2004.* _____, 2004b, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data ile received June 2004.* _____, 2004c, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data ile received September 2004.* Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Database of active mines in Arizona: Accessed at www.admmr.state.az.us.* Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2010, Assured and adequate water supply designated providers: Project iles. _____, 2009a, Groundwater basin population data iles: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2009b, Registries of surface water right and adjudication ilings: ADWR Surface Water Division, February 2009.* _____, 2009c, Summary of groundwater storage estimates for the Active Management Areas: Memo from Wes Hipke to Frank Corkhill dated October 7, 2009.* _____, 2008a, Reservoir data iles: Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2008b, Springs data iles: Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2008c, Arizona Water Protection Fund (AWPF) Grants data iles: AWPF Ofice. _____, 2008d, Instream low applications data iles: Surface Water Division, August 2008. _____, 2008e, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project iles, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008f, Cultural water demand data iles; Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2008g, Estimated cultural water demand in the AMA Planning Area: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Data Management. _____, 2008h, Identiication of active agriculture on the Navajo Reservation: Unpublished analysis, December 2008. _____, 2008i, Preliminary Hydrographic Survey Report for the Hopi Reservation: General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River System and Source. 75 References, Acronyms and Deinitions Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 _____, 2008j, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Regional Strategic Planning.* _____, 2008k, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2007, Tribal Water Demand in the Western Plateau Planning Area: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2006, CAP diversions: Database, ADWR Ofice of Colorado River Management.* _____, 2005a, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data iles, ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005b, Agricultural surface water use estimates: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Ofice of Resource Assessment Planning.* _____, 2005c, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Ofice of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005d, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Ofice of Dam Safety.* _____, 2005e, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Ofice of Water Engineering.* _____, 2005f, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division.* _____, 2005g, Automated recorder sites: Data iles, ADWR Field Services Unit.* _____, 2005h, Wells55: Database.* _____, 2004, Rural Water Resources Study - 2003 Rural Water Resources Questionnaire Report. _____, 1999, Third Management Plan for the Tucson Active Management Area, 2000-2010.* _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1993, A Regional Groundwater Flow Model of the Salt River Valley - Phase I. Hydrogeologic Framework and Basic Data Report: Modeling Report No. 06, April, 1993. _____, 1992, Preliminary Hydrographic Survey Report for the Upper Salt River Watershed, Volume 1, Assessment: General Adjudication of the Gila River System and Source. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin proiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January 16, 1990. References, Acronyms and Deinitions 76 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 _____, 1989, Hydrology of the Little Colorado River System, Special Report to the Settlement Committee: General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River and Source. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data ile received April 2005.* _____, 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: GIS cover and Technical Report 112 by Wahl and others. _____, 1993, Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project: GIS cover and report by Valencia and others. _____, 1982, Arizona Lakes Classiication Study: Planning Department.* Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Streams: GIS cover accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, Water features: GIS cover accessed July 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____, 2005c, Springs: GIS cover accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html.* _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html. Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2007, Arizona climate stations, evaporation data: Accessed December 2007 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/ azmet/locate.html.* Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), 2006, Historical Overview - Land Grant and Designation of Beneiciaries: Accessed February 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/ history.htm.* Arizona Water Commission (AWC), 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of Resource and Uses.* Brown, D.E., N.B. Carmony and R.M. Turner, 1981, Drainage map of Arizona Showing Perennial Streams and Some Important Wetlands: Arizona Game and Fish Department. Brown, D. and C. Lowe, 1980, Biotic Communities of the Southwest: GIS Cover digitized by Arizona Game and Fish Department and accessed in 2007 at http://www.dot.co.pima. az.us/gis/maps/mapguide. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 1998, Southpoint Power Plant Project Environmental Impact Statement: BIA EIS 98-25, November 1998. 77 References, Acronyms and Deinitions Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Central Arizona Project (CAP), 2008, Subcontract status report: Accessed May 2008 at http:// www.cap-az.com/docs/SubcontractStatusReport_03_13_08.pdf.* Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), 2008, Climate Reconstructions for Arizona Climate Divisions: Accessed May 2008 at www.climas.arizona.edu/research/ paleoclimate.* _____2005, Drought data: Accessed December 2005 and March 2006 at http://www.ispe.arizona. edu/climas.* Cooley, M.E., J.W. Harshbarger, J.P. Akers and W.F. Hardt, 1969, Regional Hydrogeology of the Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah: USGS Geological Survey Professional Paper 521-A. Diroll, M., and D. Marsh, 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona - 2004 Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report: ADEQ report.* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005a, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water.* _____, 2005b, 2002, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: Datasets accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.* Farnsworth, R.K., E.S. Thompson, and E.L. Peck, 1982, Evaporation Atlas for the Contiguous 48 United States: NOAA Technical Report NWS 33. Fenneman N.M. and D.W. Johnson, 1946, Physiographic Divisions of the Conterminous U.S.: GIS cover. Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W. 1986, Predevelopment Hydrologic Conditions in the Alluvial Basins of Arizona and Adjacent Parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA664.* Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average Annual Runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: USGS Hydrologic Investigation Atlas HA-170.* Gila Water Commissioner, 1991-2009, Distribution of Waters of the Gila River: Annual Reports prepared for the U.S. District Court. Governor’s Drought Task Force (GDTF), 2004, Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, Background and Impact Assessment Section. References, Acronyms and Deinitions 78 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Gregory, H.E., 1916, The Navajo Country - A Geographic and Hydrographic Reconnaissance of Parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah: USGS Water Supply Paper 380. Hack, J.T., 1942, The Changing Physical Environment of the Hopi Indians of Arizona: Peabody Museum Papers, v. 35, no. 1, pp 1-83. Hirschboeck, K.K., and D.M. Meko, 2005, A tree-ring Assessment of Synchronous Extreme Streamlow Episodes in the Upper Colorado and Salt-Verde-Tonto River Basins: University of Arizona, Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, inal report to the Salt River Project. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), Inc., 2008, Member Tribes: Accessed May 2008 at http://www.itcaonline.com/tribes.html. Leake, S.A., A.D. Konieczki, and J.A.H. Rees, 2000, Desert Basins of the Southwest: USGS Fact Sheet 086-00, August 2000. National Climatic Data Center, 2001, U.S. Climate Normals – Arizona. Data iles accessed June 2010 at http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/climatenormals/climatenormals.pl. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2006, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data ile accessed December 2006 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ.* _____, 2005, Snow Course stations: Data ile accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ.* Neary, D. G., G.J. Gottfried and P.F. Ffolliott, 2003, Post-wildire Watershed Flood Responses: Proceedings of the 2nd International Fire Ecology Conference, American Meteorological Society, Orlando, FL, Paper 65982. Olson, D.M., E. Dinerstein, E.D. Wikramanayake, N.D. Burgess, G.V.N. Powell, E.C. Underwood, J.A. D’amico, I. Itoua, H.E. Strand, J.C. Morrison, C.J. Loucks, T.F. Allnutt, T.H. Ricketts, Y. Kura, J.F. Lamoreux, W.W. Wettengel, P. Hedao, & K.R. Kassem, 2001, Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World, A New Map of Life on Earth: BioScience v. 51, pp. 933-938. Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. Parker, J.T.C. and M.E. Flynn, 2000, Investigation of the Geology and Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands of Central Arizona, A Project of the Arizona Rural Watershed Initiative: USGS Fact Sheet 159-00. 79 References, Acronyms and Deinitions Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Pearce, Michael J., 2002, Chapter 3.2, Water Law: Arizona Environmental Law Manual, State Bar of Arizona.* Pima County, 2006, Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, A Glance at Where We Are Today: Accessed in 2008 at http://www.pima.gov/CMO/SDCP/PDF/SDCP_WhereWeAreToday. pdf. Pollack, S.M. Esq., 2003, Indian Reserved Rights, Navajo Claims to the Colorado River: Arizona Water Law, CLE International, August 7-8, 2003.* Pope, G.L., P.D. Rigas and C.F. Smith, 1998, Statistical Summaries of Streamlow Data and Characteristics of Drainage Basins for Selected Streamlow-gaging Stations in Arizona through Water Year 1996: USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4225.* Reynolds, S.J., 1988, Geologic Map of Arizona: Arizona Geologic Survey Map 26. Salzer, M.W. and K.F. Kipfmueller, 2005, Reconstructed Temperature and Precipitation on a Millennial Timescale from Tree-rings in the Southern Colorado Plateau, U.S.A: Climatic Change, v. 70, pp. 465-87.* Salt River Project (SRP), 2008, Reservoir storage data: Files provided to DWR. Sheppard, P.R., A.C. Comrie, G.D. Packin, K. Angersbach and M.K. Hughes, 2002, The Climate of the Southwest: Climate Research, v. 21, pp. 219-238.* Stahle, D.W., E.R. Cook, M.K. Cleaveland, M.D. Therrell, D.M. Meko, H.D. Grissino-Mayer, E. Watson and B.H. Luckman, 2000, Tree-ring Data Document 16th century Megadrought over North America: Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union v. 8, no. 12, p. 212.* Tadayon, S., 2004, Water Withdrawals for Irrigation, Municipal, Mining, Thermoelectric-power, and Drainage Uses in Arizona Outside of the Active Management Areas, 1991-2000: USGS Scientiic Investigations Report 2004-5293.* Truini, M., J.P. Macy and T.J. Porter, 2005. Ground-water, Surface-water, and Water-chemistry Data, Black Mesa Area, Northeastern Arizona, 2003-04: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2005-1080. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams-Arizona: Accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nidpublic/ webpages/nid.cfm.* U.S. Census Bureau (Census), 2006, On-line data iles: Accessed January 2006 at www.census. gov.* References, Acronyms and Deinitions 80 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2008, National Monuments: Accessed January 2008 at http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/natmon.html. _____, 2006, Arizona Wilderness Areas: Accessed December 2006 at www.blm.gov/az/wildarea. htm.* U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 2010a, Reservoir water level data: Accessed June 2010 at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/hourly/mead-elv.html for Lake Mead and at http:// www.usbr.gov/uc/crsp/GetSiteInfo for Lake Powell. _____, 2010b, Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study: Accessed September 2010 at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy.html. _____, 2010c, Reclamation Announces Funding for Rural Water Program Appraisal Investigations and Feasibility Studies: September 1, 2010 press release accessed at http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=33622. _____, 2007, Consumptive Uses and Losses – Arizona Portion of the Upper Colorado River Basin, Calendar Year 2005. _____, 2006, North Central Arizona Water Supply Study Report of Findings. _____, 2004, Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses Report, 1996-2000. ______, 2003-2009, Lower Colorado Region, Colorado River Accounting and Water Use Reports, Arizona, California and Nevada. U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI), 2004, Final Programmatic EIS/EIR, Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, Volume 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008, Endangered Species List by County: Accessed July 2008 at www.fws.gov/arizonaes/documents/countylists and www.fws.gov/ifw2es/ endangeredspecies/lists/default.cfm.* _____2005, ESA Basics, 30 Years of Protecting Endangered Species: Accessed October 2005 at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pbus/ESA_Basics.* U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 2007, Wilderness Areas: Accessed March 2007 at http://www.fs.fed. us/r3/.* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2008a and 2005b, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. _____, 2008b, Water withdrawals for municipal use on the Navajo and Hopi reservations: Data ile received December 2008. 81 References, Acronyms and Deinitions Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data ile, received December 2007. _____, 2006a, Springs and spring discharges: Data iles received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS ofice in Tucson, AZ.* _____, 2006b, National Hydrography Dataset, Arizona: Accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.* _____, 2006c, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: Data ile accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/wrdmeta/runoff.htm.* _____, 2005a, 1:2,000,000-Scale Hydrologic Unit Boundaries: GIS cover accessed 2007 at http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html?openChapters=chpwater#chpwater. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Study- Land Cover Descriptions: Data ile accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap. _____, 2003, Water Resources Data, Arizona, Water Year 2003: USGS Water Data Report AZ03-1.* _____, 2002, Water Resources Data, Arizona, Water Year 2002: USGS Water Data Report AZ02-1.* _____, 1984, National Water Summary - Hydrologic Events, Selected Water-Quality Trends and Ground-Water Resources: USGS Water-Supply Paper 2275. Webb, R.H., S.A. Leake and R.M. Turner, 2007, The Ribbon of Green - Change in Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States: The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2008, Historical Climate Information, Arizona: Accessed May 2008 at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmaz.html. _____, 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data ile accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc. noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA.* Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA), 2005a, Clean Watershed Needs Survey - 2004: Unpublished data sheets received July 2005.* _____, 2005b, Water and Wastewater Residential Rate Survey for the State of Arizona.* References, Acronyms and Deinitions 82 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS A.A.C. A.R.S. AACD ACC ADEQ ADWR AF ALERT ALRIS AMA APP ARS AWBA AWPF AWS AZGF AZMET BIA BLM BOR CAGRD CAP CAWCD CCN CDP CERCLA cfs CLIMAS CODE COE CRWUA CU CWA CWN Department DES DLG DOD DOE DOI DWID EA EIS ENSO EPA ESA 83 Arizona Administrative Code Arizona Revised Statutes Arizona Association of Conservation Districts Arizona Corporation Commission Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Water Resources Acre-feet Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time Arizona Land Resource Information System Active Management Area Aquifer Protection Permit Agricultural Research Service Arizona Water Banking Authority Arizona Water Protection Fund Assured Water Supply Arizona Game and Fish Arizona Meteorological Network Bureau of Indian Affairs (U.S.) Bureau of Land Management (U.S.) Bureau of Reclamation (U.S.) Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District Central Arizona Project Central Arizona Water Conservation District Certificate of Convenience and Necessity Census Designated Place Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act - 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq. Cubic feet per second Climate Assessment for the Southwest Arizona Groundwater Management Act - A.R.S. § 45-401 et seq. Corps of Engineers (U.S.) Colorado River Water Users Association Consumptive use Clean Water Act - 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq. Clean Water Needs Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Department of Economic Security Digital Line Graph Department of Defense (U.S.) Department of Energy (U.S.) Department of Interior (U.S.) Domestic Water Improvement District Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Statement El Nino/Southern Oscillation Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.) Endangered Species Act - 7 U.S.C. 136; 16 U.S.C. 460 et seq. References, Acronyms and Deinitions Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 FMIC ft bls GIS GNIS GPCD GPHUD gpm GPS GRIC GSF GWSI HCN HMS HOA HUC HSR IBWC ID IHS INA ISPE LAIAG LCR LCRWCC LUST maf MCL mg/l mgd MSCP NEPA NAU NDEQ NDWR NHA NHD NOAA NOI NPDES NPL NPS NRA NRCD NRCS NTUA NWIS NWS Pan ET Fort McDowell Indian Community Feet below land surface Geographic Information System Geographic names information system Gallons Per Capita Per Day Gallons Per Housing Unit Per Day Gallons per minute Global Positioning Station Gila River Indian Community Groundwater Savings Facility Groundwater Site Inventory Historic Climate Network (U.S.) Hydrologic Map Series Home Owners Association Hydrologic Unit Code Hydrographic Survey Report International Boundary Water Commission Irrigation District Indian Health Service Irrigation Non-expansion Area Institute for the Study of Planet Earth (University of Arizona) Local Area Impact Assessment Group Little Colorado River Little Colorado River Watershed Coordinating Council Leaking Underground Storage Tank Million acre-feet Maximum Containment Level Milligrams per liter Million gallons per day Multi-Species Conservation Plan National Environmental Policy Act - 42 U.S.C. § 4321-4347 Northern Arizona University Navajo Department of Environmental Quality Navajo Department of Water Resources Navajo Housing Authority National Hydrography Data Set National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Notice of Intent to Drill a Well National Pollution Discharge Elimination System National Priorities List National Park Service (U.S.) National Recreation Area Natural Resources Conservation District Natural Resources Conservation Service Navajo Tribal Utility Authority National Water Information System National Weather Service Pan evaporation References, Acronyms and Deinitions 84 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 PCE P.L. POD POU ppb ppm PRISM PWC RCD RCRA RRA RVID RWCD SAWRSA SCAS SDW Secretary SLD SNOTEL SOC SPRNCA SRIM SRP TDS TEPCO TCE TMDL TMP TNC UMTRA USBR USDA USF USFS USFWS USGS UST VOC VRP WAPA WID WIFA WMAT WQARF WRCC WWTP 85 Tetrachloroethylene Public Law Point of diversion Point of use Parts per billion Parts per million Parameter elevation Regression on Independent Slopes Model Private Water Company Resource Conservation District Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. Reclamation Reform Act - 43 U.S.C. § 390aa et seq. Round Valley Irrigation District Roosevelt Water Conservation District Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act- P.L. 108-451 (2004) Spatial Climate Analysis Service Safe Drinking Water Act- 43 U.S.C. § 300f et seq. U.S. Secretary of the Interior Arizona State Land Department SNOwpack TELemetry Statement of Claimant San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area Statewide riparian inventory and mapping Salt River Project Total dissolved solids Tucson Electric Power Company Trichloroethylene Total maximum daily load Third management plan The Nature Conservancy Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of Agriculture Underground Storage Facility U.S. Forest Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Underground Storage Tank Volatile organic compound Voluntary Remediation Program Western Area Power Administration Water improvement district Water Infrastructure Funding Authority White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Western Regional Climate Center Wastewater treatment plant References, Acronyms and Deinitions Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 DEFINITIONS Acre-feet (AF): The amount of water it takes to cover one acre of land to the depth of one foot, approximately 325,851 gallons. Active management area (AMA): A geographic area that has been designated pursuant to A.R.S.§ 45-411 as requiring active management of groundwater or, in the case of the Santa Cruz AMA, active management of any water, other than stored water, withdrawn from a well. Subsequent active management areas may be designated through local initiative or by the Director of ADWR. Advanced primary treatment: The enhanced removal of suspended solids and organic matter in the wastewater treatment process through the use of chemicals and/or iltration. Advanced treatment I: A wastewater treatment level that is more stringent than secondary treatment and reduces the organic and inorganic substances from the treated wastewater through the use of chemical and physical techniques. It is often referred to as tertiary treatment. Advanced treatment II: Highest level of wastewater treatment with a BOD < 10 mg/l and/or the removal of nutrients. Agricultural water use: Water applied to two or more acres of land to produce plants or parts of plants for sale for human consumption or for use as feed for livestock, range livestock or poultry. Aquifer: A geologic formation that contains suficient saturated materials to be capable of storing water and transmitting water in useable quantities to a well. Aquifer recharge: Water added to the aquifer through seepage and iniltration. Aquifer storage: Water stored underground for future use. Also, water stored pursuant to a permit issued under A.R.S. § 45-831.01, the Underground Water Storage, Savings and Replenishment Program. Artiicial recharge: Water recharged to the aquifer through recharge projects, which may be recovered in the future based on accrued recharge credits. Baselow: The part of a stream discharge that is not attributable to direct runoff from precipitation or melting snow. It is sustained by groundwater discharge and may be considered as normal dayto-day low during most of the year. Baseline: A surveyed line that serves as a reference to which surveys are coordinated and correlated. Basin ill: Unconsolidated material such as sand, gravel and silt, eroded from surrounding mountains and deposited in a valley. Basin sweep: A technique used to collect information on groundwater level conditions by measuring References, Acronyms and Deinitions 86 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 selected wells throughout a basin. Speciic and randomly selected wells are measured to provide the best aerial and vertical coverage in the basin. Calendar year: The 12-month period from January 1 to December 31. Census blocks: A geographic area bounded by visible and/or invisible features shown on a map prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau. A block is the smallest geographic entity for which the Census Bureau tabulates decennial census data. Census designated place: A geographic entity that serves as the statistical counterpart of an incorporated place for the purpose of presenting census data for an area with a concentration of population, housing, and commercial structures that is identiiable by name, but is not within an incorporated place. Consumptive use: The part of the water demand that becomes unavailable for future use because it is evaporated or consumed by the use. Consumptive use also refers to diversions from the mainstream of the Colorado River minus the returns. Contamination site: A geographic area where the quality of the water and/or soil quality is naturally hazardous to animals or humans or has been impaired by sewage, industrial wastes, or other materials and where remediation is either ongoing, scheduled for the future or not practicable. Continuous low gage: Mechanical device placed in a stream that measures the volume of water lowing at that speciic location over an extended period of time. Community Water System: A public water system, as deined in A.R.S. § 49-352(B), that serves at least ifteen service connections used by year-round residents of the area served by the system or that regularly serves at least twenty-ive year-round residents of the area served by the system. A person is a year-round resident of the area served by a system if the person’s primary residence is served water by that system. Cultural water demand: The quantity of water diverted from streams and reservoirs and pumped from wells for municipal, industrial and agricultural purposes. It should not be confused with “consumptive use”, which refers to the amount of cultural water demand that is lost from the hydrologic system. Deicit irrigation: The practice of reducing the number of irrigation applications to lower crop production costs while achieving acceptable yields. Drinking water standards: Criteria developed by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and other state and local agencies, the US Public Health Service, and the US Environmental Protection Agency to assure safe water for human consumption. Drought: A sustained natural reduction in precipitation that results in negative impacts to the environment and human activity. 87 References, Acronyms and Deinitions Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Dry lake: A basin that formally contained a lake. Efluent: Water that has been collected in a sanitary sewer for subsequent treatment in a facility that is regulated as a sewage system, disposal plant or wastewater treatment facility. Such water remains efluent until it acquires the characteristics of groundwater or surface water. Efluent dependent water: Surface waters that would generally be ephemeral, except for the discharge of treated efluent. Ephemeral stream: A stream or part of a stream that lows only in direct response to precipitation; it receives little or no water from springs, melting snow or other sources; its channel is at all times above the water table. Evaporation pan: An open tank used to measure the amount of evaporation. The US Department of Commerce Weather Station Class A pan is 4 feet in diameter and 10 inches deep set so the top rim is 16 inches above ground. Evapotranspiration: Loss of water from the land through transpiration of plants and evaporation from the soil and surface water bodies. Exempt well: Within an AMA, a well having a pump with a maximum pumping capacity of 35 gallons per minute or less, which is used to withdraw groundwater for non-irrigation purposes. This term is also used to describe any well outside an AMA having a pump with a maximum pumping capacity of 35 gallons per minute or less. Groundwater: Generally, water below the earth’s surface but commonly applied to water in fully saturated soils and geologic formations. Groundwater low model: A digital computer model that calculates a hydraulic head ield for the modeling domain using numerical methods to arrive at an approximate solution to the differential equation of groundwater low. Groundwater savings facility: A facility that meets the requirements of section 45-812.01 in an active management area or an irrigation non-expansion area at which groundwater withdrawals are eliminated or reduced by recipients who use in lieu water on a gallon-for-gallon substitute basis for groundwater that otherwise would have been pumped from within that active management area or irrigation non-expansion area. Hydrograph: A graphic representation of the changes in the low of water or the elevation of water levels over time. Igneous rock: A rock formed by the crystallization of magma or lava. Impaired: A lake or stream that is not meeting one or more surface water quality standards as established in A.R.S. § 49-231 References, Acronyms and Deinitions 88 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Incidental recharge: The percolation of water to the water table after the water has been used. Components of incidental recharge include recharge that occurs from septic tanks, turf watering and efluent discharge. Index well: A well that is measured during speciic periods or continuously monitored by automatic recorders. These wells allow a lower density of representative monitoring to occur in the years between “sweeps”. Industrial demand: Water used by an industrial facility, such as a golf-course, dairy, feedlot, power plant, mine or paper mill, and that is served by the industrial facility’s well. Inlow: All water that enters a hydrologic system. Examples include mountain front and stream channel recharge, artiicial and incidental recharge and baselow and underlow into a system. In-lieu water: Water that is delivered to a groundwater savings facility in an AMA or INA and that is used at the facility by the recipient on a gallon for gallon substitute basis for groundwater that otherwise would have been pumped from within the AMA or INA. Irrigation non-expansion area (INA): A geographic area that has been designated pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 45-431 or 45-432 as having insuficient groundwater to provide a reasonably safe supply for the irrigation of cultivated lands at the current rate of withdrawal. Instream low right: A non-diversionary surface water right for recreation and wildlife purposes, including ish. Intermittent lake: A lake that normally contains water for only a portion of the year or one that is only seasonally dry. Intermittent stream: A stream or part of a stream that lows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from springs, snowmelt, surface run-off or other sources. Jurisdictional dam: Any artiicial barrier, including appurtenant works, for the impounding or diversion of water, 25 feet or more in height or with storage capacity more than 50 acre-feet, except: (a) Any barrier that is or will be less than six feet in height, regardless of storage capacity; (b) Any barrier that has or will have a storage capacity of ifteen acre-feet or less, regardless of height; (c) Any barrier for the purpose of controlling liquid-borne material; (d) Any barrier that is a release-contained barrier; or (e) Any barrier that is owned, controlled, operated, maintained or managed by the United States government or its agents or instrumentalities if a safety program that is at least as stringent as the state safety program applies and is enforced against the agent or instrumentality. Maximum storage capacity: Total storage space in a reservoir below the maximum attainable water surface elevation, including any surcharge storage. 89 References, Acronyms and Deinitions Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Meridian: A surveyed line that serves as a reference to which surveys are coordinated and correlated. Metamorphic rock: A rock that is the product of heat, pressure, and chemical activity so that some or all of its minerals are re-crystallized and may show preferred orientation. Municipal demand: All non-agricultural uses of water supplied by a city, town, private water company, irrigation district, domestic water improvement district, water cooperative or private domestic well. Non-exempt well: Within an AMA, a well having a pump with a maximum pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute and used for non-irrigation purposes or any well used for irrigation purposes. This term is also frequently used to describe any well outside an AMA having a pump with a maximum pumping capacity greater than 35 gallons per minute. Non-jurisdictional dam: An artiicial barrier for impounding water that does not qualify as a jurisdictional dam. Normal storage capacity: the total volume, in acre-feet, at the normal retention level, including dead and inactive storage and excluding lood control and surcharge storage. Outlow: All water that leaves a hydrologic system. Examples include cultural water demand, phreatophyte use and underlow and baselow out of the system. Pan evaporation: Evaporation in inches from a standard Weather Bureau Class A pan. Peak low gage: A mechanical device that measures the maximum instantaneous discharge of a stream or river at a given location. Peak low usually occurs at the time of maximum stage. Perennial stream: A stream or part of a stream with surface low throughout the year, drying only during periods of drought. Period of record: The length of time represented in the data. Phreatophyte: A deep-rooted plant that obtains it water from a permanent groundwater supply. Primary treatment: The irst stage in wastewater treatment where some solids and organic material are removed by screening and sedimentation. It removes about 35% of the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and less than half of the metals or toxic organic substances. Range: In the U.S. Public Land Survey System, any series of contiguous townships aligned north and south and numbered consecutively east to west from a prime meridian to which it is parallel. Recent stream alluvium: Unconsolidated clay, sand, silt or gravel that has been recently deposited, from a geological perspective, by a stream or running water along the stream channel, on its lood plain or at the base of a mountain slope. References, Acronyms and Deinitions 90 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Reference crop evapotranspiration (Eto): An estimate of the water used by a well-watered, fullcover grass surface, 8-11.5 cm in height (the reference crop). Reservoir: An artiicially created lake where water is collected and stored for future use. Return Flow: The amount of water that reaches a groundwater or surface water source after release from the point of use and thus becomes available for further use. In other words, that part of a diverted low, which is not consumptively used and returns to its original source or another body of water. Run-off: The portion of precipitation that is not intercepted by vegetation, absorbed by land surfaces or evaporated and that lows overland into a depression, lake, stream or ocean. Secondary treatment: The second stage in wastewater treatment that involves both chemical and biological processes. The screened wastewater is passed through a series of holding and aeration tanks and ponds further removing organic and inorganic substances. Disinfecting with chlorine may be included. Secondary treatment with nutrient removal: An additional process in the secondary treatment of wastewater that removes nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Section: In the US Public Land Survey System, one of the 36 subdivisions of a township. A section represents 1 square mile or 640 acres. Sedimentary rock: A rock formed by the accumulation and consolidation of loose sediments in layered deposits. Snowcourse: A permanent site where measurements of snow depth and snow water equivalent are taken at multiple locations by trained observers. A Snowcourse is generally 1,000 feet long and located in small meadows protected from the wind. Snow water equivalent (SWE): The amount of water contained in the snowpack that would theoretically appear if the snow were melted all at once; also known as snow water content. Spring: A place where water emerges naturally from the earth without artiicial assistance onto the land surface or into a body of surface water. Stockpond: An impoundment of any size that stores appropriable water and that is for the sole purpose of watering livestock and wildlife. Superfund: The federal government’s program to clean up the nation’s uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, also known as “CERCLA,” the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et seq. Surface water: An open body of water such as a stream, lake, or reservoir. 91 References, Acronyms and Deinitions Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Surface water standards: Numeric and narrative criteria developed to ensure surface water quality for 6 designated uses; aquatic and wildlife, body contact, ish consumption, domestic water source, and agricultural use for irrigation or livestock watering. Tertiary treatment: Wastewater treatment beyond the secondary or biological stage that includes the removal of nitrogen and phosphorus and a high percent of suspended solids through chemical and mechanical means such as additional iltration, carbon adsorption, distillation and reverse osmosis. Township: A unit of survey in the U.S. Public Land Survey System that represents a piece of land that is bounded on the east and west sides by meridians approximately 6 miles apart. Underlow: The downstream low of water through permeable deposits underlying a stream. Underground storage facility: means a constructed underground storage facility or a managed underground storage facility. “Constructed underground storage facility” means a facility that meets the requirements of section 45-811.01 and that is designed and constructed to store water underground pursuant to permits. “Managed underground storage facility” means a facility that meets the requirements of section 45-811.01 and that is designed and managed to utilize the natural channel of a stream to store water underground pursuant to permits through artiicial and controlled releases of water other than surface water naturally present in the stream. Surface water lowing in its natural channel is not a managed underground storage facility. Volcanic rock: A inely crystalline or glassy igneous rock resulting from volcanic action at or near the earth’s surface. Water Adequacy Program: The program implementing A.R.S. § 45-108, requiring a developer of subdivided land outside an AMA to obtain a determination from the Department regarding the availability of water supplies before the land may be marketed for sale or lease to the public, unless the land will be served by a water provider designated as having an adequate water supply. Under this regulatory program, developers are required to disclose a determination that the water supply is inadequate to potential buyers. Water duty: The amount of water that is reasonable to apply to irrigated land to produce a crop. The water duty accounts for ield location and soil type, and incorporates consumptive use, evaporation and seepage from the farm water delivery system and the water that is returned to the soil via percolation and runoff. Water year: A 12-month period beginning on October 1 and ending on September 30. The water year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends, e.g. the 2006 water year ends September 30, 2006. Well yield: The volume of water discharged from a well in gallons per minute or cubic meters per day. References, Acronyms and Deinitions 92 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 93 References, Acronyms and Deinitions Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX A: PLANNING AREA VOLUME CONTENT Appendices 94 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX A Planning Area Volume Content The standard basin and AMA maps, igures and tables found in Volumes 2-8 are listed below. Additional maps, igures and tables may be found for some basins such as sub-basin maps and surface water hydrographs. Basin and AMA Maps and Figures 1. Geographic Features Topographic map with principal places 2. Land Ownership Landownership categories > 0.1% 3. Precipitation and Meteorological Stations Location of NOAA, NWS, AZMET, Pan ET, SNOTEL and Snowcourse stations keyed to climatic data table 4. Surface Water Conditions Major rivers and streams, unit runoff contours, location of lood warning gages, USGS stream gages, reservoirs >500 acre-feet keyed to stream gage, lood gage and large reservoir tables 5. Perennial/intermittent Streams and Major (>10gpm) Springs Location of perennial and intermittent streams and location of major springs keyed to major springs table 6. Groundwater Level Conditions Current depth to water, groundwater level changes over an approximately ten-year period in selected wells, general groundwater low direction, keyed to selected basin hydrographs 7. Selected Basin Hydrographs 8. Well Yields Well yields measured by USGS and the Department and reported for >10 inch diameter wells, shown by different yield increments 9. Recharge Sites (Active Management Areas, Volume 8) Location of underground storage facilities and groundwater savings facilities 10. Water Quality Conditions Location of wells, springs and mine sites with drinking water exceedences, impaired lakes and stream reaches, and efluent dependent reaches, keyed to water quality exceedences table 11. Contamination Sites (Active Management Areas, Volume 8; this is a planning area map in Volumes 2-7) Location of DOD, LUST, RCRA, Superfund, UMTRA, VRP, and WQARF sites 12. Cultural Water Demand Location of active agricultural lands, power plants, large mines, small mines/quarries and high density and low density municipal and industrial demand centers. 13. Water Adequacy and Assured Water Supply Determinations Outside AMAs, location of water adequacy reports and inadequacy determinations, analysis of water adequacy determinations and water providers designated as having an adequate water supply keyed to table. Inside AMAs, location of pre-Code water adequacy reports and inadequacy determinations, certiicates of assured water supply, analysis of assured water supply determinations and water providers designated as having an assured water supply keyed to keyed to table. 95 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Basin and AMA Tables 1. Climate Data • NOAA and NWS stations: name, period of record, elevation, minimum and maximum average temperature, average seasonal and average annual rainfall • Pan Evaporation stations: name, period of record, elevation, average annual evaporation • AZMET stations: name, period of record, elevation, average annual reference ET • SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations: name, period of record, elevation, monthly snow water equivalent 2. Streamlow Data • gage name, drainage area, period of record, total years of record, mean basin elevation, average seasonal low, minimum, median, mean and maximum annual low 3. Flood ALERT Equipment • Flood/ALERT gages: name, identiication number, station type, installation date, operator 4. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Large reservoirs (>500 acre-feet or 50 acres or greater surface area): name of lake/reservoir and dam, owner/operator, maximum storage/surface acres, purpose/use, jurisdiction • Small reservoirs, (15 to 500 acre-feet or 5 to <50 acre surface area): total number and maximum storage/surface acres • Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity): total number 5. Springs • Major springs (10 gpm or greater): name, location, discharge rate, measurement date • Minor springs (1 to 10 gpm discharge): name, location, discharge rate, measurement date • Total number of springs in the basin 6. Groundwater Data • basin area in square miles • major aquifer(s) • well yields; range and median yields • estimated natural recharge • groundwater in storage • number of index wells, date of last well sweep 7. Recharge Sites (Active Management Areas, Volume 8) • Facility name, number, permittee name, facility type, permitted acre-feet/year, water source 8. Water Quality Exceedences • Wells, springs and mines: site type, location, water quality standard, parameter(s) exceeded • Lakes and streams: site type, name, length of impaired stream reach/area of impaired lake, water quality standard, parameter(s) exceeded 9. Contamination Sites • Contamination site name and media affected and contaminant 10. Efluent Generation • facility name/ownership, city/location served, volume treated, disposal method, treatment level, population served/not served, year of record 11. Cultural Water Demand • historic, current and projected population • historic and current number of wells < 35gpm and >35gpm • historic and current agricultural, municipal and industrial surface water diversions (or nongroundwater supply) and groundwater pumpage 12. Assured (AMA) and Adequate (outside AMA) Water Supply Determinations • For AMAs: Certiicates of Assured Water Supply (AWS), water adequacy reports (pre-1980), and Analyses of AWS including name, county, location, number of lots, ADWR ile number, date of determination, water provider. Appendices 96 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 • • • • 97 For AMAs: Designation of AWS including name, ADWR ile number, date issued, projected or annual estimated demand and year of projected or annual demand Outside AMAs: Water Adequacy Reports including name, county, location, number of lots, ADWR ile number, date of determination, water provider, adequacy determination and the reason for the inadequacy determination. Outside AMAs: Analyses of Adequate Water Supply including name, county, location, number of lots, ADWR ile number, date of determination, water provider. Outside AMAs: Designation of Water Adequacy including name, ADWR ile number, date issued, projected or annual estimated demand and year of projected or annual demand Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX B: DATA SOURCES AND METHODS Appendices 98 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX B DATA SOURCES AND METHODS This appendix describes the sources of data and methods of analysis for tables and maps presented in Volumes 1-8 of the Atlas. These descriptions may not completely explain some details of the data sources and analysis in all cases. More detailed information may be obtained by contacting the Department. Also, the references cited here may differ slightly from those presented in Volumes 2-8 if additional and/or more recent data became available. B.1 Adequate and Assured Water Supply Determinations Adequacy Determinations Information related to the Department’s water adequacy determinations is presented on basinscale maps (Adequacy Determinations) and summarized in a table for each basin (Adequacy Determinations) in Volumes 2-7. Where water adequacy reports and requests for analysis of adequate water supply have been iled, the tables include subdivision names, number of lots, locational data, Department ile numbers, determination dates, reasons for inadequate determinations, and water providers at the time of application. Where water supplies have been designated for water provider service areas, the tables list information on Department ile numbers, projected or estimated annual demand, the year the demand is expected, and designation dates. Adequacy determinations are further summarized in this volume by grouping the data into planning areas (Table 1-8) and by plotting on a statewide map (Figure 1-22). Sources for this information come from the Department and include electronic databases maintained by the Ofice of Assured and Adequate Water Supply and paper iles stored in the Hydrology Division (ADWR, 2010 and 2008e). Database queries were reviewed and some information was excluded from the Atlas based on subdivision location, duplicate applications, etc. Paper iles were also reviewed to complete information that had not been entered into the databases such as number of lots and reasons for inadequate determinations. Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to the Department and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination is made. Assured Water Supply Determinations Information related to the Department’s assured water supply determinations is presented on AMA scale maps (Assured Water Supply Determinations) and summarized in a table for each AMA (Assured Water Supply Determinations) in Volume 8. Where assured water supply certiicates, water adequacy reports (pre-1980) and requests for analysis of adequate water supply have been iled, the tables include subdivision names, number of lots, locational data, Department ile numbers, determination dates, and water providers at the time of application. Where water supplies have been designated, the tables list Department ile numbers, information on projected or estimated annual demand, the year the demand is expected, and designation dates. Assured water supply determinations are further summarized in this volume by grouping the data by AMA (Table 1-9) and by plotting on a statewide map (Figure 1-22). 99 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Sources for this information come from the Department and include electronic databases maintained by the Ofice of Assured and Adequate Water Supply and paper iles stored in the Hydrology Division (ADWR, 2010 and 2008e). Database queries were reviewed and some information was excluded from the Atlas based on subdivision location, duplicate applications, etc. Lot count totals may over estimate the actual number of platted lots due to database accounting, changes in ile numbering methodology and subsequent development plan changes. Each determination of assured water supply is based on the information available to the Department and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination is made. B.2 Aquifers Flow Direction Groundwater low directions are presented on basin- and some sub-basin scale maps (Groundwater Conditions) in Volumes 2-8. This information was taken from a variety of technical reports prepared by the Department and the USGS. Flow directions are not shown for some basins, either because of insuficient groundwater level data and/or complex subsurface geology. The low directions that are shown in the Atlas generally relect long-term, regional aquifer low in the basin and are not meant to depict temporary or local-scale conditions. Major Types Major aquifer types are listed in a table for each basin (Hydrogeologic Data) and are generally described in the text for each planning area volume. Information on aquifer types was taken from Volume II of the Department’s 1994 Arizona Water Resources Assessment (ADWR, 1994b). To ensure consistency and simplify comparison between basins, aquifer descriptions from the 1994 Assessment were reviewed and grouped in the Atlas into ive basic aquifer types: • Basin ill; • Igneous and metamorphic rocks; • Recent stream alluvium; • Sedimentary rock; and • Volcanic rock. In some basins, two or more of these aquifer types are found. Also, several aquifers in Arizona have been given speciic names related to their geologic formation or location. Where known and applicable, this information is included in the Atlas. The aquifers in most basins can be further described by their rock type or sediment grade (e.g. sandstone vs. limestone) and position in the geologic sequence (e.g. upper vs. lower basin ill). This level of detail is not provided in the Atlas, but for reference, can be found in the 1994 Assessment. A summary of the major aquifers in Arizona is included in this volume (Table 1-4). Recharge and Storage Estimates of aquifer recharge and storage are listed in a table for each basin (Groundwater Data) and described in the overviews of Volumes 2-8. The estimates are based on one or more of six primary data sources: • Phase I; Arizona State Water Plan published by the Arizona Water Commission in 1975 (AWC, 1975); Appendices 100 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 • • • • • • • A 1986 study by the USGS of predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent states (Freethey and Anderson, 1986); A 1990 internal report by the Department summarizing water resources information for the groundwater basins (ADWR, 1990); Volume II of the Department’s 1994 Arizona Water Resources Assessment (ADWR, 1994b); A 1995 report by the USGS describing groundwater low models developed for selected alluvial basins in south-central Arizona and parts of adjacent states (Anderson and Freethey, 1995); The Department’s 1999 Third Management Plans (TMP); A 2009 Department memo summarizing groundwater storage estimates for the AMAs (ADWR, 2009c); and Various hydrologic reports and maps prepared by the USGS and the Department for select basins and subbasins across Arizona. In many cases, these data sources provide information for areas that do not exactly coincide with the Department’s groundwater basins. It was often necessary to adjust reported recharge and storage values to account for these differences in basin area as well as the location of the border between basin ill and bedrock and zones of high recharge (i.e. along or near mountain fronts). Aquifer recharge is a dificult hydrologic parameter to measure and, on a regional level, it is usually determined indirectly either through development of water budgets and/or use of groundwater low models. The recharge estimates presented in the Atlas generally represent long-term, natural (predevelopment) conditions. Wet and dry periods are averaged and artiicial recharge is not considered. Such factors can signiicantly affect aquifer recharge in a given year. Aquifer storage is also a dificult parameter to measure and the estimates in the Atlas were usually based on a combination of point data from wells and results from large-scale surface geophysical surveys. Where aquifers consist of consolidated rock and storage is controlled by fractures, storage estimates can be highly unreliable. In light of these uncertainties, the Atlas often provides more than one estimate of aquifer recharge and storage for each basin. A summary of the aquifer recharge and storage estimates for Arizona is included in this volume (Table 1-4). B.3 Climate Average Annual Precipitation Average annual precipitation, in inches, is shown on basin-scale maps (Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation) in Volumes 2-8 and on a statewide map in this volume (Figure 1-14). Contour lines and color-coding are used on the maps to delineate areas of equal and similar precipitation. This precipitation information comes from the Spatial Climatic Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. Using an analytical tool called PRISM (Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model), SCAS analyzed regional precipitation data averaged over the period 1961-1990 and prepared digital precipitation maps for the United States in 1998. The Department downloaded the PRISM map for Arizona from the SCAS website (SCAS, 1998). Evaporation Stations Evaporation data collected from AZMET and pan stations are summarized in a table for each basin (Climatic Data) and station locations are shown on basin-scale maps (Meteorological Stations 101 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 and Annual Precipitation) in Volumes 2-8 and on a statewide map in this volume (Figure 1-14). Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET) stations are operated in southern and Central Arizona and provide weather-based information to agricultural and horticultural interests. Pan stations refer to Class A evaporation pans that are used to estimate evaporation rates from natural surfaces such as shallow lakes and wet soils. Summary tables in the Atlas list the name and elevation of these stations, their period of record, and average annual evaporation rates in inches. Note that the pan evaporation rates listed are usually adjusted by multiplying by 0.7 or 0.8 before being used to estimate natural conditions. Reference evapotranspiration (Eto) rates are listed for the AZMET stations and refer to the amount of water evaporated and transpired by well-maintained, wellwatered turf grass. Data from the AZMET stations were downloaded from a website maintained by the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension (AZMET, 2007), and data from the pan stations were downloaded from a website maintained by the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC, 2005). Pan data were presented as monthly averages, which the Department summed for all months and presented as an annual average. Some pan stations did not measure evaporation rates during winter months and others estimated those rates using other meteorological data. Several factors can affect evaporation rates, including air temperature, humidity, and wind. The data presented in the Atlas represent conditions at the measuring stations and provide a general indication of average evaporation rates in the basin. Care should be taken when using these data for site-speciic studies. Precipitation and Temperature Stations Precipitation and temperature data from a network of weather stations are summarized in a table for each basin (Climatic Data) and station locations are shown on basin-scale maps (Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation) in Volumes 2-8 and on a statewide map in this volume (Figure 1-14). The summary tables list the name and elevation of these stations, their period of record, and temperature and precipitation data. Temperature data include average minimum and maximum temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit and in which months these extremes occur. Precipitation data include average seasonal precipitation and average annual precipitation in inches. Seasons are deined in the Atlas as follows: • Winter – January through March; • Spring – April through June; • Summer – July through September; and • Fall – October through December. The weather stations presented are part of a cooperative network maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS). Data from these stations has been compiled by the WRCC and posted on its website (WRCC, 2008). Statistics presented in the summary tables were downloaded directly from this website. Several factors can affect temperature and precipitation rates, particularly elevation and other geographic features. The data presented in the Atlas represent conditions at the measuring stations and provide a general indication of average temperature and precipitation conditions in the basin. Care should be taken when using these data for site-speciic studies. Appendices 102 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Snowfall Stations Snowfall data from Snowcourse and Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL) stations are summarized in a table for each basin (Climatic Data) and station locations are shown on basin-scale maps (Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation) in Volumes 2-8 and on a statewide map in this volume (Figure 1-14). The summary tables list the name and elevation of these stations, their period of record, and snowpack measurements. The average snowpack at the beginning of each month is presented as inches of snow water content, also referred to as the snow water equivalent. Only those months when snow surveys are usually conducted (January through June) are included. Snowcourse and SNOTEL stations are operated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Data from these stations have been compiled by NRCS and posted on its website. Statistics presented in the summary tables were downloaded directly from this website (NRCS, 2006 and 2005). Many factors can affect snowpack depths such as aspect, elevation and forest cover and NRCS takes great care to locate snow course and SNOTEL stations that provide representative data. Nevertheless, the data presented in the Atlas represents conditions at the measuring stations and only provides a general indication of average snowfall conditions across the highlands of some basins. Care should be taken when using these data for site-speciic studies. Trends in Precipitation and Temperature Long-term trends in precipitation and temperature are shown by Planning Area in Volumes 2-8 and in Section 1.4.3 and Appendix E of this volume. Trend data are presented graphically with explanatory text. This information was primarily contributed by researchers at the University of Arizona, including the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, which is responsible for the Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS) program (CLIMAS, 2008). WRCC (2008) provided trend data for the AMAs. B.4 Contamination Sites Contamination sites are shown on planning area and AMA maps (Contamination Sites) in Volumes 2-8 and on a statewide map in this volume (Figure 1-27). Included are the locations of U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP), Superfund (listed on the National Priorities List or NPL), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) and Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) sites as well as leaking underground storage tanks (LUST). The data were provided by ADEQ and included locations for all LUST sites in Arizona, regardless of reported contaminant levels or whether remediation had been completed (ADEQ, 2006). For purposes of the atlas, LUST sites are only shown where contamination is either suspected or known to exist and remediation is required to meet soil and water quality standards. LUST sites that meet applicable standards and/or have been remediated and closed-out are not included. B.5 Cultural Water Demands Location of Major Water Use Locations of major water use are shown on basin-scale maps (Cultural Water Demands) in Volumes 2-8 and on a statewide map in this volume (Figure 1-31). Included on the maps are agricultural 103 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 lands, low- and high-intensity developments, mines and power plants. The primary data source for the water use maps was a land cover study of the southwestern United States, completed by the USGS (2004). Land cover types were mapped in this study at a 5- to 12-acre resolution using Landsat satellite imagery collected between 1999 and 2001. The Department supplemented the data with the locations of active power plants and mines (ADMMR, 2005). Due to its resolution, use of Landsat imagery to map land cover types requires a high degree of interpretation and some areas of water use, particularly agricultural lands, may be misclassiied. The Department reviewed the USGS land covers to ensure that they were reasonable and made edits as needed. It should also be noted that the Landsat imagery used by the USGS is now as much as 10 years old, and some land cover types may have changed since the imagery was taken. Surface Water Diversions Annual surface water diversions for agriculture, industrial, and municipal uses are listed in a table for each basin (Cultural Water Demand) in Volumes 2-8 and on a statewide table in this volume (Table 1-14). For the AMAs, surface water diversions are grouped with other non-groundwater supplies which can include Central Arizona Project (CAP) water, efluent, and spill and tail waters Surface water demand data for the period 1971-1990 (and through 1985 in the AMAs) were taken from the Department’s 1994 Assessment (ADWR, 1994a). A variety of sources were utilized to determine more recent surface water demands for the period 1991 through 2005. ADEQ (2005b) furnished a list of municipal water providers who utilize surface water and the ACC (2005b) supplied annual reports for some of these providers indicating how much surface water they were diverting and/or delivering. USGS (2007) provided data on surface water demands for agriculture for those basins where the diversions have been metered. Most other surface water demands had to be determined by the Department through one or more methods including review of existing Department, BOR, county, and consultant reports; analysis of recent aerial photography; Internet and records research; questionnaires and phone interviews; consultation with the USGS; and, limited ieldwork (ADWR, 2008f). The Department’s Colorado River Management Section was an important data source and provided records of Colorado River water users, locations and annual diversion volumes (ADWR, 2006). Department Annual Withdrawal and Use Reports provided data on most surface water demands in the AMAs since 1986 (ADWR, 2008g). In many cases outside of the AMAs, the Department had to estimate the quantity of surface water demand because the records were nonexistent, imprecise or incomplete (ADWR, 2008f and 2005b). For example, to estimate unmetered surface water diversions for agriculture, the Department made assumptions about the number of cropped acres and water duty. For some irrigated areas, diversion amounts were adjusted to account for basin boundaries. Similarly, for most non-AMA golf courses determined to be using surface water, the Department estimated demand based on the number of holes and local irrigation needs for turf (ADWR, 2008j). The surface water demand of municipal water providers was estimated in some cases based on the number of hookups, an assumed per capita use rate and delivery losses. As previously mentioned, the surface water demand for agricultural, industrial, and municipal use was often unmetered and had to be estimated by the Department. Historic demands were assumed Appendices 104 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 to represent current conditions and vice versa if information was not available. Assumptions were also made where water demands were met by combining surface water diversions and well pumpage, but the precise volume of each was not known. Furthermore, it is likely that several relatively small surface water diversions were simply not identiied by the Department and not included in the Atlas. The values presented in the Atlas should, therefore, not be considered precise, but they provide an estimate of these demands and indicate where surface water is an important water source to meet cultural demands. The following conventions were used to round cultural demand values met by surface water: • 0 to 1,000 acre feet – round to the nearest 50 acre-feet (af); • 1,000 to 10,000 acre-feet – round to the nearest 100 af; • 10,000 to 100,000 acre-feet – round to the nearest 500 af; and • 100,000 to 1,000,000 acre-feet – round to the nearest 1,000 af. Recent non-groundwater demands in the AMAs were generally rounded to the nearest 100 af. Finally, it should be noted that surface water stored in reservoirs and stockponds and diverted through ish hatcheries were not included in the cultural demand tables. Practically all of the surface water diverted by ish hatcheries passes through the facilities and is released for use downstream. Surface water stored in reservoirs and stockponds may or may not be released for use downstream and some of this water is lost to evaporation. Well Pumpage Annual well pumpage for agricultural, industrial, and municipal uses is listed in a table for each basin (Cultural Water Demand) in Volumes 2-8 and on a statewide table in this volume (Table 1-14). Data on well pumpage are also summarized by planning area in the text of the planning area volumes. Well pumpage data for the period 1971 through 1990 (and through 1985 in the AMAs) are from the Department’s 1994 Assessment (ADWR, 1994a). Outside of the AMAs, the primary data source for well pumpage for the period 1991 through 2005 was the USGS (2007), which describes its methodology, assumptions, and data limitations in the 2005 report Water Withdrawals for Irrigation, Municipal, Mining, Thermoelectric-Power, and Drainage Uses in Arizona Outside of Active Management Areas, 1991-2000 (Tadayon, 2004). The Department’s Annual Withdrawal and Use Reports provided most well pumpage data for the AMAs since 1986 (ADWR, 2008g). The Department had to adjust the USGS pumpage values for a few basins where mining companies pump from the same wells to supply both industrial and municipal needs and, in other basins where springs have been identiied as a water source. The USGS accounted for water use from springs as well pumpage, whereas the Department considers these to be surface water diversions. In addition, the USGS did not evaluate water use by feedlots and golf courses. The Department considers both to be industrial uses and, for the Atlas, estimated well pumpage following methods similar to those used to estimate surface water diversions (ADWR, 2008j and 2008k). To estimate well pumpage for feedlots, the Department identiied feedlots by using ADEQ’s list of active feedlots in Arizona (ADEQ, 2005a) and, based on the type and number of animal units at each feedlot, applied a consumptive rate. Outside of the AMAs, the quantity of well pumpage for agricultural, industrial and municipal use was not always metered, requiring estimation in some cases (ADWR, 2008f). Historic pumpage was assumed to represent current conditions, and vice versa, if information was unavailable. 105 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Assumptions were also made where water demands were met by combining well pumpage and surface water diversions, but the precise volume of each was unknown. Lastly, it is likely that several relatively small well withdrawals were simply not identiied by the USGS or the Department and are not included in the Atlas. The values presented in the Atlas should, therefore, not be considered precise, but they provide an estimate of pumpage and indicate where well water is an important water source to meet cultural demands. The following conventions were used to round cultural demand values met by well pumpage: • 0 to 1,000 acre feet – round to the nearest 50 af; • 1,000 to 10,000 acre-feet – round to the nearest 100 af; • 10,000 to 100,000 acre-feet – round to the nearest 500 af; and, • 100,000 to 1,000,000 acre-feet – round to the nearest 1,000 af. In the AMAs, recent well pumpage was rounded to the nearest 100 af. Community Water System Annual Reports Beginning in 2006, all community water systems in the state must submit an annual report of water withdrawals, diversions and deliveries to the Department. Systems in the AMAs have been reporting this information to the Department since 1984 under provisions of the Groundwater Management Act. A community water system is deined as a public water system that serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or that regularly serves at least 25 yearround residents. A.R.S. § 45-341. This information has been compiled by planning area in the Appendices of Volumes 2-7 and data for the largest water providers are included in water demand summary tables in the overview of these volumes. Planning Area Summaries The overview of Volumes 2-8 summarize the basin surface water diversion and well pumpage data described above by planning area. Average cultural water demands during the period 2001-2005 are listed in tables and displayed on graphs and pie charts. For comparison, water demands for the periods 1991-1995 and 1996-2001 are also listed in certain tables and tribal water demands are presented separately. These planning area data are further summarized in Section 1.4.7 of this volume. B.6 Drought Drought conditions in the planning areas are discussed under the Climate Section of Volumes 2 through 8 and in Appendix E of this volume. This information was provided by the Department’s Drought Planning Section, University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, CLIMAS/Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, and the USGS (CLIMA, 2005). B.7 Efluent Facility Data Information on facilities that treat and discharge efluent is summarized in a table for each basin (Efluent Generation) in Volumes 2-8 and summarized in a planning area table (Table 1-13) of this volume. For each treatment facility, the tables list the name, owner, city/location served, population served, volume of efluent treated/generated annually, efluent disposal methods, levels of treatment, unserved population, and year of record. Appendices 106 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Primary data sources were the Clean Water Needs (CWN) Surveys sponsored by the Water Infrastructure Financing Authority (WIFA), and annual reports provided by the ACC. CWN Surveys are conducted every two to four years and are used to assist treatment facilities in obtaining funding. To capture data for as many treatment facilities as possible, survey results from 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2006 were used for the Atlas (EPA, 2005a, 2005b, 2002, 2000 and 1996). The ACC regulates private treatment plants and requires that operators ile annual reports that sometimes included data on efluent production (ACC, 2005). The data were supplemented, when possible, with information from facility operators, from ADEQ (2005c,d,e,f), which issues facility discharge permits), and city, county and Department reports. The latter include Annual Withdrawal and Use Reports (in AMAs) and Community Water System annual reports. Wastewater treatment is a dynamic industry with frequent changes in plant names, treatment levels and efluent volumes. Although the last CWN survey was conducted in 2006, updated information was not available for all facilities. The Department used the most recent data available, which for some facilities is over 10 years old (WIFA, 2005a and b). Efluent Dependent Waters The location of efluent-dependent waters, including lakes and stream reaches, are shown on basinscale maps (Water Quality Conditions) in Volumes 2-8. A GIS cover of efluent- dependent waters in Arizona was provided by ADEQ (2005g). These reaches are also listed and described by ADEQ in their surface water quality rules (A.A.C. R18-11-113). B.8 Environmental Conditions Biotic Communities and Ecoregions Information on biotic communities (Brown and Lowe, 1980) and ecoregions (Olson and others, 2001) are discussed in the overview and shown on planning area-scale maps (Biotic Communities and Ecoregions) in Volumes 2-8. A statewide map is presented in Figure 1-18 of this volume. National Parks, Monuments, Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness Areas A discussion of National Parks, Monuments, Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness Areas is provided in the overview of Volumes 2-8 and their location is shown on planning area maps (Protected Areas) in these volumes (BLM, 2008 and 2006; USFS, 2007). A table of wilderness areas with total acres and brief description of prominent features is also found in the overview of Volumes 2-8. Riparian Areas The location of riparian areas (AZGF, 1993) is shown on planning area maps (Instream Flow Applications) in Volumes 2-8 and a statewide map is presented in Figure 1-19 of this volume. Threatened and Endangered Species A table listing threatened and endangered species (USFWS, 2008) by planning area and their elevation and habitat is found in the overview of Volumes 2-8. 107 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 B.9 Geology Surface Maps Surface geologic conditions are shown on planning area maps (Surface Geology) in the overviews of Volumes 2-8 and on a statewide map (Figure 1-3) in this volume. The maps display nine generalized geologic units based on more detailed mapping by Reynolds (1988). Cross Sections The Eastern and Western Plateau planning areas are underlain by a sequence of sedimentary rocks with water-bearing formations most common in sandstones and limestones. The relationship between the formations is shown on cross sections in the overviews of Volumes 2 and 6 and in this volume (Figure 1-5, ADWR 1989). Cross-sections of typical subsurface geologic conditions in other planning areas are shown in Figure 1-6 (ADWR, 1993) and Figure 1-7 (Parker and Flynn, 2000) of this volume. B.10 Land Ownership Land ownership information is presented on basin-scale maps (Land Ownership) and summarized in the text of Volumes 2-8. Included on the maps are the location of major landowner types (e.g. private, BLM, NPS, etc.) and the percentage that each type comprises of the total basin area. Data on current land ownership was downloaded from the Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS) website maintained by the Arizona State Land Department (SLD) (ALRIS, 2004). A statewide summary table (Table 1-2) is presented in this volume. B.11 Lands Survey A number of Atlas maps show township and range lines. Most lands in Arizona have been mapped according to a rectangular coordinate system known as the Public Lands Survey. Under this survey, lands are divided into “townships” and “sections.” A township is a square parcel of land six miles on each side that is subdivided into 36 equal parts called sections. A section covers one square mile or 640 acres. Because of the earth’s curvature, surveying errors and other factors, not all townships are square, not all townships contain 36 sections, and not all sections contain 640 acres. Townships are located relative to a point that forms at the intersection of an east-west “baseline” and a north-south “meridian.” Locations are referenced as being so many six-mile units, called “Townships”, north or south of the baseline and so many six-mile units, called “Ranges,” east or west of the meridian. Most of Arizona’s townships were surveyed relative to the point of intersection of the Gila and Salt Rivers, referred to as the Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian. Approximately 20 townships in Apache County were surveyed from the Navajo Baseline and Meridian established in New Mexico, and a small portion of land near the town of Yuma was surveyed from the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian established in California (ASLD, 2006). Townships surveyed from the Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian are plotted on all basinscale maps in the Atlas. This information was digitized from USGS Quads. Townships surveyed from the Navajo and San Bernardino Baselines and Meridians have generally not been plotted, Appendices 108 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 but these are included on the base map that was used to prepare Geographic Features maps. Note that in some areas in Arizona no townships have been surveyed. These include a large portion of the Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations in northeastern Arizona, a small portion of the San Carlos Indian Reservation in east-central Arizona, and several Spanish land grants in southeastern Arizona. To provide general mapping reference, Department staff protracted these unsurveyed areas extending townships based on the Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian into these areas. These unoficial townships are included on maps in the Atlas. B.12 Physiographic Regions Based on differences in geography, Fenneman and Johnson (1946) divided Arizona into three physiographic regions – the Colorado Plateau, Transition Zone, and Basin and Range. The overview of Volumes 2-8 and Figure 1-3 of this volume show the location of the three regions and associated topographic conditions. B.13 Population Population data are listed in a table for each basin (Cultural Water Demand) in Volumes 2-8. The tables include yearly estimates of population from 1980-2005 and population projections every 10 years from 2010-2030. Data from the U.S. Bureau of Census (Census, 2006) were used to estimate past populations and Arizona Department of Commerce data were used for population projections (ADOC, 2009). The overviews of Volumes 2-8 also list communities in the planning areas with 2000 Census populations greater than 1,000 and this volume summarizes population data by planning area (Table 1-6) and lists the largest communities and highest growth rates statewide (Table 1-7). Communities with annual growth rates greater than 2% are shown on Figure 1-21 of this volume. The Census provided spatial data for the years 1980, 1990 and 2000, which were organized into tracts (largest), groups, and blocks (smallest). Using GIS software, the Department divided the Census blocks into their respective basins and, as necessary, proportionally split by area those blocks that covered two or more basins. Populations between Census years were estimated by straight-line interpolation. ADOC provided projections of how the population in Census places, such as towns and cities, would change in the future. The Department identiied the Census places in each basin and applied the projected ADOC population change, as a percentage, to the 2000 Census data. If more than one Census place occurred in the same basin, the projected changes were averaged and applied across the basin. For three basins (Dripping Springs Wash, Paria, and San Simon Wash) there was insuficient data to make population projections and it was assumed that basin populations have been and will remain the same from 2001 through 2030. B.14 Recharge Facilities Recharge facilities permitted by ADWR are located in the Phoenix, Pinal, Prescott and Tucson AMAs and include underground storage facilities (USF) and Groundwater Savings Facilities (GSF). The location and permitted capacity of the USF and GSF sites are shown on a map for 109 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 each AMA (Recharge Sites). A table (Recharge Sites) accompanies each map with associated data from ADWR’s Ofice of Assured and Adequate Water Supply and Recharge Permitting. The tables list the facility name, number and type, the permittee and permitted annual quantity of recharge water, and source of water. B.15 Reservoirs Location, Capacity and Use Information on large to small reservoirs is summarized in a table for each basin (Reservoirs and Stockponds) and locations of the large reservoirs are shown on basin-scale maps (Surface Water Conditions) in Volumes 2-8. A statewide map showing the location of large reservoirs, Figure 1-10, is presented in this volume. Natural water bodies, such as dry and intermittent lakes, as well as man-made reservoirs, are included. Large reservoirs are deined in the Atlas as water bodies with a maximum storage capacity of 500 acre-feet or greater, or where capacity data were unavailable to the Department, a maximum surface area of 50 acres or greater. Small reservoirs are deined as water bodies with a capacity of greater than 15 but less than 500 acre-feet, or a maximum surface area of between 5 and 50 acres. The tables list the name of each large reservoirs and the name of the dam (if different), the owner/operator, the maximum storage or surface area, its use (recreation, power, water supply, etc.) and jurisdiction (federal, state, tribal or private). The tables also list the total number of small reservoirs in a particular basin and their combined maximum storage capacity and surface area. Reservoir information was obtained from 5 primary data sources: • National Inventory of Dams maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2004 and 2005); • The Department’s database of jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional dams in Arizona (ADWR, 2005c and 2005d); • Arizona Game & Fish Department’s waterways ile and lake classiication study (AZGF, 2005 and 1982); • Digital versions of 1:100,000 scale USGS topographic maps (ALRIS, 2005b); and • The Department’s registry of surface water right and adjudication ilings (see further discussion in this section under ‘Stockponds’). For consistency, the Atlas lists maximum storage capacities for most large reservoirs. When these values were not available, normal storage capacities are presented and noted or, as described above, maximum surface area is presented. Several reservoirs were identiied by more than one data source. To avoid duplication, reservoir locations were compared and the most recent data source was typically used. In most cases, reservoir locations presented in the Atlas represent the center of the reservoir, but in some cases, it marks the middle of the dam. For the purpose of establishing dam jurisdiction, large reservoirs located on federal lands, such as national forests and national parks, were assumed to be under federal jurisdiction. Similarly, large reservoirs located on tribal lands were assumed to be under tribal jurisdiction. Some reservoirs listed in the data sources probably no longer exist, either because they have illed in with sediment and/or have been breached. Where more recent information indicates that a dam has illed with sediment or has been breached, it was not included in the Atlas. Appendices 110 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 The location of major (>20,000 acre-feet capacity) reservoirs in Arizona are shown on Figure 1-11 of this volume Storage Trends Figure 1-13 of this volume shows recent (1980-2008) trends in reservoir storage along Arizona’s four major rivers – the Colorado, Salt, Verde, and Gila. May 1st storage quantities are shown separately for Lakes Mead and Powell on the Colorado River; are combined for Roosevelt, Apache Canyon and Saguaro lakes on the Salt River and Horseshoe and Bartlett reservoirs on the Verde River; and shown for San Carlos Reservoir on the Gila River. ADWR plotted these storage hydrographs using data compiled by the BOR (2010a), SRP (2008) and Gila Commissioner (various dates), respectively. Capacities for the individual lakes and reservoirs along the Salt and Verde Rivers are displayed on a schematic in Volume 8 (Figure 8.0-17) and Volume 5 (Figure 5.0-6) and a graph of changes in the end of month water level elevation for Lake Mead since 1980 is included in Volume 4 (Figure 4.0-13). B.16 Rural Watershed Initiative Partnerships Arizona’s Rural Watershed Initiative Partnerships are tabulated in Appendix D of Volumes 2-7 along with their activities, accomplishments, and identiied issues in 2008 and a statewide summary table and map showing the location of partnerships are found in Appendix I of this volume. The Regional Strategic Planning Ofice at the Department tracks the status of the partnerships and provided the partnership information presented in the Atlas. Note that the issues identiied by partnership participants may not represent all of the water resource issues currently faced in rural Arizona. B.17 Springs Major and minor springs are listed in a table for each basin (Springs) in Volumes 2-8. A spring was considered ‘major’ if its discharge was 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater and ‘minor’ if its discharge was between 1 and 10 gpm. The tables include the name of the major and minor springs, their location (latitude/longitude), the most recent discharge measurement, and the measurement date. The tables also include an estimate of the total number of springs, regardless of discharge, that have been mapped in the basin. Locations of the major springs are shown on basin-scale maps (Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs) in Volumes 2-8 and in Figure 1-12 of this volume. Spring data were obtained from a variety of sources, most notably the USGS (2006a), which maintains a database of spring discharge records. Reports compiled from universities and public land agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and BLM were also useful (ADWR, 2008b). To estimate the total number of springs in each basin, the Department downloaded GIS covers from ALRIS (2005c) and the National Hydrography Data Set (NHD) that incorporate spring locations from the USGS Geographic Names Information System (GNIS or Geonames) database and from USGS Digital Line Graphs (DLGs) (USGS, 2006b). ALRIS and NHD do not indicate how or when the USGS located these springs. It is also not known whether a detailed, ground survey would now identify more springs or, in light of recent drought conditions, less spring sites. 111 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Many of the springs with discharge data were listed in more than one data source. To avoid over-counting, the Department compared spring names, locations, discharge rates, and dates of measurement and removed obvious duplicates. Topographic maps were also checked to verify that the springs had been mapped. Those springs not veriied on topographic maps were included in the Atlas but noted accordingly. For most springs, the location and point of discharge measurement were, for practical purposes, the same. But in some areas, particularly the Grand Canyon, access was poor and discharge measurements had to be made at a point signiicantly downstream of the spring oriice. The Atlas generally presents the most recent discharge measurement identiied at a spring site. However, for springs fed by shallow water sources, discharge rates can vary dramatically from year to year or even from day to day. To address this issue, some springs were included in the Atlas even if their last discharge measurement had dropped below 10 gpm for major springs or 1 gpm for minor springs. For these springs, the date of measurement is an earlier date when the discharge was greater. B.18 Stockponds An estimate of the total number of stockponds is listed in a table for each basin (Large and Small Reservoirs and Stockponds) in Volumes 2-8. The estimates are based on analysis of the Department’s registry of surface water rights and adjudication claims (ADWR, 2009b). The registry includes the following water right ilings: • Applications to appropriate public water, permits and certiicates of water right (Department ile numbers beginning with “33”, also known as “33s”); • Water right registrations iled pursuant to the Water Rights Registration Act of 1974 (“36s”); • Stockpond registrations iled pursuant to the Registration of Stockponds Act of 1977 (“38s”); • Statement of claimants iled by Indian tribes, or the federal government on their behalf, as part of the Gila River and Little Colorado River Adjudications (“39s”); and, • Court decreed water rights (“4As” and “BBs”). Only those ilings for ponds with a capacity of 15 acre-feet or less were considered. Because the same stockpond can often have 2 or more associated ilings, an effort was also made to avoid overcounting the number of ponds by comparing stockpond names and locations and eliminating duplicates. Stockpond locations were not veriied through ield investigations or by analysis of topographic maps and aerial photographs. As a result, it is unknown whether additional ponds exist but were never claimed, or whether the ponds that were claimed are still in use. In areas of the state where stockpond locations have been previously veriied, estimates based only on water right ilings appear to be within an order of magnitude. B.19 Streams Diversions (see Cultural Water Demands) Appendices 112 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Flood Warning (ALERT) Gages The location of lood warning gages is shown on basin-scale maps (Surface Water Conditions) and information related to these gages is summarized in a table for each basin (Flood ALERT Equipment) in Volumes 2-8. The tables include the name and identiication number of the gaging stations, station types (precipitation, stage, repeater, or some combination of these), dates of installation, and who is responsible for operation and maintenance (lood control districts, cities, etc.). This information was obtained from the Department’s Surface Water Division, which maintains a database of lood warning equipment across Arizona (ADWR, 2005e). The Department’s database was queried in fall 2005 and the information presented in the Atlas was accurate at that time. According to staff in the Surface Water Division, new lood warning gages are routinely added to the ALERT (Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time) network so the current number of stations may be greater than presented. Flow Gages The location of USGS streamlow gages is shown on basin-scale maps (Surface Water Conditions) and information related to the gages is summarized in a table for each basin (Streamlow Data) in Volumes 2-8. The tables include the following information for all continuous low gages, active or discontinued, with at least one year of record: • Name and identiication number of the station; • Drainage basin area and gage elevation; • Period of record; • Average seasonal streamlows, as a percentage of annual low; • Annual streamlow statistics (minimum, median, mean, and maximum); and, • Number of years of annual streamlow data used to calculate statistics. The Atlas does not include data from USGS peak low gages or from continuous low gages with less than one year of record. Gage information was obtained from USGS sources including their National Water Information System (NWIS) on-line database (USGS, 2008a and 2005b), recent Water-Data Reports (USGS, 2003 and 2002), and a 1998 report that summarizes streamlow data and drainage basin characteristics for selected gaging stations (Pope and others, 1998). The Department calculated average seasonal streamlows using mean monthly streamlow data downloaded from NWIS. Note that mean streamlow values in the Southwest may be affected by a few large lows which are common in the region. Seasons were deined in the Atlas as follows: • Winter – January through March; • Spring – April through June; • Summer – July through September; and • Fall – October through December. Annual streamlow statistics were calculated using mean annual streamlow data also downloaded from NWIS. These statistics were not necessarily run on a gage’s entire period of record, as the USGS only calculates annual streamlows for years with a complete 12-month dataset. Also, annual statistics are only presented for gages with 3 or more years of record and all calculations are based on Calendar Year, not Water Year. Average seasonal streamlows and annual streamlow statistics were calculated using data retrieved in 2005 or 2007 (AMAs only). 113 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Streamlow statistics are affected by the length of record (e.g. 3 years vs. 50 years of data) as well as the hydrologic conditions occurring when the data were collected (e.g. drought vs. wet period). In addition, isolated conditions may affect streamlow at one station but not at another station nearby. In light of these constraints, the statistics presented in the Atlas should only be used as a general indication of streamlow conditions in the basins and not for site-speciic studies. This volume includes a map (Figure 1-10) showing the location of USGS streamlow gages. The location of gages on major Arizona streams are shown on Figure 1-11 and an accompanying data are summarized in Table 1-5. Streams were considered major if calculated median or mean annual lows exceed 20,000 and 30,000 acre-feet, respectively. Instream Flow Information on instream lows is summarized in a table for each planning area (Instream Flow Claims). The location of instream low claims are shown on planning-area maps (Instream Flow Applications) in Volumes 2-8 and on a statewide map in Figure 1-19 of this volume. The tables include the name of stream reaches with instream low claims, the name of applicants who have iled for instream low rights, application numbers and dates of iling and, whether applications have been permitted and certiicated by the Department. This information was provided by the Permitting Unit of the Department’s Surface Water Division which maintains a database that tracks the status of instream low applications (ADWR, 2008d). Intermittent and Perennial Reaches Recent perennial and intermittent streams are shown on basin-scale maps (Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs) in Volumes 2-8 and on a statewide map (Figure 1-12) in this volume. Locations of perennial streams were primarily taken from a 1993 report prepared by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF) as part of the Statewide Riparian Inventory and Mapping (SRIM) Project (AZGF, 1993). In that report, AZGF identiied perennial reaches based on an earlier AZGF map (Brown and others, 1981) that AZGF revised after consultation with several government agencies (the Department, ADEQ, BLM, and USFS), private sector hydrologists, and academics. Locations of intermittent streams were primarily taken from a 1997 AZGF report prepared during the last phase of the SRIM Project. Intermittent stream reaches were identiied on topographic maps by staff of AZGF, BLM, NPS, and USFS (AZGF, 1997). Due to the prolonged drought that has recently affected Arizona, some of the perennial stream reaches identiied by AGFD may now be intermittent and some of the intermittent reaches may now be ephemeral. As climatic conditions change in the future, it is expected that many of these streams will likely return to their previously classiied low conditions, except where impacted by development. Major Drainages Major stream drainages are shown on basin-scale maps (Surface Water Conditions) in Volumes 2-8. Drainage locations were taken from ALRIS, which provides a GIS cover of Arizona streams (ALRIS, 2005a). The ALRIS stream cover is based on 1:100,000 scale USGS topographic maps that were enhanced with data from EPA and several state agencies. Appendices 114 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 ALRIS classiies streams into ive cartographic orders based generally on drainage basin size. Cartographic Order 1 streams drain the largest areas and include major rivers like the Colorado, Verde, Salt, Gila, etc. The Surface Water Conditions maps show the location of Cartographic Order 1, 2 and 3 streams distinguished by width and include stream names for the irst two orders. Runoff Average annual or ‘unit’ runoff contours are plotted on basin-scale maps (Surface Water Conditions). The contours show the magnitude and spatial variation in runoff, in inches per year, based on streamlow data collected by the USGS during 1951 through 1980. The data relects the runoff in tributary streams, rather than in major rivers, as an indication of how runoff varies regionally with precipitation and other geographic features. The streamlow data were compiled by the USGS in 1985 and, in 1987, a 1:2,000,000-scale unit-runoff contour map of the conterminous United States was published (Gerbert and others, 1987). The map has since been digitized and posted on the USGS website where the Department downloaded it for use in the Atlas (USGS, 2006c). Watersheds The USGS divides the United States into hydrologic units based on watershed size. From largest to smallest, these units consist of regions, subregions, accounting units and cataloging units. Each hydrologic unit is identiied by a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two to eight digits depending on unit level. A 6-digit code corresponds to accounting units, which are used by the USGS for designing and managing their National Water Data Network (USGS, 2005a). Watersheds delineated by USGS accounting units are shown on planning area maps (USGS Watersheds) in the overview of Volumes 2-8 and on a statewide map in this volume (Figure 1-10). Text that accompanies these maps summarizes the important features of each watershed including its drainage area, major streams and springs, large reservoirs, and low conditions. B.20 Surface Water Rights An inventory of surface water right and adjudication ilings for each basin is tabulated in the overview of Volumes 2-8. The number and type of ilings were determined by querying ADWR’s surface water right and adjudication registries in February 2009 (ADWR, 2009b). A ile was only counted if it provided suficient information to allow a Point of Diversion (POD) to be mapped within a given basin. If a ile listed more than one POD in a basin, it was only counted once however multiple ilings for the same POD were counted. Appendix C of Volumes 2-8 and Table 1-12 of this volume summarize the total number of these ilings by planning area. The location of PODs based on the surface water ilings are shown on planning area maps (Registered Wells and Surface Water Diversion Points) in the overview of Volumes 2-8 and on statewide map in Appendix C of those volumes and in Figure 1-24 of this volume. B.21 Water Protection Fund Information on Water Protection Fund grants is summarized in a table (Arizona Water Protection 115 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Fund Grant Summary) and shown on a statewide map (Arizona Water Protection Fund Grant Locations) in Appendix F of this Volume. The table includes grant numbers issued through FY 2008, project titles and categories, and associated groundwater basins. Similar information is also presented in tables by planning area in Appendix A of Volumes 2-8. The tables and map are based on a database maintained by the Department’s Ofice of Water Protection (ADWR, 2008c). For purposes of the Atlas, Water Protection Fund projects were grouped into categories by type (watershed restoration, revegetation, research, etc.) and organized by groundwater basin. B.22 Water Quality Water quality data are summarized in tables for each basin (Water Quality Exceedences) and sample locations are shown on basin-scale maps (Water Quality Conditions) in Volumes 2-8. The maps show the location of wells, springs, and mines that have equaled or exceeded drinking water quality standards and lakes and streams that are impaired for designated uses. Tables for the wells, springs, and mines list the type of sampling site, its location (township, range and section), and relevant water quality parameters. Tables for the lakes and streams list the name and type of impaired water body, its length (streams) or area (lakes), and which water quality parameters have exceeded designated uses standards. Sample dates and parameter concentrations are not included in the tables, but this information has been compiled by the Department and is available for review. Water quality data for the wells, springs, and mines were obtained from the following primary sources: • The Department’s Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI) database (ADWR, 2005f); • USGS’s National Water Inventory System (NWIS) database (USGS, 2005b); • ADEQ’s Safe Drinking Water (SDW), Rural Watershed Study, and Arsenic databases (ADEQ 2005h and 2004a,b,c); and • Various technical reports prepared by the Department, ADEQ and USGS. Data on impaired lakes and streams comes from ADEQ’s 2006 report The Status of Water Quality in Arizona – 2004, Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report (Diroll and Marsh, 2006). Several of the well, spring, and mine sites have been sampled more than once and/or results from the same sampling date are listed in more than one data source. An effort was made to remove duplicate data using available information on site location. The water quality data presented in the Atlas indicate areas where water quality exceedences have previously occurred. Additional areas of concern may currently exist where water quality samples have not been collected or sample results were not reviewed by the Department. For example, as part of ADEQ’s Underground Storage Tank (UST) and Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) programs, thousands of water quality samples have been collected and analyzed. Results from these analyses were not included in the Atlas. What is included for these and other environmental programs is a 2006 map from ADEQ that shows the location of contaminated sites across the state (See Contamination Sites). Appendices 116 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Finally, note that the water quality data presented in the Atlas may not relect the quality of water being supplied by public water systems. The latter are required by federal and state law to supply water that meets drinking water standards. The Atlas indicates areas where private well owners and surface water users may want to test the quality of their water or restrict its use. The distribution of common ground water quality exceedences in Arizona ground waters (arsenic, luoride, nitrate and total dissolved solids) is shown in Figure 1-26 of this volume. B.23 Wells Automated Recorder Sites The location of automatic water-level recorders (automated wells) across Arizona is shown in Figure 1-25 of this volume. Automated wells collect numerous measurements daily, illing in the gaps between annual measurements. Information on these well sites comes from the Department’s Field Services Unit (ADWR, 2005g), USGS, and the Cities of Flagstaff and Williams and further discussed in the overview of Volumes 2-8. Basin Sweeps A well sweep refers to a large number of measurements of water levels in wells throughout a basin. While efforts are made to target speciic wells, the process has been largely random in nature, and is intended to provide the best aerial and vertical coverage in the basin. It is not intended to, and does not include every well in the basin. The date of the most recent well sweep and the number of wells measured during the sweep is listed in a table for each basin (Groundwater Data) in Volume 2-8 and in Table 1-4 of this volume. Information on well sweeps comes from the Department’s Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI) database (ADWR, 2005f). Index Sites The number of index wells is listed in a table for each basin (Groundwater Data) in Volumes 2-8 and shown on a statewide map (Figure 1-25) in this volume. Water levels in index wells are measured manually at speciic times, or continuously using automatic recording devices. These wells are representative of aquifer conditions over a large geographic area and their measurement allows a lower density of monitoring to occur in years between basin sweeps. Information on index wells came primarily from the Department’s GWSI database (ADWR, 2005f). This was supplemented outside of the AMAs with information from several organizations including the USGS, other federal entities (Fort Huachuca, NPS, and USBR), an Indian Tribe (Navajo Nation), a city (Flagstaff), and two utilities (SRP and TEPCO). Registrations Numbers of registered water supply wells are listed in a table for each basin (Cultural Water Demand) in Volumes 2-8. The tables include the total number of wells completed through 1980 and the number of new wells completed in 5-year increments from 1981 through 2005. Also included is the total number of wells drilled without completion dates. Information on well completions comes from the Department’s well registry, commonly referred to as the “Wells55” database (ADWR, 2005h). Wells in the registry were queried irst by basin and reported pump capacity. This resulted in two well lists for each basin – wells with a maximum 117 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 pump capacity of 35 gallons per minute (gpm) or less and wells with a maximum pump capacity greater than 35 gpm. In the AMAs, wells with a maximum pump capacity of greater than 35 gpm are “non-exempt” wells and wells with a maximum pump capacity of 35 gpm or less are “exempt” wells. The resulting well lists were then iltered to exclude registrations for wells that apparently were never drilled and/or those wells not used for water supply purposes. The Department’s wells registry only lists data for wells that have been registered with the Department, as required by statute. For the purpose of the Atlas, no attempt was made to verify the accuracy of the data or to conduct ield surveys to determine whether additional wells have been drilled but never registered or whether the wells that were drilled and registered are still operable today. For example, wells drilled on Indian Reservations are generally not counted since the tribes have no requirement to register these wells with the Department. Locations for the registered exempt and non-exempt wells are shown on planning area maps (Registered Wells and Surface Water Diversion Points) in the overview of Volumes 2-8 and plotted on statewide maps in Appendix C of those volumes and in Figure 1-24 of this volume. Pumpage (see Cultural Water Demands) Recent Water-Level Depths Recent (2002-2005) depths to water in wells are shown on basin-scale maps (Groundwater Conditions) in Volumes 2-8 and a statewide summary map (Figure 1-9) is presented in this volume. Depth values, in feet below land surface, are presented on the maps next to each well symbol. Most of the water level data were taken from the Department’s GWSI database (ADWR, 2005f). These data were supplemented outside of the AMAs with measurements made by the USGS, other federal entities (Fort Huachuca, NPS, and USBR), an Indian Tribe (NTUA), a city (Flagstaff), and two utilities (SRP and TEPCO). Water levels were reviewed and data that appeared unreasonable were excluded from the Atlas. Some of the included data were adjusted irst to ensure consistency and account for the different measurement methods used. Water-level Changes Water-level changes in wells are shown on basin-scale maps (Ground-water Conditions) and on hydrographs for each basin (Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells) in Volumes 2-8. A summary map for the state is presented as Figure 1-9 of this volume. The maps use colored dots to show how water levels have changed over the period that began in the early-1990s and ended in the early- to mid-2000s. As many as eight different colors are used to represent the range of recorded water-level changes. A positive change indicates a rise in water level over the period and negative change indicates a decline. The hydrographs show water-level changes for selected wells over the 30-year period from 1975 to 2005. Included on the hydrographs are a well identiier (cadastral), well depth, principal aquifer (outside AMAs only), and water use. Care was taken to select wells that were representative of aquifer conditions both horizontally and vertically. Most of the water-level data used to generate the maps and hydrographs were taken from the Department’s GWSI database (ADWR, 2005f). These data were supplemented outside of the Appendices 118 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 AMAs with measurements made by the USGS, other federal entities (Fort Huachuca, NPS, and USBR), an Indian Tribe (Navajo Nation), a city (Flagstaff), and two utilities (SRP and TEPCO). All water levels were reviewed and data that appeared unreasonable were excluded from the Atlas. Some of the included data were adjusted to ensure consistency and account for the different measurement methods used. An effort was made to use data collected during the period when the wells were not actively being pumped or only minimally pumped. This period was typically from about September through about May. However, in some areas, like the Navajo Reservation, water-level data from wells were less abundant and the data used in the Atlas may have been affected by pumping. Yields Wells yields are listed in a table for each basin (Groundwater Data) and shown on basin-scale maps (Well Yields) in Volumes 2-8. The maps use colored dots to show the location of well yields measured by the Department and USGS. Five different colors are used on the maps to represent the range of recorded well discharges. The tables list summary statistics for these and other estimates of well yield. Information on well yields was primarily taken from databases maintained by the Department (GWSI and Wells55) and USGS (NWIS). Also used for basins outside of the AMAs was a 1990 internal report by the Department that summarizes water resources information by basin (ADWR, 1990) and a 1994 annual report by USGS on groundwater conditions across Arizona (Anning and Duet, 1994). To estimate well yields using the Wells55 database, only wells with a casing diameter greater than 10 inches were considered. It was assumed that such wells were drilled to produce a maximum amount of water and, therefore, their reported pump capacities are indicative of the aquifer’s potential to yield water to a well. Many factors can affect well yields, including local and regional aquifer properties, well design, the size and condition of the pump, and the age of the well. The data presented in the Atlas provides a general indication of the quantity of water that can be produced from basin aquifers under optimal well conditions. Actual well yields may be signiicantly lower than those presented based on the factors described. A map and table that summarize well yields across the state is presented in this volume as Figure 1-4` and Table 1-4, respectively. B.24 Water Issues Non-AMA Rural water issues are summarized in separate tables (Planning Area Issues Identiied from the 2003 and 2004 Rural Questionnaires) with explanatory text for each non-AMA planning area in the overview of Volumes 2-7. Issues were primarily identiied through two questionnaires sent out by the Department in 2003 and 2004 (ADWR, 2005a). Results from the 2003 questionnaire are summarized in the Department’s Rural Water Resources 2003 Questionnaire Report (ADWR, 2004). Other issues were identiied through Arizona’s Rural Watershed Initiative Program, through studies and other sources. 119 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Data from the Department’s questionnaires were entered into a database and queried for various attributes such as total responses, responses by location, issues ranking, type of respondent, etc. Note that the 2003 and 2004 questionnaires were not identical and some questions were asked differently. Also, the number of respondents did not represent a statistically valid sample. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from the questionnaires should, not be considered representative of all of rural Arizona or even representative of a given planning area or basin. Issues can vary dramatically by respondent and location. AMA Water resource issues in the AMA planning area were identiied by the Department through its management plans, stakeholder meetings, government committees, an Arizona town hall, and numerous community water resource groups. These issues are described in the overview of Volume 8. Issues are summarized by planning areas in Section 1.4.8 of this volume and statewide results from the 2004 Rural Questionnaire are listed in Table 1-16. Appendices 120 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 121 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF ARIZONA WATER LAW AND MANAGEMENT Appendices 122 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF ARIZONA WATER LAW AND MANAGEMENT Water management in Arizona is a complex system of laws, rules and management authorities that differ for each type and source of water. Surface water regulations are distinct from those governing groundwater. Arizona’s Colorado River water apportionment is governed by interstate compact, federal Congressional acts and U.S. Supreme Court decisions, referred to as the “Law of the River”. Indian water rights claims and settlements are an important component in water management in Arizona and are discussed in Appendix G. Efluent is regulated under a law separate from those that pertain to surface water or groundwater. There are also laws that regulate underground water storage, water exchanges and dams. The Arizona Department of Water Resources (Department) administers water management and water rights but several other Arizona governmental agencies, authorities and districts also affect aspects of water management and utilization. C.1 Surface Water Arizona has adopted the doctrine of prior appropriation to govern the use of surface water. This doctrine is based on the tenet of “irst in time, irst in right” which means that the person who irst puts the water to a beneicial use acquires a right that is better than later appropriators of the water. Beneicial use is the “basis, measure and limit to the use of water” A.R.S. § 45-141(B). Prior to June 12, 1919, a person could acquire a surface water right simply by applying the water to a beneicial use and posting a notice of the appropriation at the point of diversion. On June 12, 1919, the Arizona surface water code was enacted. Known as the Public Water Code, this law requires that a person apply for and obtain a permit in order to appropriate surface water. Surface water is deined by statute as: “Waters of all sources, lowing in streams, canyons, ravines or other natural channels, or in deinite underground channels, whether perennial or intermittent, loodwaters, wastewater, or surplus water, and of lakes, ponds and springs on the surface.” A.R.S. § 45-101. Water may be appropriated for domestic, municipal, irrigation, stock watering, water power, recreation, wildlife, including ish, nonrecoverable water storage or mining uses. A.R.S. § 45151(A). Water cannot be wasted, and if not used by the senior appropriator, it must be allowed to low to the next senior appropriator. Non-diversionary appropriation of surface water for recreation and wildlife, including ish, use is recognized as a beneicial use. (Arizona Court of Appeals decision, Phelps Dodge Corp v. Arizona Dep’t of Water Res., 211 Ariz.146, 118 P.3d 1110 (App.2005)). These rights are referred to as “instream low rights.” The Department administers the surface water permit system, including permits for instream low. Permits are issued for a speciic location and amount of water. Surface water rights for municipal, domestic or irrigation may be severed and transferred to a new location but only pursuant to statutory procedures. A.R.S. § 45-172. Adjudication of Surface Water Rights A general stream adjudication is a judicial proceeding in which the nature, extent, and relative priority of the rights of all persons to use water in a river system and source are determined. Two general stream adjudications are in progress involving the Gila River and Little Colorado River systems. The Gila River Adjudication includes the Salt, Gila, San Pedro, and Verde River watersheds, which include most of southeastern and central Arizona. The Little Colorado River 123 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Adjudication includes the Little Colorado River system in northeastern Arizona. The Department provides technical and administrative support to the adjudication court and special master, “in all aspects of the general adjudication with respect to which the director possesses hydrological or other expertise.” A.R.S. § 45-256(A). Thousands of claimants and water users are joined in these cases that will result in the Superior Court issuing a comprehensive inal decree of water rights for both the Gila and Little Colorado river systems. Surface Water Decrees Decreed surface water rights are those that have been determined through judicial action in a state or federal court. Major court determinations in Arizona include the Kent, Benson-Allison, Norviel, Concho and Globe Equity decrees. The Kent Decree (Hurley v. Abbott 1910) established rights to the Salt and Verde rivers for diversion by downstream landowners based on diversions occurring at that time from Granite Reef and Joint Head diversion dams. These lands are generally the Salt River Project service area, along with portions of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa and Fort McDowell Indian reservations. Rights to the lower Agua Fria River, the Salt River and the Gila River below the conluence were determined in the Benson-Allison Decree in 1917 for the Buckeye Irrigation District and a portion of the Gila River Indian Reservation. The Norviel Decree, which is comprised of four judicial actions (between 1914 and 1923) determined rights of landowners to divert surface water in and around St. Johns to the headwaters of the Little Colorado River. The Concho Decree (1927) determined the relative rights to use surface water from Concho Springs and Concho creek in Apache County. In 1935 the U.S. District Court entered a consent decree (Globe Equity No. 59) for all diversions of the mainstem of the Gila River from conluence with the Salt River to the headwaters in New Mexico, including the Gila River and San Carlos Apache reservations, and non-Indian landowners below and above Coolidge Dam. Indian Water Rights Claims and Settlements (See Appendix G) Federal Reserved Rights The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) established that when the federal government creates an Indian reservation, it impliedly reserves for the reservation a right to an amount of water suficient to effectuate the purposes of the reservation (this doctrine is know as the “Winters Doctrine”). This concept of “federal reserved rights” has been claimed for other federal lands. Federal Reserved right claims have been iled in the Gila and Little Colorado River adjudications for national parks and monuments, national forests and for military bases. C.2 Groundwater The withdrawal, use and transportation of groundwater in the state are regulated under the Arizona Groundwater Code (Code), Title 45, Chapter 2, Arizona Revised Statutes. The Code has three primary goals: 1) to control groundwater overdraft in certain parts of the state; 2) to provide a means to allocate groundwater to meet the needs of the state; and 3) to augment groundwater supplies through the development of renewable water supplies. The Code established the Arizona Department of Water Resources to administer the Code provisions. Appendices 124 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 The Code contains regulatory provisions applicable statewide, such as well drilling requirements and restrictions on groundwater transportation. It also contains provisions applicable only in certain designated areas of the state. The most intensive regulation of groundwater is in the ive areas of the state designated as active management areas (AMAs), where the focus is on conservation and achievement of the AMA’s management goal. Outside of the AMAs, persons may generally withdraw and use groundwater for any reasonable and beneicial use, subject to the groundwater transportation laws. However, in areas designated as irrigation non-expansion areas (INAs), irrigation acreage expansion is prohibited and metering and reporting requirements apply to certain groundwater withdrawals. Statewide Provisions Statewide, all wells must be registered with the Department and new wells must be drilled by a licensed well driller and comply with well construction standards. With certain exceptions, wells proposed to recover water stored or saved underground pursuant to a storage permit must comply with well spacing requirements. Arizona has been divided into hydrologic groundwater basins and sub-basins within some of those basins. Statutes governing the transportation of groundwater within and between basins are designed to protect hydrologically distinct sources of groundwater supplies and the economies in rural areas by ensuring the groundwater is not depleted in one groundwater basin to beneit another. In general, groundwater cannot be transported between groundwater basins outside of the AMAs or from a groundwater basin outside an AMA into an AMA except for certain transfers speciied in statute. A.R.S. §§ 45-544 and 45-551 through 45-555. Groundwater can legally be transported within a sub-basin, or within a basin that has not been divided into sub-basins, without payment of damages. A.R.S. § 45-541 and A.R.S. § 45-544. Groundwater may also be transported between sub-basins in the same basin but is subject to payment of damages, except under certain conditions in AMAs. A.R.S. §§ 45-542 through 45-545. Active Management Areas The magnitude of overdraft in certain areas of the state led to the designation of four initial AMAs: the Prescott, Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs. In 1994, a southern portion of the Tucson AMA was separately designated as the Santa Cruz AMA. The geographic boundaries of AMAs are deined by groundwater basins and subbasins. The Phoenix, Prescott and Tucson AMAs have a management goal of safe-yield by 2025. A.R.S. § 45-562(A). Safe-yield, as deined in the Code, means “a groundwater management goal which attempts to achieve and thereafter maintain a longterm balance between the annual amount of groundwater withdrawn in an active management area and the annual amount of natural and artiicial groundwater recharge in the active management area.” A.R.S. § 45-561(12). The management goal of the Pinal AMA is to allow development of non-irrigation uses and to preserve existing agricultural economies in the AMA for as long as feasible, consistent with the necessity to preserve future water supplies for non-irrigation uses. A.R.S. § 45-562(B) The goal of the Santa Cruz AMA is to maintain a safe-yield condition and prevent local water tables from experiencing long-term declines. A.R.S.§ 45-562(C). General water management requirements within AMAs include: • Groundwater rights and permits including metering, reporting and fees • Well regulations • Agricultural land development restrictions • Groundwater management plans, which include agricultural, municipal and industrial 125 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 • water conservation programs, an augmentation program, groundwater quality assessment, and a water management assistance program Assured water supply program requirements for new subdivisions to have long-term dependable water supplies consistent with the management goal. In the AMAs there are regulatory distinctions between wells that can pump more than 35 gallons per minute (gpm), “non-exempt wells” and those that pump less, “exempt wells.” Withdrawal of groundwater from a non-exempt well requires a legal authority. The Code established grandfathered groundwater rights, service area rights and groundwater withdrawal permits to provide legal withdrawal authority. With certain exceptions, drilling a non-exempt well requires a drilling permit and is subject to well spacing requirements adopted by the Department to prevent unreasonably increasing damage to surrounding land and other water users. Also, with a few exceptions, any person withdrawing groundwater from a non-exempt well in an AMA must meter and report water use annually to the Department and is assessed an annual withdrawal fee based on the amount withdrawn and beneicially used. Withdrawal fees are used to fund conservation and augmentation programs and Arizona Water Banking Authority activities (described below). Information from the annual water use reports is used to estimate the volume of groundwater withdrawals, water stored, and water recovered in an AMA. Water budgets are constructed from these data to determine the relationship between water supply and demand and to gage progress toward meeting AMA management goals. A person may withdraw groundwater from an exempt well for a non-irrigation use without a groundwater right or permit. However, a right or permit is required to withdraw more than 10 acre-feet of groundwater per year for non-irrigation uses other than domestic or stockwatering if the exempt well was drilled on or after April 28, 1983. Except under speciic circumstances, not more than one exempt well can be drilled to serve the same purpose at the same location. Additionally, beginning on January 1, 2006, with certain exceptions, an exempt well may not be drilled on land if any part of the land is within 100 feet of the operating water distribution system of a municipal provider with an assured water supply designation as shown on a digitized service area map provided to the Department by the municipal provider. A.R.S. § 45-454. These restrictions do not apply outside AMAs as long as the groundwater is put to reasonable and beneicial use. To help achieve the water management goal of each AMA, the Code directs the Department to develop and implement water conservation requirements for the agricultural, municipal and industrial water use sectors in ive consecutive management periods (1980-2025). The Code generally requires that each consecutive management plan contain more rigorous water conservation requirements. These requirements are published in separate management plans for each AMA. A.R.S. §§ 45564 through 45-568. In addition to conservation requirements, the management plans contain a water quality assessment and management program, an augmentation and recharge program and conservation assistance programs. Management plans contain water demand information and data and provide the framework for implementation of Code mandates and Department policies for each AMA. Within the AMAs, new subdivisions must demonstrate to the Department that a 100-year water supply exists before the local platting authority (typically City or County Planning Departments) can approve a plat and before the Arizona Department of Real Estate will issue a public report allowing the land to be sold. The demonstration criteria include physical, legal and continuous availability of water of adequate quality for 100-years, the groundwater use must be consistent with the AMA Appendices 126 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 management goal and management plan conservation requirements, and the developer must have the inancial capability to construct the necessary delivery, storage and treatment systems. Outside of the Active Management Areas Outside of the AMAs, groundwater may generally be withdrawn and used for any reasonable and beneicial use, subject to the statewide provisions described above. In areas designated as INAs, however, additional restrictions and requirements apply (see Irrigation Non-Expansion Areas section below. In 1973, the Arizona Legislature enacted a statewide water adequacy statute as a consumer protection measure. A.R.S. § 45-108. The law was passed in response to incidences of land fraud involving the sale of subdivision lots that were later found to have insuficient water supplies. This law required developers to obtain a determination from the State Land Department regarding the availability of water supplies prior to marketing new subdivision lots. When the Code was adopted in 1980, the provisions of A.R.S. § 45-108 were amended and now apply only to subdivisions located outside AMAs. Under A.R.S. § 45-108, the Department must evaluate a developer’s water supply plans and determine whether there is an adequate water supply, unless the development will be served by a water provider that has been designated by the director as having an adequate water supply for its service area. The developer must provide a copy of the Department’s evaluation to the State Real Estate Commissioner for disclosure to the public if water supplies are determined to be inadequate. However, the Department’s evaluation does not affect whether lots may be platted or sold. Legislation adopted in June 2007 (SB 1575) authorizes a county board of supervisors to adopt a provision by unanimous vote that requires a new subdivision to have an adequate water supply in order for the subdivision to be approved by the platting authority. If adopted, cities and towns within the county may not approve a subdivision unless it has an adequate water supply. If the county does not adopt the provision, the legislation allows a city or town to adopt a local adequacy ordinance that requires a demonstration of adequacy before the inal plat can be approved. As of August, 2010 Cochise County, Yuma County, the Town of Patagonia and the Town of Clarkdale had adopted the provisions of SB 1575. Irrigation Non-Expansion Areas There are three INAs: Douglas, Joseph City and Harquahala. In an INA, irrigation is restricted to lands that were irrigated during the ive-year period preceding designation of the INA. A.R.S. § 45-434. This restriction is intended to protect the remaining groundwater supply. Groundwater withdrawals for agricultural irrigation on more than 10 acres and non-irrigation withdrawals of more than 10 acre-feet per year from a non-exempt well must be measured and annually reported to the Department. A.R.S. § 45-437. Statewide provisions and the provisions applicable outside of the AMAs mentioned above also apply within INAs. C.3 Colorado River Water and the Central Arizona Project The Colorado River is a critical water supply for Arizona. Use of Colorado River water is primarily under the jurisdiction of the federal government and is discussed in more detail in Appendix D. The development of Colorado River water law is described in the “Law of the River”, which includes a number of Congressional acts, Supreme Court decisions and multi state compacts, as well as an international treaty. 127 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 The “Law of the River” includes: the 1922 Colorado River Compact, which apportioned 7.5 million acre-feet (maf) per year to the Upper Basin States and 7.5 maf per year to the Lower Basin States; the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928, which authorized construction of Hoover Dam and established the individual lower basin state apportionments; the 1944 Water Treaty with Mexico, which guaranteed delivery to Mexico of 1.5 maf per year; the Upper Colorado River Compact of 1948 that divided the water apportioned to the Upper Basin between the ive states with territory in the Upper Basin (including Arizona); the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, which authorized several dams including Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona; the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. California (1964) that conirmed Arizona’s apportionment under the Boulder Canyon Project Act and assigned any surplus; the Colorado River Basin Project Act (CRBPA) of 1968 which authorized the Central Arizona Project (CAP); and the Coordinated Operations and Shortage Criteria adopted in 2007 (see Appendix D). Ratiication and text of the 1944 Lake Mead Delivery Contract, the Colorado River Compact and the Upper Colorado River Basin Contract are found at A.R.S. §§ 45-1301 to 1331. Central Arizona Water Conservation District Under provisions of the CRBPA, Arizona authorized the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) in 1971 to provide a means for Arizona to repay the federal government for the reimbursable costs of construction and to manage and operate the CAP. The CAP transports about half of Arizona’s Colorado River water entitlement of 2.8 million acre-feet per year to central Arizona. The CAP brings Colorado River water through a 336–mile system of aqueducts, pumping plants and siphons designed to carry 1.5 million acre-feet of water each year from Lake Havasu through Phoenix to south of Tucson. One reservoir, Lake Pleasant, located in the Phoenix AMA, provides storage. CAP delivers untreated water to cities and water utilities, industrial users, agricultural users and Indian communities. CAWCD is a tax-levying public improvement district of the state responsible for system maintenance and operations, repayment obligations, and creating water resource management programs. Operations are managed by the General Manager and senior management team. The General Manager reports to the 15-member CAWCD Board of Directors who are popularly elected from the CAP three-county service area that includes Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. Board members serve staggered six-year terms and are responsible for establishing policy. (See: www. cap-az.com). Arizona Department of Water Resources The director of the Department is authorized to “consult, advise and cooperate with the secretary of the interior of the United States” on behalf of the state of Arizona in several areas: the secretary’s authorities under the Boulder Canyon Project Act; contracts for delivery of main stream Colorado river water for use within Arizona; powers and duties of the secretary under provisions of the 1944 treaty with Mexico; exercise by the secretary of any authority conferred by any legislation enacted by Congress; and in respect to the development, negotiation and execution of interstate banking agreements. A.R.S.§ 45-107. Arizona Water Banking Authority The Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA) was created in 1996 to protect Arizona’s Colorado Appendices 128 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 River interests and to provide for interstate banking opportunities. A.R.S. § 45-2401 et.seq. The primary functions of the AWBA are: to provide a stored reserve of water to communities dependent on the CAP during times of drought on the Colorado River; to assist Colorado River communities during times of shortage by providing water exchange mechanisms; to replenish depleted aquifers with CAP water to meet water management goals; and to provide a pool of water for use in Indian water rights settlements. The AWBA can also contract with similar authorities in California and Nevada to allow these states to annually store unused Colorado River water in Arizona. In the future, Arizona users can recover (pump) the stored water (less a 5% “cut to the aquifer”) and the interstate partner will draw a similar quantity directly from the Colorado River. The AWBA, the in-lieu recharge program and CAP pricing structures for agricultural users have promoted CAP utilization since the mid-1990s. Information about the Water Banking Authority is found at www. awba.state.az.us. C.4 Efluent Efluent is deined in A.R.S. § 45-101(4) as “water that has been collected in a sanitary sewer for subsequent treatment in a facility that is regulated pursuant to title 49, chapter 2. Such water remains efluent until it acquires the characteristics of groundwater or surface water.” The determination that efluent is a separate kind of water was a result of an Arizona Supreme Court Decision in 1989, Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Long, 160 Ariz. 429, 773 P.2d 988 (1989), in which the court held that, until it is returned to the ground as surface water or groundwater, efluent is neither surface water nor groundwater, and therefore a city that produces efluent is free to use it without regard to the laws governing surface water and groundwater. Because the supply is not groundwater, if 100% efluent is used to serve a use within an AMA, the use is not subject to regulations applicable to groundwater, such as conservation requirements and groundwater transportation laws. AMA management plans contain a number of regulatory incentives for efluent use, which is considered a renewable water supply. C.5 Underground Water Storage Underground water storage or recharge is a means of storing excess renewable water supplies (surface water, including CAP and Colorado River water, and efluent) for future use. The goals of the recharge program are to promote the use of renewable water supplies by allowing for storage and recovery, to allow water to be “transported” by storing water in one location but recovering a like quantity elsewhere, to reduce overdraft by storing water to prevent further water level declines, to use underground storage to address seasonal water demands and to augment the water supply. The Underground Water Storage and Recovery program was established in 1986 by the Arizona Legislature. In 1994, the Legislature enacted the Underground Water Storage, Savings, and Replenishment Act, which further deined the recharge program. Persons wishing to store and/or recover water anywhere in the state through the recharge program must apply to the Department for the appropriate permits. Permit holders are required to ile annual reports with the Department in which they must report the volume of water stored and/or recovered pursuant to the permit. A.R.S. §§ 45-801.01 through 45-898.01. Recharge and recovery is an increasingly important tool in the management of Arizona’s water supplies, especially in meeting the goals of the Code. C.6 Water Exchanges Flexibility in accessing water supplies through exchanges can provide water management beneits. 129 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 The 1992 Water Exchange Act authorizes and regulates water exchanges with certain exceptions. A.R.S. § 45-1001 et seq. “Water exchange” is deined as “a trade between one or more persons, or between one or more persons and one or more Indian communities, of any water for any other water, if each party has a right or claim to use the water it gives in trade. This deinition applies whether or not water is traded in equal amounts or other consideration is included in the trade.” A.R.S. § 451001(6). The Act establishes four classiications of exchanges with different conditions applicable to each class. Regardless of the classiication, every exchange is subject to the “giver rule”, which generally provides that a person who receives water pursuant to an exchange: (1) may use the water without holding a right to that water; and (2) may use the water only in the same manner in which the person had the right to use the water that the person gave in the trade. Currently, water exchanges are most common within the Phoenix AMA. C.7 Dams and Reservoirs The director of the Department is responsible for supervision of the safety of dams in Arizona. A.R.S. § 45-1202(A). The statutory authority for the tasks performed under the Dam Safety Program is found in A.R.S. § 45-105(B)(3) and 45-1201, et seq. Rules for dam safety procedures are found in the Arizona Administrative Code, R12-15-1201 et seq. Statutes and rules deine a jurisdictional dam as an artiicial barrier over 25 feet in height or capable of storing more than 50 acre-feet of water, with certain exceptions. Dams owned and/or operated by the Federal government are generally exempt from state jurisdiction. Major dam safety program areas are rehabilitation of unsafe dams, inspection and oversight of existing dams, review of applications to construct, enlarge, alter or remove a dam and construction monitoring. Another responsibility is to review and assist dam owners in development of Emergency Action Plans. C.8 Arizona Drought and Conservation Programs Governor Napolitano signed Executive Order 2003-12 in March 2003 to address the impact of prolonged drought conditions that began in 1998. The Executive Order established the Governor’s Drought Task Force (Task Force) to develop a drought plan for Arizona, adopted in October 2004. The Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan (Plan) established a process to allow for ongoing drought monitoring, planning and response, and established state drought and conservation programs administered by the Department. Drought Program The Department’s Drought Program coordinates implementation of the Plan and three groups formed to address drought preparedness efforts in Arizona - a State Drought Monitoring Technical Committee, local drought impact groups and the Governor’s Drought Interagency Coordinating Group. Water use reporting and drought planning requirements for water providers located outside of the state’s AMA are also administered through this program. Drought Program Groups The Plan focuses on drought planning by rural communities that often have fewer water supply options during drought. Ongoing drought monitoring is critical to the planning process and the State Drought Monitoring Technical Committee meets regularly for this purpose. The Committee gathers and evaluates climate data and distributes drought information to land managers, policymakers and the public, and produces monthly drought status updates and a quarterly long-term drought status map (Figure C-1) to show drought levels by watershed (see ADWR’s Drought Appendices 130 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Status webpage). Percentile values for precipitation and streamlow are used to determine drought status in each of Arizona’s watersheds. The long-term drought status map incorporates 24-, 36- and 48-month precipitation and streamlow percentiles. Figure C-1 Long Term Drought Status Map County-level local drought impact groups (LDIGs) monitor drought status and impacts in their area, increase drought public awareness, and develop local mitigation and response options. LDIGs provide important local information to the Monitoring Technical Committee that is used to determine drought conditions. In cooperation with county extension agents, county emergency managers, and other local coordinators, planning efforts for ten local drought impact groups have begun. Due to resource constraints, only two groups are currently active - Mohave County and Pima County. 131 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 The Governor’s Drought Interagency Coordinating Group is an advisory body to the governor on Arizona drought issues. Comprised of state, federal, tribal and non-governmental organizations, this group meets in the spring and fall to evaluate drought conditions and consider recommendations to the governor for improving drought monitoring, implementation and response in Arizona. Community water systems drought planning Drought planning requirements for community water systems were established by H.B. 2277 passed by the Arizona legislature in 2005 and codiied in A.R.S. Title 45, Chapter 1, Article 14. Community water system (CWS) is deined as a public water system that serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or that regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. The annual reporting and drought planning requirements were part of a larger set of recommendations made by the governor’s Drought Task Force. Every ive years, CWS’s are required to develop and submit a water system plan, which includes a water supply plan, drought preparedness plan and water conservation plan. Required components of the system water plan are found on the Department’s CWS webpage. Each year, a water use report must be submitted that includes information on water pumped or diverted, water received, water delivered to customers, and efluent used or received. Annual water use data was irst obtained from water providers outside the State’s AMAs in 2006. The reports and plans are intended to reduce community water systems’ vulnerability to drought and ensure that water providers are prepared to respond to drought or water shortage conditions. The information submitted by the water systems will also allow the State to provide regional assistance for drought planning, mitigation and response. Conservation Program The Department’s Conservation Program was created to provide an integrated approach to water conservation by combining regulations, assistance, outreach and education. ADWR staff coordinate efforts to meet the vision of creating a “culture of conservation” through activities that promote and encourage the wise and eficient use of water by providing assistance and resources throughout Arizona. Conservation staff develop conservation tools and resources, assist communities and water providers, collaborate with regional and national partners, and participate in outreach activities. C.9 Statewide Water Resource Assessments Prior to publication of this Atlas, the only Department document that provided a broad overview of water supply and demand conditions as well as an analysis of water resource management issues statewide was the Arizona Water Resources Assessment, 1994 (Assessment). The Assessment is composed of two Volumes: Volume I; Inventory and Analysis and Volume II; Hydrologic Summary (ADWR 1994a,b). The Assessment discusses statewide water issues and water supply, demand and management issues for six planning areas. The Atlas partially retains the purpose and content of the Assessment. The 1994 Assessment was built upon the State Water Plan prepared by the Arizona Water Commission, the predecessor to the Department. The State Water Plan was published in three phases from 1975 to 1978 and was intended to provide necessary water resource information for Appendices 132 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 water management decision-making. The three phases included: Phase I, Inventory of Resource and Uses; Phase II, Alternative Futures; and Phase III-Part 1, Water Conservation. Other Phase III reports were envisioned but not produced. The Plan pre-dates the formation of the AMAs and presented information on a state and county basis. C.10 Water Replenishment Districts and Water Authorities Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District In 1993, the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAWCD) was given groundwater replenishment authority within the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs. The division of CAWCD responsible for replenishing groundwater is the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD). Membership in the CAGRD provides a mechanism for developers and water providers to satisfy the management goal criteria of the Assured Water Supply (AWS) rules. The CAGRD must replenish (recharge) the amount of groundwater used by members in excess of that allowed by the AWS rules. Water used for replenishment is primarily excess CAP water. Mohave County Water Authority The Mohave County Water Authority was formed in 1994 pursuant to legislative authorization. A.R.S. §§ 45-2201 through 45-2283. The Authority is authorized to acquire Colorado River water allocations on behalf of its members. Members of the Authority must have had a Colorado River contract as of January 1, 1993. The legislation approved the transfer of the right to delivery of 18,500 acre-feet per year of Colorado River water from a member for allocation to municipal and industrial uses. Upper San Pedro Water District (proposed) State legislation passed in 2007 (HB 2300) authorizes formation of an Upper San Pedro Water District whose purpose is to maintain the aquifer and base-low conditions needed to sustain the upper San Pedro River and to help meet the water supply needs and water conservation requirements for the communities within the district. The legislation allows the District and a District Board to be established if approved by qualiied voters of the District. A District Organizing Board has been formed to prepare organizational, inancial and election plans for the District. If approved, the District could acquire water supplies and water rights and operate augmentation projects. It could issue revenue bonds, impose fees and other taxes and receive loans or grants from the State Water Infrastructure Finance Authority to inance necessary projects. The date of the election is scheduled for November 2nd, 2010. C.11 Water-Related Agencies and Commissions Arizona Department of Environmental Quality The mission of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is to protect and enhance public health and environment in Arizona. Established by the Arizona Legislature in 1986 in response to growing concerns about groundwater quality, ADEQ administers a variety of programs to ensure that the quality of Arizona’s air, land and water resources meets regulatory standards. ADEQ has a programmatic Water Quality division. Core responsibilities include pollution control, monitoring and assessment, compliance management, cleanups of contaminated soil and water, education, outreach and inancial assistance and policy development. Its programs inluence water 133 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 supply planning and operations at the local level. Efluent reuse, recharge projects and discharge of water to aquifers or stream beds must meet water quality standards. The Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) was established to investigate and cleanup hazardous waste sites in Arizona. The Department has certain responsibilities under this program, including the adoption of provisions in its management plans and AWS rules to encourage the beneicial use of groundwater withdrawn pursuant to a remedial action project. (See: www.azdeq.gov) Arizona Corporation Commission The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) is a constitutionally formed commission with an elected 5- member board. It oversees the process of incorporating or registering companies to do business in the state, registers and oversees securities offerings and dealers, and enforces railroad and pipeline safety. Among its responsibilities is regulatory authority over private water and sewer companies. It regulates rates and authorizes curtailment tariffs that allow utilities to request that customers reduce water consumption when the demand is greater than the production. (See: www. cc.state.az.us) Arizona Water Protection Fund Commission (See Appendix F) Appendices 134 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 135 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX D: FEDERAL AGENCIES AND LAWS Appendices 136 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX D: FEDERAL AGENCIES AND LAWS Federal agencies inluence the use and management of water in Arizona. Federal agency authorities include the areas of lood control, water quality, and land and wildlife management. Many of the state’s major water supply development projects were authorized and built by the federal government. Uses of the water from these projects are controlled by both federal and state laws. This appendix contains a brief summary of key federal agencies and laws that affect water resource management in Arizona. D.1 Key Federal Agencies Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The COE conducts lood control studies and dam, levee and channelization projects to protect communities from lood damage. The COE regulates the placement of dredged or ill material into water of the U.S. (CWA, Section 404). www.usace.army. mil Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The BIA is responsible for protecting Indian trust lands water rights. The agency has developed irrigation distribution systems in communities along the Colorado River and coordinated construction of Coolidge Dam with the Secretary of Interior. www.doi.gov/ bureau-indian-affairs Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park Service (NPS). These agencies manage over 17 million acres of land throughout the State. Management of these lands may involve federal reserved water rights, instream low rights and land management activities that affect water runoff. The BLM manages the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA). www.blm. gov, www.nps.gov Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). The BOR administers the Colorado River Basin Project Act and contractual arrangements for the use of Colorado River Water. The BOR is responsible for construction of the major water supply development projects in Arizona (Hoover Dam and Power Plant, Glen Canyon Dam and Power Plant, Parker Dam and Power Plant, Davis Dam and Power Plant, the Salt River Project, Yuma Project and the Central Arizona Project). The BOR is also involved in regional planning activities, water conservation programs and water augmentation feasibility studies. www.usbr.gov Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has federal oversight over the implementation of surface water and drinking water quality programs. It has a regulatory role in governing some facilities that affect groundwater. This role involves oversight of state efforts regulating solid waste landills, hazardous waste sites and underground storage tanks. The EPA also implements national programs on watershed management, toxic waste cleanup, and border-region environmental programs. www.epa.gov Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The NRCS plays an active role in managing and mitigating agricultural non-point source pollution. NRCS conservation specialists assist individual operators through technical assistance and cost-sharing programs that help users develop best management practices to reduce water quality and quantity impacts. The NRCS is an important participant in implementation of the Arizona Drought Plan, particularly the operation of the local area impact assessment groups. www.nrcs.usda.gov 137 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS manages federal wildlife refuges, administers the Endangered Species Act, reviews environmental impact statements and Biological Assessments and issues Biological Opinions. www.fws.gov U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The Forest Service manages watersheds through Forest Plans that include watershed management criteria to protect and enhance runoff. The Forest Service holds many surface water rights for various uses. www.fs.fed.us U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS gages streamlows, and monitors the quantity and water quality of surface water and groundwater. It conducts scientiic analysis of hydrologic resources and produces reports on Arizona water use by sector and source. www.usgs.gov D.2 Colorado River Management The “Law of the River” as described briely below, is a collection of federal and state laws, interstate compacts, Supreme Court decisions and international treaties that govern the operation and use of the Colorado River. In the Lower Colorado River Basin, the United States Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is the watermaster. Acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, the Secretary operates Colorado River dams and accounts for water use on an annual basis. Pursuant to Section V of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the Secretary contracts with water users in the Lower Basin for water up to the total amount of each state’s apportionment. Colorado River Compact – 1922 In 1921, the seven Colorado River Basin states authorized the appointment of commissioners to negotiate a compact for the apportionment of the water supply of the Colorado River. Although the states were unable to negotiate an allocation of water for each state, an agreement was signed in November 1922, the Colorado River Compact (Compact) that divided the Colorado River Basin into the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin. The Compact apportioned to the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and a portion of Arizona) and to the Lower Basin (Arizona, California, and Nevada) the exclusive beneicial consumptive use of 7.5 million acre-feet of water to each basin annually. Because the Colorado River Basin includes a portion of Mexico, the Compact recognized Mexico’s right to use River water. Water for this purpose was to be met from surplus water supplies in excess of the amounts apportioned to the Upper and Lower Basins. Any burden that might arise because of a water treaty with Mexico was to be shared equally by the two basins. The Compact recognized that the ability of the Upper Basin to meet the requirement to deliver 7.5 million acre-feet to the Lower Basin could be impacted by climatic factors, therefore the Compact only required the Upper Basin to restrict its use so that delivery to the Lower Basin would not be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years. Boulder Canyon Project Act - 1928 The Boulder Canyon Project Act (Project Act) authorized construction of the Hoover Dam and Power Plant and the All-American Canal. It also authorized Arizona, California and Nevada to enter into an agreement whereby the 7.5 million acre-feet of water apportioned to the Lower Basin by the Colorado River Compact would be apportioned as follows: to California, 4.4 million acrefeet per year; to Arizona, 2.8 million acre-feet per year; and to Nevada, 0.3 million acre-feet per year. Appendices 138 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Mexican Treaty – 1945 In 1945, a treaty between the United States and Mexico involving waters of the Colorado, Rio Grande and Tijuana Rivers was enacted to address, among other things, a ixed entitlement for Mexico of 1.5 million acre-feet annually from the Colorado River. The Treaty also provided an additional 200,000 acre-feet in years of supply surplus. In years of extraordinary drought, Mexico’s entitlement is to be reduced in the same proportion as consumptive uses in the U.S. are reduced. Minute 242 was adopted and executed in 1973 in response to Mexico’s concerns regarding the quality of Colorado River water being delivered to the Mexicali Valley. Minute 242 obligates the United States to implement measures that will maintain the salinity of the Colorado River waters delivered to Mexico at nearly the same quality as that diverted at Imperial Dam for use within the United States. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was signed into law on June 24, 1974, providing for the physical works necessary to implement Minute 242 without permanent loss of water to the Colorado River Basin states. Upper Colorado River Basin Compact - 1948 This Compact divided the water apportioned to the Upper Basin by the Colorado River Compact between the ive states with territory in the Upper Basin. Arizona was allocated 50,000 acre-feet per year with the remainder of the Upper Basin entitlement divided according to the following percentages: Colorado, 51.75; New Mexico, 11.25; Utah, 23.00; and Wyoming, 14.00. Arizona v. California - 1964 On August 13, 1952, the State of Arizona iled a complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court against California and seven agencies within that state to resolve the contention by California that the Central Arizona Project should not be authorized. At California’s insistence, the U.S. Congress would not authorize the Central Arizona Project until Arizona’s right to the necessary Colorado River entitlement was clariied. The Decree, handed down in 1964, conirmed that Congress had already apportioned, through the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the entitlement of water to the three Lower Basin states as follows: Arizona, 2.8 million acre-feet; California, 4.4 million acre-feet; and Nevada, 300,000 acre-feet. Any surplus above 7.5 million acre-feet was apportioned 50 percent to California and 50 percent to Arizona, except that Nevada was given the right to contract for 4 percent of the excess, which would come out of Arizona’s share. The Decree also conirmed each of the Lower Basin state’s entitlements to the low of the tributaries within their boundaries, supporting Arizona’s utilization of water from its in-state rivers, separate from its entitlement to its full 2.8 million acre-feet of Colorado River water. The Decree left shortage allocation to the discretion of the Secretary after providing for satisfaction of present perfected rights in the order of their priority dates. These rights were deined as rights existing and used prior to the effective date of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. Colorado River Basin Project Act - 1968 The Colorado River Basin Project Act on September 30, 1968 authorized construction of the Central Arizona Project and other water development projects in the Upper Basin. A signiicant 139 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 concession was a provision that allowed existing California, Arizona, and Nevada Colorado River contractors to receive a priority over the Central Arizona project in times when the useable supply from the River was inadequate to provide 7.5 million acre-feet to the Lower Basin states, with California’s priority limited to its 4.4 million acre-foot entitlement. The Act directed the Secretary to propose criteria for the “coordinated long-range operation of the reservoirs” in the Upper Basin with the operation of the reservoirs in the Lower Basin. To accomplish this, the Act required the development of an Annual Operating Plan, in consultation with representatives of the seven Basin states. Coordinated Operations and Shortage Criteria In December 2007, Reclamation issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on interim operating criteria (2008-2026) including the coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead and criteria for implementing shortage reductions in the Lower Basin. Historically, the reservoirs were operated independently; annual Lake Powell water releases were determined based on applicable law and relevant factors contained in the Long-Range Operating Criteria. The ROD adopted four key elements: 1) establishes rules for shortages; 2) allows coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead to avoid Lower Basin shortages and avoid curtailment of Upper Basin water use; 3) establishes rules for surpluses; and 4) address ongoing drought by encouraging new initiatives for water conservation. If regional drought conditions continue, shortage operations could begin as early as 2011. The ROD could have implications for water supply availability in the planning area. D.3 Federal Reserved Rights In addition to the reserved water rights associated with Indian reservations under the “Winters” doctrine (described in Appendix G), federal reserved rights can be asserted on most federal, nonIndian lands. For example, surface water rights have been claimed in both the Gila River and Little Colorado River adjudications for national parks and monuments, military bases and national forests (Pearce, 2002). Federal reserved rights to groundwater have also been asserted. An Arizona Supreme Court Decision found that the federal reserved rights doctrine applied to groundwater as well as surface water. The decision found that a reserved right to groundwater could be found only where other waters are inadequate to accomplish the purpose of the reservation. In Re: The General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source, 989 P.2d 739 (Ariz. 1999) (Gila III); cert. denied 120 Sup. Ct. 2705 (2000) (Pollack, 2003). D.4 Summary of Key Federal Water Laws The Clean Water Act (CWA) 33 U.S.C. Section 121 et seq. (1977) The CWA of 1977 is an amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which set the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharge to waters of the United States. This law gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to set efluent standards and continues the requirements to set water quality standards for all surface water contaminants. Under the CWA, it is unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Standard (NPDES) permit is obtained. The CWA provides a mechanism for EPA to delegate many of the permitting, administrative and enforcement aspects Appendices 140 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 of the law to states (e.g. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality) while retaining oversight responsibilities. NPDES permits are usually required for efluent or industrial wastewater being disposed of by discharge to waters of the state. Impaired Waters Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act establishes a process for states to identify waters where implementing technology-based controls are inadequate to achieve water quality standards. States establish a priority ranking of these waters and, for the priority waters, develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). A TMDL identiies the amount of a speciic pollutant or property of a pollutant, from point, nonpoint, and natural background sources, that may be discharged to a water body and still ensure that the water body attains water quality standards. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq. (1980) CERCLA, commonly referred to as the “Superfund” Program authorized the investigation and remediation of groundwater contaminated by releases of hazardous substances from waste sites and due to accidents, spills and other emergency releases of contaminants. EPA is required to annually update the National Priority List of Superfund sites. In Arizona, CERCLA establishes a comprehensive response program that is administered by ADEQ in cooperation with the EPA. The Department of Water Resources maintains an advisory role in this process (ADWR, 1999). The Endangered Species Act (ESA) 7 U.S.C. 136; 16 U.S.C. 460 et seq. (1973) The ESA provides a program for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animals and their habitats. This may involve aquatic and riparian habitat. All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are eligible for listing as threatened or endangered. The Act is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries for marine species. Species are protected through partnerships with the states and Section 6 of the ESA encourages each State to develop and maintain conservation programs for resident listed species. Section 9 of the ESA makes it unlawful for a person to “take” a listed species which includes signiicant habitat modiication or degradation. The ultimate goal of the law is to recover species so that they no longer need protection under the ESA (USFWS, 2005). The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 43 U.S.C. Section 300f et seq. (1974) The SDWA is the primary federal law regulating drinking water quality from all sources. The Act authorizes EPA to establish safe standards and requires all owners or operators of public water systems to comply with primary (health-related) maximum contaminant level standards. National secondary drinking water regulations set non-enforceable standards for the aesthetic quality of water such as taste, odor or color. ADEQ may adopt more stringent standards than those set by EPA. Arsenic In 2001, EPA lowered the allowable arsenic content in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 ppb, effective January 23, 2006. This was a major issue for many of Arizona’s communities because Arizona’s aquifers have naturally high levels of arsenic. Approximately one-third of the states drinking water systems exceeded the standard at the time, including 287 small systems (serving fewer than 10,000 people). In response, ADEQ developed a strategy in conjunction with a coalition of business, academia, municipal government agencies and the scientiic community to develop a compliance strategy called the Arsenic Master Plan. The plan is intended to identify effective low-cost methods to comply with the standard. 141 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX E: ARIZONA CLIMATE AND DROUGHT Appendices 142 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Appendix E Arizona Climate and Drought Climate Arizona’s climate is characterized by ive main features: warm temperatures, aridity, strong precipitation seasonality, high year-to-year (interannual) variability and strong decade-to-decade persistence. The wide elevational differences result in signiicant climate variability between the mountains of the Central Highlands Province and the low elevation deserts. The Plateau Uplands Province, although relatively high in elevation, is very dry. Average annual rainfall in Arizona ranges from 3 inches in Yuma to over 36 inches in the higher elevations along the Mogollon Rim and in the White Mountains. State precipitation variability is shown in Figure 1-14. There are two climatically unrelated precipitation seasons: the summer, “monsoon” season, generally from July to mid-September and a winter season from November through mid-April. This seasonality is more pronounced in the east-central (Central Highlands Planning Area) and southeastern (Southeastern Arizona Planning Area) parts of the state where the summer precipitation can account for up to 60 percent of the annual total. By contrast, the Upper Colorado River Planning Area receives the majority of precipitation in the winter. Statewide, mid-April through June are reliably dry, as westerly winds shift to the north and the monsoon circulation begins to develop. Mid-September through early November is usually dry, but eastern Paciic tropical storms can cause high precipitation during this time of year. The summer precipitation season occurs when moist, tropical, unstable air from the Gulf of Mexico moves northwest into Arizona. Storms of short duration but high intensity occur in the afternoon and evening as the warm, moist air is forced up mountain slopes and suficiently cooled. These storms are typically most intense over the mountainous sections of the state. Winter rains occur when middle latitude cyclonic storms originating in the Paciic Ocean move east across the state. More than 75% of the winter precipitation falls as snow in the higher elevations. (ADWR, 1994a). The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a multi-season to multi-year variation in equatorial Paciic Ocean temperatures and associated atmospheric circulation, is the strongest and most important inluence on interannual climate and weather variations in Arizona. When El NiñoSouthern Oscillation is in the El Niño phase, Arizona frequently receives above average winter precipitation. When El Niño-Southern Oscillation is in the La Niña phase, Arizona is frequently dry due to a more northern storm track. These phases recur every 3 to 7 years on average and can persist for months to years, impacting precipitation totals over Arizona. During the past two decades, several La Niña episodes (e.g. 1989-90, 1995-96, 1998-2001) have initiated Arizona droughts (GDTF, 2004). The La Niña of 2005-2006 resulted in virtually no snowpack in Arizona until mid-March, with 29 of the 34 snow measuring sites monitored by the NRCS reporting no snow as of March 1, 2006, the least amount recorded since measurements began in the late 1930’s. Arizona’s Colorado River water supplies derive primarily from snow in the Rocky Mountains of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, whereas Arizona surface water supplies, such as in the Salt and Verde River systems, derive chiely from snow along the Mogollon Rim and high peaks on the Colorado Plateau. 143 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Temperature and associated evapotranspiration rates also vary widely in Arizona. Average daily temperatures range from the mid 90’s (˚F) below 500 feet elevation to the high 50’s (˚F) at elevations above 8,000 feet. In most areas of the state, temperatures increase 30 to 40 degrees between January and July (ADWR, 1994a). Climate can also vary widely within planning areas. Measured climate data are described in detail in the planning area volumes. The most signiicant feature of temperature records is the trend toward increasing temperatures during the last 30-40 years (Figure 1-5). In some regions, increased temperatures are due primarily to the urban heat island effect from heat-retaining paved area and buildings replacing desert landscapes in major urban areas. Temperatures in rural communities have also increased, though not at the same rate and not in every town. The mid-to-late twentieth century is the warmest period in a southern Colorado Plateau tree-ring temperature reconstruction (Salzer and Kipfmueller, 2005), as well as in reconstructions of summer season precipitation for a region stretching from west Texas to eastern California (Sheppard and others, 2002). Drought Decadal-scale Paciic Ocean circulation persistence can result in long-term drought, which can drastically reduce water supplies as demonstrated in the extremely dry conditions between 1999 and 2005 and during the 1950s. Table E-1 shows that 2004 was the year of lowest capacity in most of the state’s reservoirs during the period of 1971-2005. When these sustained circulation patterns are characterized by warm tropical Paciic Ocean temperatures, the result can be above average precipitation such as the post-1976 wet period which lasted until approximately 1998 (Figure E-1). This wet period is also relected in the high capacity reservoir level data in Table E-1. Some reservoirs, including Lake Powell and Lake Mead, exceeded their maximum useable capacity during this period and spilled. When Arizona’s high interannual precipitation variability is superimposed on persistent decadal variations, the result is individual wet years during periods of prolonged drought. This is shown in Figure E-1. Table E-1 Arizona mean, high capacity and low capacity reservoir levels from 1971 through 2005, expressed in percent of total reservoir capacity (design lood pool) Reservoir Name Lake Powell Lake Mead Lake Mohave Lake Havasu Show Low Lake Lyman Reservoir San Carlos Verde River Basin System Salt River Basin System Average Capacity High Capacity High Capacity Year Low Capacity Low Capacity Year 70% 77% 89% 88% 62% 45% 42% 56% 59% 98% 98% 98% 96% 100% 86% 100% 91% 77% 1983 1983 1971 1982 1993 1985 1980 1992 1979 31%* 51% 74% 77% 58% 11% 3% 43% 43% 2005 2004 2000 1980* 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Sources: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, CLIMAS. BOR, and ADWR * Lake Havasu 2004 low capacity was 79% Appendices 144 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Tree-ring records of drought and winter precipitation show dry episodes longer and more severe than any that have occurred during the last 100 years. In Arizona, notable multi-year droughts occurred in almost every century in the last 1,000 years. Particularly notable are winter-season droughts during the 1100s, the 1200s, the early 1400s, the late 1500s, the late 1600s, the late 1700s, the late 1800s and the mid-1900s (Figure 1-16). Tree-ring records of Colorado River streamlow show periods of extended low lows, such as those in the 1580s, the early 1620s to 1630s, the 1710s, the 1770s, and the 1870s (C. Woodhouse, NOAA Paleoclimate Program, personal communication to G. Garin, CLIMAS). 2005). These episodes were either more severe or longer in duration than low low periods experienced in more recent times. The low low period of the late 1500s is associated with widespread drought conditions across North America (Stahle et al., 2000). Figure E-1 Average water-year (October-September) temperature (left) and total water-year precipitation in Arizona from 1930-2002 Horizontal lines are average temperature (60.9 °F) and precipitation (12.1 in), respectively. Light lines are yearly values and highlighted lines are 5-year moving average values. Data are the average of monthly records from 25 U.S. Historical Climate Network (HCN) stations from the National Climate Data Center. CLIMAS, 2006. Such periods of widespread drought are characterized by low stream lows in the Upper Colorado River Basin as well as interior Arizona river basins, such as the Salt-Verde-Tonto river system. Records show that the Upper Colorado River Basin streamlow is seldom out of synch with SaltVerde-Tonto river system streamlow (Hirschboeck and Meko, 2005). This has serious implications for water supply availability in parts of Arizona. 145 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Planning area and AMA water deicits for the prolonged drought of 1942-1957 are shown in Figure E-2. It is evident that planning areas were affected to varying degrees during this period. For example, the Eastern Plateau Planning Area was the least impacted, with many years of above normal precipitation and a modest cumulative deicit of -5.8 inches over the drought period. While the current drought may relect similar precipitation conditions to those of the drought of the late 1940s to 1950’s, temperatures during the last decade are almost 2 degrees higher (see Figure E-1). This warming trend will affect the severity of drought conditions. Figure E-2 Planning area water-year (October-September) precipitation departures from average for the 1942-1957 drought period For each planning area, data from U.S. Historical Climate Network (HCN) stations from the National Climatic Data Center were used to calculate the total departure (upper right of each bar graph). CLIMAS, 2006. Appendices 146 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 147 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX F: ARIZONA WATER PROTECTION FUND Appendices 148 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX F: ARIZONA WATER PROTECTION FUND The Arizona Water Protection Fund (AWPF) was established in 1994 by the Arizona State Legislature (A.R.S. § 45-2101 et seq.) in order to provide a source of funding for “a coordinated effort for the restoration and conservation of the water resources of the state….designed to allow the people of this state to prosper while protecting and restoring this state’s rivers and streams and associated riparian habitats, including ish and wildlife resources that are dependent on these important habitats”. Riparian areas provide wildlife habitat, support biodiversity and serve many essential functions including water quality improvement, water quantity improvement, lood control and recreation. These conditions provide economic beneits including increased property values. The AWPF is administered by a 15-member Commission appointed by the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The composition of the Commission is speciied by statute (A.R.S. § 45-2103(A)) and is intended to represent a variety of land, water use and riparian issue perspectives. In addition there are two ex oficio members, the director of the department of water resources and the state land commissioner. The AWPF funds projects through a competitive grant process. Any person, agency or organization can apply. All projects must be in Arizona, be consistent with state water law and support the overall goals of the AWPF. Grants may be used to: • Develop or implement capital projects or speciic measures that directly maintain, enhance and restore rivers and streams and associated riparian resources; • Acquire CAP water or efluent for the purpose of protecting or restoring rivers and streams; • Develop, promote and implement water conservation programs outside of the ive active management areas; • Support research and data collection, compilation and analysis; or • Fund man-made water resource projects if the project beneits a river or stream and creates or restores riparian habitat. Monies for the AWPF are from three sources: 1) the Arizona State Legislature; 2) Central Arizona Project fees for each acre-foot of water sold to out-of-state CAP water lessees and purchasers, and; 3) private gifts, grants or donations. By statute, the AWPF is to receive $5 million annually from the legislature. The Commission encumbers all of the funds necessary to ensure the funding of multi-year projects. Money is disbursed on a reimbursable basis. As of FY 2008, 164 projects had been funded. Table F-1 lists the grant number, project title and type of project, organized by planning area and groundwater basin. The table includes a map number, which refers to grant locations shown on Figure F-1. 149 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 TABLE F-1 AWPF Funded Projects through FY 2008 by Planning Area VOLUME 2: EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA Groundwater Basin Map Number AWPF Grant # Little Colorado River Plateau 25 96-0003 Hoxworth Springs Riparian Restoration Project Little Colorado River Plateau 44 96-0022 Saffell Canyon and Murray Basin Watershed Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 46 96-0025 Tsaile Creek Watershed Restoration Demonstration Little Colorado River Plateau 24 96-0002 Completion Phase: Hi-Point Well Project 97-029 Demonstration Enhancement of Pueblo Colorado Wash at Hubbell Trading Post Little Colorado River Plateau 50 Project Title Project Category Stream Restoration Feasibility Study Watershed Restoration Fencing Stream Restoration & Revegetation Exotic Species Control & Fencing Little Colorado River Plateau 58 97-037 Talastima (Blue Canyon) Watershed Restoration Project Little Colorado River Plateau 65 98-046 EC Bar Ranch Water Well Project Little Colorado River Plateau 69 98-051 Evaluation of Carex Species for Use in Riparian Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 79 99-067 EC Bar Ranch Wildlife Drinker Project Livestock & Wildlife Water Developments Little Colorado River Plateau 91 99-079 Little Colorado River Riparian Restoration Project Constructed Wetland & Revegetation Little Colorado River Plateau 94 99-084 Assessments of Riparian Zones in the Little Colorado River Watershed Little Colorado River Plateau 99 99-089 Town of Eager/Round Valley Water Users Association Pressure Irrigation Feasibility Study & Preliminary Design Feasibility Study Little Colorado River Plateau 102 99-092 Little Colorado River Enhancement Demonstration Project Stream Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 105 99-095 Brown Creek Riparian Restoration Appendices Fencing & Water Developments Research Research Fencing & Water Developments 150 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 VOLUME 2: EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA (cont) Groundwater Basin Map Number AWPF Grant # Project Title Project Category Exotic Species Control & Stream Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 114 00-104 Continued Enhancement of Pueblo Colorado Wash at Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site Little Colorado River Plateau 115 00-105 Hubbell Trading Post Riparian Restoration with Treated Effluent Little Colorado River Plateau 117 00-108 Lake Mary Watershed Streams Restoration Channel Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 119 00-110 Upper Fairchild Draw Riparian Restoration Fencing & Revegetation 00-112 Town of Eagar/Round Valley Water Users Association Pressure Irrigation Feasibility Study and Preliminary Design – Additional Mapping for Water Quality Improvements in the Watershed Little Colorado River Plateau 121 Revegetation Feasibility Study Fencing & Exotic Species Control w/ Revegetation Little Colorado River Plateau 122 00-113 Polacca Wash Grazing Management Little Colorado River Plateau 128 03-119 Wet Meadows for Water Quality and Wildlife – A Riparian Restoration Project Little Colorado River Plateau 134 05-125 Wilkins’ family Little Colorado River Riparian Enhancement Project Stream Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 135 05-126 X Diamond Ranch LCR Riparian Enhancement Project Stream Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 136 05-127 EC Bar Ranch Reach 8 Water Well and Drinker Project Water Developments Little Colorado River Plateau 145 06-136 The Arboretum at Flagstaff Wetland Habitat Enhancement Habitat Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 150 07-141 Picture Canyon Rio de Flag Meander Restoration Project Stream Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 152 07-143 Little Colorado River & Nutrioso Creek Riparian Enhancement Project Stream Restoration 07-146 Little Colorado River Project on H-Y Ranch River Recovery Project Fencing & Habitat Restoration Little Colorado River Plateau 151 155 Fencing & Habitat Protection Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 VOLUME 2: EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA (cont) Groundwater Basin Map Number AWPF Grant # Little Colorado River Plateau 163 07-154 Billy Creek Natural Area Riparian Restoration Project Stream Restoration 08-159 Hoxworth Springs Stream Channel Restoration Project Fencing & Stream Restoration 168 Little Colorado River Plateau Project Title Project Category VOLUME 3: SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA PLANNING AREA Groundwater Basin Map Number AWPF Grant # Aravaipa Canyon 36 96-0014 Klondyke Tailings Response Strategy Analysis (RSA) Research Cienega Creek 14 95-016 Refinement of Geologic Model, Lower Cienega Basin, Pima County, Arizona Research Research Project Title Project Category Cienega Creek 28 96-0006 Hydrogeologic Investigation of Groundwater Movement and Sources of Base Flow to Sonoita Creek and Implementation of Long-Term Monitoring Program Cienega Creek 42 96-0020 Cienega Creek Stream Restoration Cienega Creek 55 97-034 Oak Tree Gully Stabilization Cienega Creek 67 98-049 Empire/Cienega/Empirita Fencing Project Fencing Cienega Creek 80 99-068 Lower Cienega Creek Restoration Evaluation Project Research Cienega Creek 100 99-090 Redrock Riparian Improvement Douglas 78 98-066 Hay Mountain Watershed Rehabilitation Duncan Valley 12 95-014 Gila Box Riparian and Water Quality Improvement Project Duncan Valley 164 08-155 Restoration of the Gila River at Apache Grove Appendices Stream Restoration & Revegetation Upland Channel Restoration Fencing & Water Developments Watershed Restoration Fencing & Upland Water Developments Stream Restoration 152 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 VOLUME 3: SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA PLANNING AREA (cont) Groundwater Basin Map Number AWPF Grant # Lower San Pedro 60 97-040 Bingham Cienega Riparian Restoration Project Lower San Pedro 63 97-044 San Pedro River Preserve Riparian Habitat Restoration Project 99-069 Riparian and Watershed Enhancements on the A7 Ranch – Lower San Pedro River Fencing & Upland Water Developments Habitat & Stream Restoration Lower San Pedro 81 Project Title Lower San Pedro 151 07-142 Reduction of Erosion and Sedimentation along the Lower San Pedro River Through Hydrologic Restoration of Modified Ephemeral Washes Lower San Pedro 118 00-109 Lower San Pedro Watershed Project Lower San Pedro 120 00-111 Cooperative Grazing Management for Riparian Improvement on the San Pedro Morenci 89 99-077 Blue Box Crossing Project Category Revegetation Habitat Restoration Feasibility Study Fencing & Upland Water Developments Channel Restoration Fencing & Upland Water Developments Morenci 112 00-102 Upper Eagle Creek Restoration on East Eagle Allotment: 4 Drag Ranch Morenci 138 05-129 Georges Lake Riparian Restoration Project Morenci 144 06-135 Double Circle Ranch Riparian Fencing Project Fencing Morenci 154 07-145 Kaler Ranch Erosion Control Project, Phase II Habitat Stream Protection Fencing & Upland Water Developments Fencing & Habitat Protection Safford 34 96-0012 Eagle Creek Watershed and Riparian Stabilization Safford 40 96-0018 San Carlos Spring Protection Project Safford 37 96-0015 Abandonment of an Artesian Geothermal Well Habitat Protection Safford 49 97-028 Creation of a Reference Riparian Area in the Gila Valley – Discovery Park Habitat Restoration 153 Fencing Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 VOLUME 3: SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA PLANNING AREA (cont) Groundwater Basin Map Number AWPF Grant # Safford 70 98-052 Tritium as a Tracer of Groundwater Sources and Movement in the Upper Gila River Drainage Research Safford 71 98-054 Fluvial Geomorphology Study and Demonstration Projects to Enhance and Restore Riparian Habitat on the Gila River from the New Mexico Border Research Safford 96 99-086 Abandonment of Gila Oil Syndicate Well #1 Safford 109 00-099 Gila Reference Riparian Area, Discovery Park Revegetation San Rafael 64 97-045 Santa Cruz Headwaters Project Fencing & Upland Water Developments San Rafael 106 99-096 Upper Santa Cruz Watershed Restoration Upper San Pedro 9 95-009 Regeneration and Survivorship of Arizona Sycamore Upper San Pedro 5 95-005 Preservation of the San Pedro River Utilizing Effluent Recharge Upper San Pedro 13 95-015 San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area Watershed Rehabilitation/ Restoration Project Upper San Pedro 16 95-018 Autecology and Restoration of Sporobolus Wrightii Riparian Grasslands in Southern Arizona Upper San Pedro 18 95-020 Teran Watershed Enhancement Upper San Pedro 35 96-0013 Happy Valley Riparian Area Restoration Project Fencing Upper San Pedro 23 96-0001 San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area Watershed Protection and Improvement Project Fencing Upper San Pedro 48 97-027 Lyle Canyon Allotment Restoration Project Fencing & Upland Water Developments Upper San Pedro 82 99-070 Lyle Canyon Allotment Riparian Area Restoration Project --- Phase 2 Fencing & Upland Water Developments Willcox 125 03-116 Cottonwood Creek Restoration Upper San Pedro 160 08-151 Test of Riparian Recovery Following Cessation of Groundwater Pumping Appendices Project Title Project Category Habitat Protection Fencing & Upland Water Developments Research Constructed Wetland Revegetation & Upland Channel Restoration Research Upland Channel Restoration Upland Channel Restoration Research 154 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 VOLUME 4: UPPER COLORADO RIVER PLANNING AREA Groundwater Basin Map Number AWPF Grant # Big Sandy 110 00-100 Willow Creek Riparian Restoration Project Bill Williams 39 96-0017 Big Sandy River Riparian Project Fencing Bill Williams 43 96-0021 Riparian Vegetation and Stream Channel Changes Associated with Water Management along the Bill Williams River Research Bill Williams 95 99-085 Kirkland Creek Watershed Resource Assessment Feasibility Study Fencing & Upland Channel Restoration Feasibility Study Project Title Bill Williams 116 00-106 Tres Alamos Dirt-Tanks-To-Aquatic-HabitatConversion Lake Mohave 85 99-073 Colorado River Nature Center Backwater --- Phase 2 Project Category Revegetation VOLUME 5: CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA Groundwater Basin Map Number AWPF Grant # Agua Fria 29 96-0007 Ash Creek Riparian Protection Project Stream Restoration Agua Fria 126 03-117 Lynx Creek Restoration at Sediment Trap #2 Stream Restoration Salt River 19 95-021 Lofer Cienega Restoration Project Fencing & Habitat Protection Salt River 20 95-022 Gooseberry Watershed Restoration Project Stream Restoration Salt River 93 99-083 Cherry Creek Enhancement Demonstration Project Stream Restoration Salt River 137 05-128 Canyon Creek Riparian Restoration Project, Reach 4-5 Fencing & Habitat Protection Tonto Creek 17 95-019 Quantifying Anti-Erosion Traits of Streambank Graminoids Tonto Creek 107 99-097 Dakini Valley Riparian Project Upper Hassayampa 98 99-088 Wickenburg High School Stream Habitat Creation 155 Project Title Project Category Research Fencing & Revegetation Constructed Wetland Restoration Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 VOLUME 5: CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA (cont) Groundwater Basin Map Number AWPF Grant # Verde River 3 95-003 Sycamore Creek Riparian Management Area Verde River 4 95-004 Road Reclamation to Improve Riparian Habitat Along the Hassayampa and Verde Rivers Verde River 6 95-006 Critical Riparian Habitat Restoration Along a Perennial Reach of a Verde River Tributary Verde River 15 95-017 Restoration of Fossil Creek Riparian Ecosystem Research Verde River 51 97-030 Walnut Creek Center for Education and Research – Biological Inventory Research Verde River 66 98-047 Upper Verde Adaptive Management Unit Fencing Verde River 68 98-050 Watershed Restoration of a High Elevation Riparian Community Verde River 72 98-055 Horseshoe Allotment: Verde Riparian Project II Verde River 73 98-057 Upper Verde Valley Riparian Area Historical Analysis Research Verde River 74 98-058 Effects of Removal of Livestock Grazing on Riparian Vegetation and Channel Conditions of Selected Reaches of the Upper Verde River Research Verde River 75 98-059 Verde River Headwaters Riparian Restoration Demonstration Project Verde River 90 99-078 Aquifer Framework and Ground-Water Flow Paths in Big and Little Chino Basins Research Verde River 101 99-091 Effects of Livestock Use Levels on Riparian Trees on the Verde River Research Verde River 127 03-118 Verde River Riparian Area Partnership Project Verde River 129 04-120 Verde River Headwaters 3-D Hydrogological Model Framework and Visualization Research Verde River 142 05-133 Verde Wild and Scenic River Fence Exclosure Fencing Verde River 158 07-149 Control of Tamarisk on 12 Miles if the Upper Verde River Habitat Protection Verde River 170 08-161 Montezuma Well Riparian Pasture Restoration Project Habitat Restoration Appendices Project Title Project Category Fencing Revegetation Stream Restoration Watershed & Stream Restoration Fencing & Upland Water Developments Channel Restoration Exotic Species Control 156 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 VOLUME 6: WESTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA Groundwater Basin Map Number AWPF Grant # Coconino Plateau 41 96-0019 Response of Bebb Willow to Riparian Restoration Research Project Title Project Category Stream Restoration Coconino Plateau 83 99-071 Protection of Spring and Seep Resources of the South Rim, Grand Canyon National Park by Measuring Water Quality, Flow, and Associated Biota Coconino Plateau 86 99-074 Proposal to Inventory, Assess, and Recommend Recovery Priorities for Arizona Strip Springs, Seeps, and Natural Ponds Research Coconino Plateau 103 99-093 Coconino Plateau Regional Water Study Research Coconino Plateau 140 05-131 Management & Control of Tamarisk and Other Invasive Vegetation at Backcountry Seeps, Springs, and Tributaries in Grand Canyon National Park Exotic Species Control Habitat Restoration Habitat Restoration Coconino Plateau 147 06-138 Management and Control of Tamarisk and Other Invasive Vegetation at back County Seeps, Springs, and Tributaries in Grand Canyon National Park – Second Year Phase II Grand Wash 146 06-137 Pakoon springs Restoration Design and Implementation Project Kanab Plateau 26 96-0004 Hydrologic Investigation & Conservation Planning: Pipe Springs Research Kanab Plateau 76 98-061 Watershed Enhancement on the Antelope Allotment Upland Water Developments Kanab Plateau 87 99-075 Glen and Grand Canyon Riparian Restoration Project Exotic Species Control & Revegetation Paria 166 08-157 Paria River Exotic Removal Project 157 Habitat Restoration Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 VOLUME 7: LOWER COLORADO RIVER PLANNING AREA Groundwater Basin Map Number AWPF Grant # Parker 38 96-0016 ‘Ahakhav Tribal Preserve Parker 53 97-032 ‘Ahakhav Tribal Preserve – Deer Island Revegetation Yuma 33 96-0011 Lower Colorado River – Imperial Division Restoration Yuma 45 96-0023 Watershed Restoration at the Yuma Conservation Gardens Yuma 133 04-124 Yuma East Wetlands Riparian Revegetation Project Exotic Species Control & Revegetation Yuma 143 05-134 Quechan Indian Nation Yuma East Wetlands Restoration Project – Phase I Exotic Species Control & Revegetation Yuma 149 06-140 Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Yuma East Wetlands Restoration Project – Phase I Wetland Restoration Yuma 156 07-147 The Effects of Restoration on Wildlife Recovery at the Yuma East Wetlands Restoration Project Research Yuma 157 07-148 South Channel Phase II Restoration Project Wetland Restoration Yuma 161 08-152 AWPF Yuma East Wetlands 68-Acre Riparian Revegetation Wetland Restoration Yuma 162 08-153 The Effects of Restoration on Herpetophaunal and Mammalian Community Recovery Project Yuma 165 08-156 Cocopah Colorado River Restoration Appendices Project Title Project Category Habitat Restoration & Revegetation Exotic Species Control & Revegetation Wetland Restoration Watershed Restoration Research Habitat & Stream Restoration 158 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 VOLUME 8: AMA PLANNING AREA Groundwater Basin Map Number AWPF Grant # Project Title Project Category Phoenix AMA 10 95-010 Assessment of the Role of Effluent Dominated Rivers in Supporting Riparian Functions Research Phoenix AMA 27 96-0005 Tres Rios River Management & Constructed Wetlands Project Research Phoenix AMA 59 97-038 Tres Rios Wetland Heavy Metal Bioavailability Design for Denitrification and Microbial Water Quality Research Phoenix AMA 62 97-042 Queen Creek Restoration and Management Plan Research Phoenix AMA 108 99-098 Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Project Phoenix AMA 123 00-114 The Papago Park Greenline Project Pinal AMA 8 95-008 Picacho Reservoir Riparian Enhancement Project Habitat Protection Prescott AMA 11 95-012 The Comprehensive Plan for the Watson Woods Riparian Preserve Feasibility Study Prescott AMA 30 96-0008 Watson Woods Vegetation Inventory Research Prescott AMA 31 96-0009 Watson Woods Riparian Preserve Visitor Management Research Prescott AMA 88 99-076 Watson Woods Preserve Herpetological Interpretive Guide and Checklist Research Prescott AMA 130 04-121 Lynx Creek Restoration Prescott AMA 131 04-122 Watson Woods Riparian Preserve Restoration Feasibility Project Feasibility Study Prescott AMA 167 08-158 Watson Woods Riparian Preserve Restoration Project Habitat & Stream Restoration Santa Cruz AMA 22 95-024 Potrero Creek Wetland Characterization and Management Plan Research 61 97-041 Altar Valley Watershed Resource Assessment Research 113 00-103 Riparian Restoration on the Santa Cruz River – Santa Fe Ranch 141 05-132 Esperanza Ranch Riparian Restoration Project 148 06-139 Coal Mine Fence Santa Cruz AMA Santa Cruz AMA Santa Cruz AMA Santa Cruz AMA 159 Constructed Wetland & Revegetation Exotic Species Control & Revegetation Stream Restoration Fencing & Revegetation Fencing & Revegetation Fencing & Habitat Protection Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 VOLUME 8: AMA PLANNING AREA (cont) Groundwater Basin Map Number AWPF Grant # Tucson AMA 7 95-007 High Plains Effluent Recharge Project Tucson AMA 21 95-023 Sabino Creek Riparian Ecosystem Protection Project Tucson AMA 32 96-0010 Rehabilitating the Puertocito Wash on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge Tucson AMA 47 96-0026 Riparian Restoration on the San Xavier Indian Reservation Community Tucson AMA 52 97-031 Lincoln Park Riparian Habitat Project (f.k.a. Atturbury Wash Project) Tucson AMA 54 97-033 Proctor Vegetation Modification Tucson AMA 77 98-062 Partnership for Riparian Conservation in Northeastern Pima County II Revegetation Tucson AMA 84 99-072 Leopard Frog Habitat and Population Conservation at Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Restoration Tucson AMA 92 99-080 Cortaro Mesquite Bosque Habitat Restoration & Revegetation Tucson AMA 97 99-087 Rillito Creek Habitat Restoration Project Habitat Restoration & Revegetation Tucson AMA 104 99-094 Santa Cruz River Park Extension Habitat Restoration & Revegetation Tucson AMA 124 00-115 Tucson Audubon Society North Simpson Farm Riparian Recovery Project Revegetation Tucson AMA 132 04-123 Tucson Audubon Society, Santa Cruz River Habitat Project, North Simpson Site, Phase 2 Revegetation Tucson AMA 139 05-130 Riparian Restoration on the San Xavier District – Project Two Revegetation Tucson AMA 153 07-144 Evaluation of Riparian Habitat and Headcutting on Lower Cienega Creek Tucson AMA 169 08-160 Atturbury Wash Riparian Stewardship Project Appendices Project Title Project Category Wetland Restoration Research Stream Restoration Habitat Restoration & Revegetation Habitat Restoration Exotic Species Control Research Habitat Restoration 160 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 161 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX G: INDIAN WATER RIGHTS CLAIMS AND SETTLEMENTS Appendices 162 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX G: INDIAN WATER RIGHTS CLAIMS AND SETTLEMENTS The role of Indian reservations in Arizona water supply and management has become increasingly important. With approximately 28% of Arizona lands held in trust by the federal government on behalf of Native Americans, determination of Indian water rights and water use by Indian communities can have a signiicant impact on other State water users. Active Management Areas (AMA) affected by Indian water right claims include Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson. Non-AMAs affected by these claims include the Coconino Plateau, Little Colorado River, Lower San Pedro, Parker, Verde River and Yuma basins as well as northwestern Arizona and areas on the Mogollon Rim and along the upper Gila River. In Arizona, as in most states, negotiation of Indian water rights claims has been litigation driven. Indian water right claims are based on “reserved water rights” for federal reservations established under the “Winters Doctrine.” When the federal government established Indian reservations it did not expressly claim associated water rights. In 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court in Winters v. United States found that a federal reservation includes an amount of water necessary to fulill the reservation’s purpose. Priority dates are based on the date of the enactment of the treaty, act of Congress, or Executive Order establishing the reservation. In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. California further deined reserved water rights for Indian reservations by including the standard of practicably irrigable acreage (PIA) as a method of quantifying the right. In 2001, the Arizona Supreme Court in Gila V rejected PIA as the sole standard for quantiication and found that Indian reserved rights must account for the present and future needs of the reservation as a tribal homeland. Although limited to the “minimal needs” of the reservation, quantiication should consider several factors including historic and cultural water uses, tribal resources and economic base, development plans, and current and future populations. Litigation to quantify Indian water rights claims is usually a lengthy and expensive process. Settlement of tribal claims beneits private and public parties by providing the water certainty necessary to plan long-term economic development. Also, settlement may be less expensive than litigation. However, the greatest beneit of settlements may be the goodwill created by neighboring communities working together for Arizona’s future. When the settlement process begins, parties potentially impacted by the Indian water rights claims identify the sources of water necessary to satisfy the tribal needs. A federal negotiating team works with the parties to assure that federal requirements, including local cost contribution, are met. ADWR participates in the settlement discussion, offering technical assistance and ensuring state water laws and policies are followed. When local parties agree on a settlement, the issue is taken to the United States Congress for approval and funding. Generally, the congressional act ratiies the agreement among the parties, authorizes congressional appropriations, and may require a state contribution. The parties then inalize the implementing agreement, seek any necessary state appropriation, and, as necessary, seek approval of the court in either the Gila River General Stream Adjudication or the Little Colorado General Stream Adjudication. 163 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 The remainder of this appendix is divided into four sections. Section G-1 lists Colorado River entitlements that were decreed to Arizona Indian tribes through Arizona v. California. Sections G-2 and G-3 describe Indian water right settlements in Arizona that were authorized by Congress and are currently under negotiation, respectively. Other tribes in Arizona with unresolved water right claims are listed in Section G-4 G.1 Colorado River Entitlements Arizona v. California decreed four Indian reservations along the Colorado River with entitlements to divert water from the river. The reservations and their annual Colorado River entitlements in acre-feet (AF) are listed below: • Cocopah – 8,821 AF (Priority 1) and 2,026 AF (Priority 4) • Colorado River Tribes – 662,402 AF (Priority 1) • Fort Mohave – 103,535 AF (Priority 1) • Fort Yuma – 6,350 AF (Priority 1). G.2 Congressionally Authorized Settlements Ak Chin Indian Community By Congressional action in 1978 and 1984, the Ak Chin Indian Community was awarded an annual entitlement to 75,000 AF (85,000 AF in wet years) of Central Arizona Project (CAP) and other Colorado River water. In 1992, Congress amended the 1984 Act to authorize the Community to lease any unused CAP water to off-reservation users within the Tucson, Pinal and Phoenix AMAs. Tohono O’odham Nation In 1982, the Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act (SAWRSA) was enacted by Congress to address the water right claims of the San Xavier and Shuck Toak Districts of the Tohono O’odham Nation. SAWRSA awarded the districts an annual entitlement to 37,800 AF of CAP water and 28,200 AF of settlement water to be delivered by the Secretary of the Interior to the two districts. The districts may also pump annually up to 13,200 AF of groundwater from non-exempt wells. In addition to state and local inancial contributions, the City of Tucson contributed 28,200 AF annually of efluent to be used by the Secretary to facilitate deliveries to the districts (through sale or exchange). In December 2004 the President signed into law P.L. 108-451, the Arizona Water Settlements Act. Title III of the Act amended the 1982 SAWRSA and provided a mechanism to implement the settlement. The amendment identiied the source of the settlement water as CAP Non-Indian Agricultural priority water. The Nation may lease its CAP water within the CAP service area. State law was amended to provide additional protection to groundwater resources on the San Xavier Reservation, and allow the Nation to store its CAP water in an in lieu fashion. The settlement was implemented in December 2007 and includes dismissal of claims against non-Indian parties in U.S. and State courts, and approval of the settlement by the Gila Adjudication Court for incorporation into the inal decree in that case. Appendices 164 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 The Nation’s water right claims will not be completely satisied until the claims of the Sif Oidak District in Pinal County, commonly known as Chui Chu, are addressed. While that district currently has a contract for 8,000 AF of CAP water, it has stated a need of nearly 100,000 AF. The Nation has requested that a federal negotiating team be established so that negotiations can be commenced. Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian Community In the Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988, Congress approved an agreement which gave the Community an annual entitlement to 122,400 AF of water plus storage rights behind Bartlett and modiied Roosevelt Dams. The parties to the agreement were: Salt River Project (SRP), Roosevelt Water Conservation District (RWCD), Roosevelt Irrigation District, Chandler, Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Gilbert, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), the United States and the State of Arizona. Sources of water for the Community under the settlement include the Salt and Verde rivers, groundwater and CAP water. The Community is allowed to pump groundwater, but must achieve safe-yield when the East Salt River sub-basin in the Phoenix Active Management Area does so. The Community has leased its 13,000 AF CAP allocation to the Phoenix valley cities from 2000 to 2099. The Arizona State Legislature appropriated $3 million, which was added to $47 million from the United States for the Community’s trust fund. This settlement was approved by the Gila River Adjudication Court for incorporation into the inal decree in that case. Fort McDowell Indian Community In 1990, Congress ratiied an agreement between the Fort McDowell Indian Community (FMIC) and neighboring non-Indian communities, including SRP, RWCD, Chandler, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Gilbert, CAWCD, the United States and the State of Arizona. Under that agreement, FMIC is provided an annual entitlement to 35,950 AF of water from the Verde River and CAP. The 18,233 AF of CAP in the water budget may be leased for 100 years or less offreservation within Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa counties. A lease of 4,300 AF to Phoenix has already been signed. This settlement also provides for a minimum stream low on the Lower Verde River of 100 cfs. In accordance with the 1990 Act, a development fund was created with $23 million from the United States and with a $2 million appropriation by the Arizona State Legislature. This settlement was approved by the Gila River Adjudication Court for incorporation into the inal decree in that case. San Carlos Apache Tribe The water rights claims of the San Carlos Apache Tribe to the Salt River side of their reservation were settled through congressional enactment of the San Carlos Apache Tribe Settlement Act of 1992. The Tribe was awarded an annual entitlement to 71,435 AF of water from the CAP and Salt, Gila and Black rivers. The 64,135 AF of CAP water may be leased off-reservation within Pima, Maricopa, Pinal, Yavapai, Graham, and Greenlee counties. Groundwater may also be pumped from under the reservation. Settlement parties include: SRP, RWCD, Phelps Dodge Corporation, the Buckeye Irrigation Company, the Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District, Chandler, Glendale, Globe, Mesa, Safford, Scottsdale, Tempe, Gilbert, Carefree, CAWCD, the United States and the State of Arizona. The agreement includes a 100-year lease with the City of Scottsdale for a portion of the Tribe’s CAP water. 165 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 In 1994, the Arizona State Legislature appropriated $3 million, which was added to $38.4 million from the United States for the Tribe’s development trust fund and in 1997, the Gila River Adjudication Court approved the settlement for incorporation into the inal decree in that case. The water right claims of the San Carlos Apache Tribe to the Gila River side of the reservation will be the subject of separate negotiations or litigation. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe In 1994, Congress enacted the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Water Settlement Act. The Act settled the Tribe’s water rights claims by: 1) conirming the Tribe’s right to pump groundwater within the boundaries of the reservation; 2) providing for relinquishment of the Tribe’s CAP contract, the proceeds to be used for a water service contract with the City of Prescott; and 3) providing that the Tribe may divert a portion of water from Granite Creek currently diverted by the Chino Valley Irrigation District. The Act also provided authorization to the Tribe and the City of Prescott to market their CAP water to the City of Scottsdale, which has been completed. The Act required a state appropriation of $200,000, which was made in the 1994 session of the Arizona State Legislature and was added to the Tribe’s CAP proceeds fund. The Gila River Adjudication Court approved this settlement for incorporation into the inal decree in that case. Zuni Indian Tribe In June 2003, the President signed into law P.L. 108-34, the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act. The Act awards the tribe a right to use annually 5,500 AF of surface water from the Little Colorado River (LCR) and up to 1,500 AF of underground water, both for wetland restoration at the Zuni Heaven Reservation. It also grandfathers existing surface and ground water uses in the area, restricts future wells near the reservation and facilitates local state environmental programs. Parties to the settlement include SRP, Tucson Electric Power Company, local irrigation companies, cities and towns, the United States and the State of Arizona. A total of $26.9M was authorized by the settlement for water rights acquisition and wetlands restoration and maintenance work. The settlement was implemented in December 2006 and includes a broad waiver of Zuni claims against future water uses as well as approval by the LCR Adjudication Court for incorporation into the inal decree in that case. Gila River Indian Community In December 2004 the President signed into law P.L. 108-451, the Arizona Water Settlements Act. Title II of the Act provided approval of the Gila River Indian Water Settlement Agreement. The settlement awarded the Community an annual entitlement to 653,500 AF of water from various sources including CAP allocations, efluent (through CAP exchange), groundwater, and surface water from the Gila, Verde and Salt rivers,. It also established a funding mechanism for on-reservation development of the Community’s farming operations and gave leasing authority to the Community for its CAP water as long as the water is leased within Arizona. Parties to the settlement include many non-Indian neighbors: SRP, RWCD, San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District, Hohokam Irrigation District, New Magma Irrigation District, Phoenix valley cities, Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District, Maricopa-Stanield Irrigation District, Gila Valley Irrigation District, Franklin Irrigation District, upper Gila valley towns and cities, the Appendices 166 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 United States, CAWCD and the State of Arizona. The Indian and non-Indian water users who are parties in the United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation District, et al., Globe Equity No. 59 (entered June 29, 1935), also known as the Globe Equity Consent Decree, have been in continuing litigation over the management and interpretation of the Decree since 1935. The Settlement Agreement and Title II of the Act include settlement of these dificult issues. The State also enacted legislation to better protect certain water resources of the Community. The settlement was implemented in December 2007 and includes dismissal of Community claims in U.S. and State courts, and approval by the Gila River Adjudication Court for incorporation into the inal decree in that case. G.3 Current Settlement Negotiations White Mountain Apache Tribe In January 2009, U.S. Senator Kyl (R-AZ) introduced legislation (S. 313) to settle the water right claims of the White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT) in the Salt River Basin. The WMAT Water Rights Quantiication Act would authorize $290M for water projects including a dam on the White River at Miner Flat, a treatment plant and pipeline to distribute potable water supply from the reservoir to most of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, and other smaller projects. Under the settlement, WMAT would be entitled to an annual depletion of 27,000 AF of surface water from the White River and 25,000 AF of CAP water previously set aside for future Indian tribal settlements. Major parties to the settlement include WMAT, SRP, CAWCD, RWCD, and several Phoenix valley cities. In September 2009, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee cleared S. 313 and in January 2010, the House passed a companion bill (H.R. 1065) introduced by U.S. Representative Kirkpatrick (D-AZ). S. 313 may be considered by the full Senate in late 2010. Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe The Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe have been negotiating with non-Indian water users in the Little Colorado River Basin, the State of Arizona and the federal government for several years in a settlement committee appointed by the LCR Adjudication Court during the 1990s. Negotiations broke down in 2000 and in 2003 the Navajo Nation iled a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior over its operation of the Colorado River. A Federal judge entered a stay in that case until October 2010 to allow negotiations with the United States, State of Arizona and intervening parties about possible Navajo Nation claims to the Colorado River. Negotiations resumed a few years ago and are now nearing completion concerning Navajo and Hopi claims to both the mainstem Colorado River and the Little Colorado River. Drafting of federal and state legislation is currently underway for possible introduction in 2011 or 2012. Yavapai Apache Tribe A federal assessment level team has been assembled to consider the water right claims of the Yavapai Apache Tribe. Details on the team’s activities and the status of any settlement negotiations are not available at this time. 167 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 G.4 Unresolved Claims The water claims of the following Arizona Indian tribes are not subject to active settlement negotiations and remain unresolved at this time: • Havasupai • Hualapai • Kaibab Paiute • Pascua Yaqui • San Carlos Apache (Gila River tributaries) • Tohono O’odham (Sif Oidak District) • Tonto Apache. Appendices 168 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 169 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX H: SURFACE WATER RIGHT AND ADJUDICATION FILINGS Appendices 170 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX H SURFACE WATER RIGHT AND ADJUDICATION FILINGS Surface water is deined in Arizona as “waters of all sources, lowing in streams, canyons, ravines or other natural channels, or in deinite underground channels, whether perennial or intermittent, loodwaters, wastewaters, or surplus water, and of lakes, ponds and springs on the surface” (A.R.S. § 45-101). In 1864, the irst territorial legislature of Arizona adopted the doctrine of prior appropriation to govern the use of surface water. The doctrine is based on the tenet of “irst in time, irst in right” which means that the person who irst puts the water to beneicial use acquires a right that is superior to later appropriators of the water. Since the population and water use were both relatively small at that time, no method was initially speciied by the legislature for iling surface water right claims or granting rights. By the late 1800s, rapid development of irrigated agriculture combined with drought years had resulted in severe water shortages along the Salt and Gila Rivers. The territorial legislature responded in 1893 with a requirement that new water appropriations be posted at the point of diversion. However, until 1919, a person could acquire a surface water right simply by applying the water to beneicial use and recording a notice of appropriation at the state and country recorder’s ofice. There still was not a mechanism for granting surface water rights (ADWR, 1992). On June 12, 1919, the state legislature enacted a surface water code. Now known as the Public Water Code, the law generally requires that a person apply for and obtain a permit in order to appropriate surface water. There is an exception for water use from the mainstem of the Colorado River, which requires a contract with the Secretary of the Interior. In addition, most persons claiming surface water rights prior to the code have been required to ile a statement of claim under the Water Rights Registration Act of 1974, although the act did not provide a process for determining the validity of these claims. The legislature also enacted the Stockpond Registration Act in 1977 to recognize certain unpermitted stockponds constructed after 1919 that had not gone through the application process. The Public Water Code provides that beneicial use shall be the basis, measure and limit to the use of water within the state. Beneicial uses are domestic (which includes the watering of gardens and lawns not exceeding one-half acre), municipal, irrigation, stockwatering, water power, recreation, wildlife including ish, nonrecoverable water storage, and mining uses (A.R.S. § 45-151(A)). The quantity of water that is reasonable for a particular beneicial use depends on a number of factors, including the location of the use. The Department maintains a registry of surface water right applications and claims iled in Arizona since the Public Water Code was enacted. Each iling is assigned a unique number with one of the following preixes ● “3R” – application to construct a reservoir iled before 1972; ● “4A” – application to appropriate surface water iled before 1972; ● “33” – application for permit to appropriate public water or construct a reservoir iled after 1972. In addition to surface water diversions and reservoirs, instream low maintenance 171 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 can be applied for and is deined as a surface water right that remains in-situ or “in-stream”, is not physically diverted or consumptively used, and is for maintaining the low of water necessary to preserve wildlife, including ish, and/or recreation; ● “36” – statement of claim of rights to use public waters of the state. To make this claim, an applicant or predecessor-in-interest must have initiated a water use based on state law before March 17, 1995; ● “38” – claim of water right for a stockpond and application for certiication iled for stockponds constructed after June 12, 1919 and before August 27, 1977. To ile this claim and application, the stockpond should have been used exclusively for watering of livestock and/or wildlife, have a maximum capacity of 15 acre-feet, and not be subject to water rights litigation or protests prior to August 27, 1977; ● “39” – statement of claimant iled in The General Adjudication of the Gila River System and Source (Gila Adjudication) and The General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River System and Source (LCR Adjudication). As explained further below, the Department maintains a separate registry of these ilings on behalf of the Superior Court of Arizona; and, ● “BB” – decreed water rights determined through judicial action in state or federal court. These ilings specify the source of water, its point of diversion (POD) and place of use (POU), the type and quantity of water use, and date of irst use or priority. If, after moving through a number of administrative steps, an application to appropriate surface water or construct a reservoir (3R, 4A, or 33) is determined to be for beneicial use and not conlict with vested rights or be a menace to public safety or against the interests and welfare of the public, it may be approved and the applicant issued a permit to appropriate. The permit allows the permit holder to construct diversion works, as needed, and put the water to beneicial use. If the terms of the permit are met, the applicant can submit proof of appropriation through an application of certiication and may be issued a Certiicate of Water Right (CWR). The CWR has a priority date that relates back to the date of application and is evidence of a perfected surface water right that is superior to all other surface water rights with a later priority date, but junior to all rights with an earlier (older) priority date. The CWR also speciies the extent and purpose of the right and may be subject to abandonment and forfeiture if not beneicially used. There are currently approximately 850 applications to appropriate pending with ADWR, and approximately 420 permits and over 7,000 certiicates have been issued by ADWR or its predecessors. A CWR may also be issued based on a stockpond claim (38) if it is found that the facts stated in the claim are true and entitle the claimant to a water right for the stockpond. The priority date depends on the date that the owner of the stockpond iled the claim. If iled prior to March 17, 1996, the priority date is the date of construction. Otherwise, the priority date is the date of iling the claim. Regardless of the date, the CWR for a stockpond claim is junior to (a) Colorado River and other court decreed rights; (b) other rights acquired prior to June 12, 1919 and registered as a statement of claim; and (c) any other CWR issued pursuant to an application iled before August 27, 1977. To date, nearly 20,000 stockpond claims have been iled of which over 3,000 stockpond certiicates have been issued by ADWR or its predecessors. Unlike a CWR, the act of iling a statement of claim (36) does not in itself create a water right, nor does it constitute a judicial determination of the claim. Statements of claim are subject to Appendices 172 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 challenge, but can be admitted “in evidence as a rebuttal presumption of the truth and accuracy of the information contained in the claim” (A.R.S. § 45-185). To date, nearly 30,000 statements of claim have been iled in Arizona. In addition to the applications and claims described above, ADWR’s registry of surface water right ilings includes several rights determined through judicial action in state or federal court. These ‘adjudications’, in which a water right is determined by court action, may be initiated when one or more water users seek to know how their rights compare to the rights of other water users and/ or seek judicial relief from alleged interference with their rights by other water users. The court process establishes or conirms the validity of surface water rights and claims, determines whether these have been properly maintained over the years, and ranks them according to their priority. The result is a decree that may, in addition to establishing and conirming rights, speciies terms under which the decreed rights may be exercised if water shortages occur. Court decreed rights are considered the most valued or certain surface water rights because in the absence of abandonment or forfeiture, they are normally accepted as to their validity. More than 1,000 court-decreed rights are listed in ADWR’s registry and given the preix “BB”. Although several surface water uses have been decreed, many claims and rights established before and after statehood have still not been examined to see if they remain valid. In addition, many water rights established under federal law and claimed by Indian tribes and the United States have not been quantiied or prioritized. To better manage water resources in the state, these diverse rights and claims have been joined into large, comprehensive determinations. Arizona currently has two general stream adjudications – the Gila Adjudication and the LCR Adjudication. The purpose of these judicial proceedings is to determine the nature, extent, and priority of water rights across the entire river systems. In addition to conirming existing statebased surface water rights, the adjudications will quantify and prioritize reserved water rights for Indian and non-Indian federal lands. The latter include military bases, national parks and monuments, and national forests. The adjudications will also determine which wells are pumping appropriable underground water (sublow) and therefore are subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The Gila and LCR Adjudications are being conducted in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa and Apache Counties, respectively. ADWR provides technical, legal and administrative support to the adjudication court, as described in A.R.S. § 45-256. The Gila Adjudication was initiated in 1974 when SRP iled a petition to determine the water rights in the Salt River Watershed above the Granite Reef Diversion. Since that time, the adjudication area has grown and now covers over 53,000 square miles. It is divided into 7 watersheds and includes 12 Indian reservations and over 24,000 parties. The LCR Adjudication was initiated by a petition iled by Phelps Dodge in 1978. This adjudication now covers 27,000 square miles and includes 3 watersheds, 5 Indian reservations, and over 3,000 parties. A party is a person or entity that has iled one or more statement of claimant (SOC) in the adjudication. All parties who claim to have a water right within the river systems are required to ile an SOC or risk the loss of their right. Well owners are also encouraged to ile an SOC since the adjudication process may include water use from a well depending on the well’s location relative to streams and other factors. However, a person does not obtain a right to use water by iling an SOC nor 173 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 is an SOC a legal permit to use Figure H-1 General Stream Adjudications in Arizona water. Rights to use water must be acquired in accordance with state or federal law. Each year, ADWR sends summons to new surface water appropriators and well owners in the adjudication areas that direct them to ile an SOC. In response, the number of SOCs iled in the adjudications continues to increase as new water uses are initiated. To date, nearly 81,000 SOCs have been iled in the Gila Adjudication and over 14,000 SOCs have been iled in the LCR Adjudication. ADWR maintains a separate registry of these adjudication ilings on behalf of the Superior Court and assigns each a unique number with the preix “39”. Table C-1 summarizes the number of surface water right and adjudication ilings for each planning area. The table was generated by querying ADWR’s surface water right and SOC registries in February 2009. Files are only counted in the table if they include suficient locational information (Township, Range, and Section) to allow a POD and/or POU to be mapped within the planning area. If a ile lists more than one POD or POU in a planning area, it is only counted once in the table for that planning area. However, no attempt was made to avoid counting multiple ilings for the same POD/POU which can result if a landowner or lessee has two or more ilings or if different applicants each have at least one iling. Since many SOCs list surface water right ilings as their basis of claim, multiple ilings are common and account, in part, for the large number of ilings. Sorting through multiple ilings is one of the challenges facing the Department and the adjudication courts. Results from the Department’s investigation of surface water right and adjudication ilings are presented in Hydrographic Survey Reports (HSRs). Figure H-2 shows the location of surface water diversion points listed in the Department’s surface water rights registry. The numerous points mapped relect the relatively large number of stockponds and reservoirs that have been constructed across the state as well as diversions from streams and springs. Locations for registered wells, many of which are referenced as the basis of claim in SOCs, are also shown in Figure 1-24. Instream low ilings are not shown as these ilings do not have points of diversion. Appendices 174 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table H-1 Count of Surface Water Right and Adjudication Filings by Planning Area1 TYPE OF FILING PLANNING AREA TOTAL BB2 3R3 4A3 333 364 385 396 Eastern Plateau 134 163 196 373 3,289 3,275 12,099 19,529 Southeastern 483 395 716 898 8,288 6,415 19,288 36,483 Upper Colorado River 0 224 329 469 2,858 2,084 0 5,964 Central Highlands 1 287 625 897 8,517 3,928 25,443 39,698 Western Plateau 0 415 207 554 1,177 1,270 324 3,947 Lower Colorado River 0 26 48 86 355 304 2,323 3,142 Active Management Areas 1 269 341 687 4,072 2,913 27,134 35,417 Total 619 1,779 2,462 3,964 28,556 20,189 86,611 144,180 Notes: Based on a query of ADWR's surface water right and adjudication registries in February 2009. A file is only counted in this table if it provides sufficient information to allow a Point of Diversion (POD) and/or Place of Use (POU) to be mapped within the planning area. If a file lists more than one POD or POU in a given planning area, it is only counted once in the table for that planning area. Several surface water right and adjudication filings are not counted here due to unsufficient locational information. However, multiple filings for the same POD/POU are counted. 2 Court decreed rights; not all of these rights have been identified and/or entered into ADWR's surface water rights registry. 3 Application to construct a reservoir, filed before 1972 (3R); application to appropriate surface water, filed before 1972 (4A); and application for permit to appropriate public water or construct a reservoir, filed after 1972 (33). 4 Statement of claimant of rights to use public waters of the state, filed pursuant to the Water Rights Registration Act of 1974. 5 Claim of water right for a stockpond and application for certification, filed pursuant to the Stockpond Registration Act of 1977. 6 Statement of claimant, filed in the Gila or LCR General Stream Adjudications. 1 Appendices 175 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX I: RURAL WATERSHED INITIATIVE Appendices 176 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 APPENDIX I: RURAL WATERSHED PARTNERSHIPS ISSUE SUMMARY (2008) The Department has provided technical and inancial assistance to non-AMA watershed partnerships since the late 1990’s through its Rural Watershed Initiative Program. In 1999, the Rural Watershed Initiative (Initiative) received an appropriation of $1.2 million from the Legislature to assist the groups with development of information to support water resources planning in their areas. Although funding has diminished since then, matching funds from other entities have sustained key projects partially funded by the Initiative. A key component of the Initiative approach is that it helps local citizens ind solutions that match the speciic problems in their own regions. Seventeen watershed groups have formed to conduct water resource studies and evaluate management options (Figure I-1). Several of the watershed groups were already in place as part of a water quality planning effort by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The watershed groups vary substantially in terms of resources, staff support, and accomplishments. In some areas, especially those with signiicant resources such as the Upper and Middle Verde, Coconino Plateau and the Upper San Pedro, efforts have already produced results in the form of completed and on-going studies, plans, and speciic activities to address availability of water. Because of the lack of technical and inancial resources and the limited availability of hydrologic data, efforts in other areas may take longer to produce tangible results. Studies and other information associated with these groups have been incorporated into the Atlas and a summary of participants, issues and projects is provided in Table I-1. 177 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Table I-1 RURAL WATERSHED PARTNERSHIPS ISSUE SUMMARY (2008) Rural watershed partnership participants, projects, accomplishments and issues are summarized below and grouped by planning area. Some partnerships include more than one planning area as noted. Watershed Partnership MULTI-PLANNING AREA - Eastern Plateau, Western Plateau and Central Highlands Primary Participants Flagstaff Coconino County Williams Sedona Page Tusayan Doney Park Water Co Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council TNC Grand Canyon Trust Navajo Nation Hopi Tribe Havasupai Tribe Hualapai Tribe ADWR ADEQ ASLD AZGF NRCD 178 NAU USGS USBOR USFS National Parks US Fish and Wildlife Grand Canyon National Park . Projects & Accomplishments • • • • • • • • • • 4 categories of potential water augmentation projects have been identified along with their associated costs. Groundwater study and conceptual model completed Phase I Water Demand Study for Coconino Plateau Growth Impacts Study Western Navajo Pipeline Study Development of study for importing C aquifer groundwater east of Flagstaff has been completed. Flagstaff, Hopi and Navajo are exploring cooperative opportunities for developing C aquifer groundwater. Flagstaff purchased Red Gap Ranch for possible future development of groundwater. Hopi HSR initiated. Water Supply Appraisal Study Completed, which identifies current & future demands and alternatives for meeting projected demands. • • • • • • • • • • • • • Issues Continued growth throughout entire plateau region Limited and deep groundwater supplies. Drought sensitive surface water supplies of Williams, Flagstaff and others Groundwater salinity issues in northeastern part of plateau Numerous water haulers with few hauling stations that are sometimes cutoff during drought Unable to get adequate water supply designation under current definition Growth in Page with no current means of additional supply ESA issues with groundwater usage and impacts on perennial streams Potential limitation of groundwater usage resulting from reserved groundwater rights of Indians Uncertainty of Indian water right settlements (LCR & Colorado River) Proposed San Juan Paiute reservation west of Flagstaff Potential impacts on springs in Grand Canyon and also on supplies to Havasupai and Hualapai reservations Access to water development on public lands Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Watershed Partnership MULTI-PLANNING AREA - Eastern Plateau, Western Plateau and Central Highlands Primary Participants Projects & Accomplishments • • • Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council (cont) Numeric Groundwater Model completed Strategic Plan has been completed to address water conservation and management on the Plateau Attempting to obtain Congressional Authority to complete a Feasibility Study of the water alternatives identified • • • • • • • • Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (NAMWUA) Prescott Prescott Valley Flagstaff Williams Cottonwood Clarkdale Sedona Payson Chino Valley • • • Projected water demands through 2040 have been identified A request for 70,000 acre-feet of CAP reallocation water has been submitted to ADWR for consideration. Completed Colorado River Supply Study • • • • • • • • Appendices Issues Limited groundwater data for entire region Minor Arsenic issues in Woody Mtn. Well field (9-14 ppb) Unregulated lot splits Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Extremely high cost of water augmentation projects Competition from Phoenix/Tucson for CAP reallocation water and other Colorado River supplies Congressional Support for completion of a Feasibility Study Modifications to the current definition of an adequate water supply resulting from the passage of SB1575 Limited supplies to meet projected demands ESA issues impacting potential ground and surface water supplies Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Competition from Phoenix/Tucson for CAP reallocation water and other Colorado River supplies Funding for Colorado River infrastructure Water quality issues in Verde Valley and Flagstaff Upper Basin/Lower Basin issues with Colorado River affect potential for use Modifications to the current definition of an adequate water supply resulting from the passage of SB 1575 179 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Watershed Partnership Little Colorado Watershed Coordinating Council (Formerly Little Colorado River MultiObjective Management Partnership (LCRMOM)) VOLUME 2: EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Winslow Holbrook Navajo County • • NRCD/RCD NAU • Development and Ecosystem Restoration Program study for the Montane Forest Regimes completed. Watershed reconnaissance study completed Completed Watershed Based Plan • • • • • • • • • NDWR NTUA NDEQ NHA ADWR Navajo Nation USBOR COE Projects & Accomplishments USBOR COE BIA IHS • • • • • Survey of agricultural lands in Upper Basin Groundwater elevation survey of NTUA wells Water Quality ATLAS Navajo Drought Report Western Navajo Water Supply Study • • • • • • • 180 Issues Potential impacts on groundwater from power plants Water quality issues involving arsenic and TDS Unresolved adjudication and Indian water rights settlements Limited groundwater data for entire region Invasive species (Tamarisk) ESA issues Drought impacts on surface water supplies Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Modifications to the current definition of an adequate water supply resulting from the passage of SB1575 Lack of technical groundwater data Limited groundwater supplies to meet projected demands Water quality issues Prone to impacts from drought Unresolved water right claims to LCR, Colorado R. & San Juan R. Upper Basin/Lower Basin issues with Colorado River Gallup to Window Rock Pipeline in jeopardy (financial, upper/lower basin issues, ESA and others) Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Watershed Partnership Pinetop-Lakeside Watershed Enhancement Partnership VOLUME 2: EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Show Low Lakeside Pinetop Navajo County Show Low Creek Irrigation District Projects & Accomplishments • • • • Local Citizenry LCRWCC ADWR AZGF • • • • Snowflake Holbrook Show Low Silver Creek Watershed Partnership Taylor Winslow Navajo County Silver Creek ID Show Low Creek Watershed Partnership LCRWCC ADWR NAU • • Groundwater elevations study GPS survey of agricultural lands Preliminary water budget completed. Received 319 Grant to address water quality issues in Rainbow Lake Water Protection Fund Grant for Billy Creek Project Completed Watershed Based Plan Obtained TRIF Grant to conduct groundwater age dating Silver Creek channel and riparian restoration study completed. Value Engineering Analysis of Unsafe Dams completed Silver Creek HSR • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Appendices Issues Drought impacts on surface water supplies and springs resulting in impacts on agriculture and cattle ranching Seasonal demands impacting peak demands Growth Unresolved adjudication and Indian water rights settlements Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Modifications to the current definition of an adequate water supply resulting from the passage of SB1575 Limited groundwater data Potential impacts on groundwater system from Cholla Power plant Drought impacts on surface water supplies for agriculture Several high hazard unsafe dams Unresolved adjudication and Indian water rights settlements Perception of no real supply problem Water quality concerns in some areas (salinity) Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Modifications to the current definition of an adequate water supply resulting from the passage of SB1575 181 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Watershed Partnership VOLUME 2: EASTERN PLATEAU PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Springerville Eagar Greer Nutrioso Apache County Round Valley Irrigation District Local Citizens and Special Interest Groups LCRWCC Upper Little Colorado River Watershed Partnership ADWR AZGF ADEQ NRCS/RCD USBOR USFS Projects & Accomplishments • • • • • • • • 182 Aerial mapping survey and GIS coverage of the Little Colorado River and tributaries completed. Geomorphic and biological assessment of the LCR completed. Stream riparian restoration project Round Valley Irrigation Delivery System partially upgraded. Preliminary water budget completed Reconstruction of River Reservoir Dam completed. Interconnection of Springerville and Eagar’s wastewater treatment facilities is complete Completed Watershed Based Plan • • • • • • • • • • Issues Limited groundwater data Potential impacts to the groundwater system from TEPCO generating station. Unresolved adjudication and Indian water rights settlements Proposed development in Greer and impacts on Little Colorado River Drought impacts on forage for grazing and surface water availability for agriculture Potential impacts on tourism due to drought Funding issues for water delivery infrastructure Political differences between Springerville and Eagar Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Modifications to the current definition of an adequate water supply resulting from the passage of SB1575 Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Watershed Partnership VOLUME 3: SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Projects & Accomplishments • • • Cochise County Benson Community Watershed Alliance/ Middle San Pedro Watershed J-Six Mescal HOA St. David Irrigation District Pomerene Irrigation District Local Citizenry • • • • TNC ADWR ADEQ NRCD Coop Extension USGS USBOR USDA/ARS Local ranchers & special interest groups • • • • • • • • • • • • • Eagle Creek Partnership Cursory groundwater study completed. AMA evaluation completed. Active agricultural fields identified and surveyed HSR completed 7-year comprehensive groundwater study and numeric model development initiated. Completed Watershed Based Plan Obtained TRIF Grant to conduct groundwater age dating Stream Reconnaissance study completed. • • • Issues Growth proposed in the Benson area Limited groundwater data Different perceptions of issues and goals within the area between Benson, irrigation districts, local citizenry, and the Upper San Pedro Partnership Unable to get principle players to the table to discuss water Unregulated lot splits New arsenic drinking water standard Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies ESA issues Superfund site/poor quality groundwater conditions Potential impact of adjudication court subflow definition Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Mandatory water adequacy required for all new subdivisions Little or no groundwater data available Unresolved Indian water rights settlements Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies ADWR Appendices 183 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Watershed Partnership VOLUME 3: SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Safford Thatcher Pima Graham County Greenlee County Duncan Gila Watershed Partnership ADWR ADEQ AZGF Coop Extension BLM USBOR USFS NRCS/RCD Projects & Accomplishments • • • • • • • • • • Lower San Pedro Watershed PartnershipRedington NRCD 184 Cascabel Redington Local ranchers ADWR Fluvial Geomorphology Study Completed water demand study Capped several saline wells contributing to the degradation in water quality of the Gila River Resin bush eradication project completed. Obtained several DEQ 319 grants for Gila River related projects Initiated San Simon legacy database project Completed Watershed Based Plan Completed Point of Pines restoration project Awarded several Water Protection Fund grants • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Watershed reconnaissance study completed. • • • • NRCD/RCD • Issues Indian water rights settlement issues Poor quality surface and groundwater Growth associated with new Phelps Dodge mine and unregulated lot splits ESA issues throughout the watershed, critical habitat designation, and mitigation efforts Desire to maintain rural setting and especially maintaining agriculture at current or higher levels Lack of technical data on the groundwater system Invasive species issues impacting the surface water supply (tamarisk) Potential impacts of adjudication court subflow definition New arsenic drinking water standard Drought impacts on surface water supplies, agriculture and cattle ranching Numerous high hazard unsafe dams in area Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Regular flooding in the Duncan-Virden area Unresolved adjudication and Indian water rights settlement issues Little or no groundwater data Opposition to government assistance in obtaining groundwater information Potential impacts of adjudication court subflow definition Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Watershed Partnership VOLUME 3: SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Sierra Vista Cochise County Bisbee Ft. Huachuca Huachuca City Tombstone Upper San Pedro Partnership • • • TNC Huachuca Audubon Bella Vista Water ADWR AACD ASLD Projects & Accomplishments ADEQ NRCD USFWS USFS BLM USDA/ARS USGS USBOR Coronado National Monument • • • • • • • • • • • Appendices Comprehensive groundwater study Completed numeric groundwater model Decision Support System model completed. SPRNCA Water Demand study Recharge study of detention basins completed Engineering design to transfer effluent from Huachuca City to Ft. Huachuca for treatment and recharge completed Bisbee wastewater treatment plant upgrade for use by Turquoise Valley golf course and other uses. Water conservation & management plans completed. Section 321 Report to Congress submitted annually. Funded more than $1,000,000 in conservation projects Public outreach and educational forums Completed Water Supply Appraisal study. Feasibility study commenced Preliminary Upper San Pedro Water District formed • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Issues Impacts on endangered species Federal mandate to achieve sustainability by 2011 Lawsuits from environmental groups Anticipated growth Potential impacts on riparian regime by continuation of current pumping Political obstacles from potential water augmentation projects Potential loss of Ft. Huachuca Interbasin transfer prohibition Potential impacts of adjudication court subflow definition Pumping impacts by Mexico on the San Pedro River and downstream users Unregulated lot splits Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies High cost of augmentation projects Mandatory water adequacy required for all new subdivisions 185 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Watershed Partnership Willcox Playa Watershed Group Watershed Partnership VOLUME 3: SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Willcox Cochise County Cooperative Extension Local Citizenry Primary Participants Kingman Dolan Springs Mohave County Hualapai Nation ADWR ADEQ Cooperative Extension BLM USFS 186 • • Initiated multiple year comprehensive groundwater study Initiated the collection of relative gravity data • • • • • • • Issues Approximately 100,000+ af of annual groundwater overdraft Potential for subsidence Limited funding resources Increased agricultural production Little or no groundwater data Water quality concerns Mandatory water adequacy for new subdivisions VOLUME 4: UPPER COLORADO RIVER PLANNING AREA Dolan Springs Water Co. Local citizens Northwest Arizona Watershed Council Projects & Accomplishments USFS Projects & Accomplishments • • • • • • Groundwater reconnaissance survey of 3 basin area. Coordinated clean-up of numerous wildcat dumpsites. Comprehensive groundwater study and conceptual model initiated. Relative gravity survey of Detrital, Sacramento, and Hualapai Basins initiated. Completed sampling of groundwater for age dating study Established micro-gravity data collection stations for monitoring changes in groundwater elevations • • • • • • • • • • • Issues Limited groundwater supplies Huge growth projected for all three basins. Detrital Basin envisioned as bedroom community of Las Vegas with completion of Colorado River bypass bridge. Drought impact on private water suppliers, which impacts water haulers Subsidence potential from proposed development Limited groundwater data. Potential impact from large industrial users in the Big Sandy Basin Water quality concerns (hexavalent Chromium) Potential problems from proposed developments within Colorado River accounting surface area Mohave County claims they will deny any subdivision that cannot obtain adequate water supply determination Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Watershed Partnership Mohave County Water Authority Watershed Partnership VOLUME 4: UPPER COLORADO RIVER PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Lake Havasu Kingman Bullhead City Mohave County Mohave Valley Irrigation Dist • • Primary Participants Pine Gila County Brooks Utilities Rim Trails WID Pine Strawberry WID Local citizens and special interests Obtained Kingman’s Colorado River Allocation Tonto Apache Nation ADWR SRP USFS USGS USBOR Projects & Accomplishments • • • • • • • Appendices Obtained a portion of the Cibola Irrigation District’s Colorado River Allocation • • • • Issues Growth Limited Colorado River water supplies Competition from Phoenix/Tucson for additional Colorado River supplies Water quality concerns VOLUME 5: CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA Payson Strawberry Mogollon Highlands Partnership Projects & Accomplishments Comprehensive groundwater study and conceptual model completed. Water Supply Appraisal Study completed - identifies current & future demands and alternatives for meeting projected demands. Strategic Plan completed Feasibility study and cost estimates for Blue Ridge Reservoir pipeline completed Obtained approximately 3,500 ac-ft of surface water from C.C. Cragin Reservoir. Numeric groundwater model completed. Finalizing the Mogollon Rim Water Resources Management Study • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Issues Limited water resources to meet current demands. Environmental, supply, treatment, transportation and financing costs associated with augmentation from Blue Ridge reservoir Numerous private water companies, Arizona Corporation Commission and Domestic Water Improvement District conflicts Inter-basin transfer conflicts from Payson’s ability to pump from two different basins Seasonal demand issues; peaking problems County support of growth in Pine, Strawberry Pine, Strawberry drought sensitive water supplies Unresolved Indian water rights settlements Environmental issues pertaining to Fossil Creek Limited groundwater data for entire region Costs associated with hauling water Access to water development on public lands Infrastructure needs for private water companies Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies 187 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Watershed Partnership VOLUME 5: CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Mayer City Cordes Lakes Spring Valley Upper Agua Fria Watershed Partnership Black Canyon Yavapai County • Prescott Valley Paulden Sedona Clarkdale Jerome 24 local special interest groups TNC Yavapai Apache Prescott Yavapai ADWR ADEQ SRP NRCD Cooperative Extension NAU USFS USBOR 188 • • ADWR ADEQ Cooperative Extension State Lands BLM/Agua Fria Nat. Monument USFS Yavapai Water Advisory Committee • • Local Citizens Prescott Chino Valley Yavapai County Camp Verde Cottonwood Projects & Accomplishments USGS USFWS • • • • • • • Watershed Reconnaissance studies Active recharge site identification study. Corp of Engineers watershed appraisal study completed Corp of Engineers watershed feasibility study initiated Completed wet dry mapping of Agua Fria R. Groundwater quality study completed Comprehensive groundwater study and conceptual model Study of geologic framework of aquifer units and groundwater flow paths of Verde River headwaters using aeromagnetic and gravity data. Verde River Watershed Study. Water educational forum conducted for WAC and public with ultimate goal of developing water management plan for Verde watershed area. Big Chino Subbasin Historical and Current Water Uses and Water Use Projections study. Riparian demand study of Middle Verde • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Issues Proposed growth in the Mayer, Bensch Ranch and Spring Valley areas Limited groundwater supplies Little or no groundwater data Groundwater and surface water supplies are very drought sensitive Potential water quality attributed to local septic systems and discharges from Prescott Valley Poorly constructed and maintained infrastructure in some areas Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Potential impacts resulting from the transfer of 8,717 ac-ft from Big Chino to Prescott and Prescott Valley 25,000 to 30,000 approved lots still outstanding in Prescott AMA Multiple developments currently under construction in the tri-city region of the AMA ESA issues/protected areas on the Verde Critical habitat area in Verde Valley for Willow Fly Catcher New arsenic standards Pending subflow decision Competition between watershed groups for funding and technical support Countywide growth and unregulated lot splits Indian water rights Thousands of private domestic wells already permitted and more being requested daily Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 7 Watershed Partnership VOLUME 5: CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Projects & Accomplishments • • • Yavapai Water Advisory Committee (cont) • • • • • Appendices Numeric groundwater model completed. Prescott AMA groundwater model. Study of groundwater flow paths for upper and middle Verde using stable isotopes. Prescott purchased JWK Ranch in Big Chino to import 8,717 acft annually to Prescott and Prescott Valley Groundwater monitoring program in Big Chino initiated. Developed water demand scenarios to run on groundwater model Initiated Water Supply Appraisal Study with BOR/ADWR Initiated Central Highlands Water Resource Management Study with BOR/ADWR • • • Issues Potential water quality impacts on groundwater system from the thousands of septic systems Potential development rumors of the CVCF Ranch in the Big Chino Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies 189 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 Figure I-1 Rural Watershed Initiative Participants Appendices 190 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 191 Appendices