Arizona Department of Water Resources July 2009 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 4 Upper Colorado River Planning Area ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Herbert Guenther Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Karen Smith Deputy Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Tom Carr Assistant Director, Statewide Water Conservation and Strategic Planning Sandra Fabritz-Whitney Assistant Director, Water Management Atlas Team Linda Stitzer, Rich Burtell – Project Managers Phyllis Andrews Carol Birks Kelly Mott Lacroix Joe Stuart Major Contributors John Fortune Leslie Graser William H. Remick Saeid Tadayon-USGS Other Contributors Patrick Brand Matt Beversdorf Jenna Gillis Roberto Chavez Pam Nagel (Volume 8) Laura Grignano (Volume 8) Kenneth Seasholes (Volume 8) Mark Preszler Larri Tearman 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. Special note about the Atlas Team Completion of the Atlas would not have been possible without the dedicated professionals that compose the Atlas Team. Most have been involved with the project from its inception in 2003 and their contributions to the success of the project cannot be overstated. Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 CONTENTS Preface SECTION 4.0 Overview of the Upper Colorado River Planning Area 4.0.1 Geography 4.0.2 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology 4.0.3 Climate 4.0.4 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Programs Instream Flow Claims Threatened and Endangered Species Recreation Areas, Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness Areas Unique Waters 4.0.5 Population Population Growth and Water Use 4.0.6 Water Supply Colorado River Water Decree Accounting Surface Water Groundwater Effluent  Contamination Sites 4.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Tribal Water Demand Municipal Demand Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand 4.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area Planning and Conservation Watershed Groups and Studies Issue Surveys 4.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics REFERENCES SECTION 4.1 Water Resource Characteristics of the Big Sandy Basin 4.1.1 Geography of the Big Sandy Basin 4.1.2 Land Ownership in the Big Sandy Basin 4.1.3 Climate of the Big Sandy Basin 4.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Big Sandy Basin 4.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Big Sandy Basin 1 1 3 4 4 12 15 18 18 22 22 24 26 28 28 29 33 33 38 40 43 44 44 46 47 51 52 55 55 56 58 59 62 68 69 71 74 77 81 i Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Big Sandy Basin 4.1.7 Water Quality of the Big Sandy Basin 4.1.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Big Sandy Basin 4.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Big Sandy Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 4.2 Water Resource Characteristics of the Bill Williams Basin 4.2.1 Geography of the Bill Williams Basin 4.2.2 Land Ownership in the Bill Williams Basin 4.2.3 Climate of the Bill Williams Basin 4.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Bill Williams Basin 4.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Bill Williams Basin 4.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Bill Williams Basin 4.2.7 Water Quality of the Bill Williams Basin 4.2.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Bill Williams Basin 4.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Bill Williams Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 4.3  Water Resource Characteristics of the Detrital Valley Basin 4.3.1 Geography of the Detrital Valley Basin 4.3.2 Land Ownership in the Detrital Valley Basin 4.3.3 Climate of the Detrital Valley Basin 4.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Detrital Valley Basin 4.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Detrital Valley Basin 4.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Detrital Valley Basin 4.3.7 Water Quality of the Detrital Valley Basin 4.3.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Detrital Valley Basin 4.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Detrital Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 4.4 Water Resource Characteristics of the Hualapai Valley Basin 4.4.1 Geography of the Hualapai Valley Basin 4.4.2 Land Ownership in the Hualapai Valley Basin 4.4.3 Climate of the Hualapai Valley Basin 4.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Hualapai Valley Basin 4.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Hualapai Valley Basin 4.4.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Hualapai Valley Basin 4.4.7 Water Quality of the Hualapai Valley Basin 4.4.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Hualapai Valley Basin ii 84 89 92 95 98 102 103 105 108 111 116 119 125 130 135 138 142 143 145 147 150 153 156 161 164 168 173 178 179 181 183 185 188 191 197 200 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Hualapai Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading  SECTION 4.5 Water Resource Characteristics of the Lake Havasu Basin 4.5.1 Geography of the Lake Havasu Basin 4.5.2 Land Ownership in the Lake Havasu Basin 4.5.3 Climate of the Lake Havasu Basin 4.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Lake Havasu Basin 4.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Lake Havasu Basin 4.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Lake Havasu Basin 4.5.7 Water Quality of the Lake Havasu Basin 4.5.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Lake Havasu Basin 4.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Havasu Basin References and Supplemental Reading  SECTION 4.6 Water Resource Characteristics of the Lake Mohave Basin 4.6.1 Geography of the Lake Mohave Basin 4.6.2 Land Ownership in the Lake Mohave Basin 4.6.3 Climate of the Lake Mohave Basin 4.6.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Lake Mohave Basin 4.6.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Lake Mohave Basin 4.6.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Lake Mohave Basin 4.6.7 Water Quality of the Lake Mohave Basin 4.6.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Lake Mohave Basin 4.6.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Mohave Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 4.7 Water Resource Characteristics of the Meadview Basin 4.7.1 Geography of Meadview Basin 4.7.2 Land Ownership in the Meadview Basin 4.7.3 Climate of the Meadview Basin 4.7.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Meadview Basin 4.7.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Meadview Basin 4.7.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Meadview Basin 4.7.7 Water Quality of the Meadview Basin 4.7.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Meadview Basin 4.7.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Meadview Basin References and Supplemental Reading 204 209 214 215 217 219 222 225 227 232 235 239 242 246 247 249 252 255 259 262 267 271 275 287 293 294 296 298 301 304 307 312 314 317 320 iii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 SECTION 4.8 Water Resource Conditions of the Peach Springs Basin 4.8.1 Geography of Peach Springs Basin 4.8.2 Land Ownership in the Peach Springs Basin 4.8.3 Climate of the Peach Springs Basin 4.8.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Peach Springs Basin 4.8.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Peach Springs Basin 4.8.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Peach Springs Basin 4.8.7 Water Quality of the Peach Springs Basin 4.8.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Peach Springs Basin 4.8.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Peach Springs Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 4.9 Water Resource Characteristics of the Sacramento Valley Basin 4.9.1 Geography of Sacramento Valley Basin 4.9.2 Land Ownership in the Sacramento Valley Basin 4.9.3 Climate of the Sacramento Valley Basin 4.9.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Sacramento Valley Basin 4.9.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Sacramento Valley Basin 4.9.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Sacramento Valley Basin 4.9.7 Water Quality of the Sacramento Valley Basin 4.9.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Sacramento Valley Basin 4.9.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Sacramento Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading  323 324 326 328 330 334 337 342 345 349 351 355 356 358 360 363 368 372 377 381 385 389 APPENDIX A: Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area through 2008 397 APPENDIX B: Community Water System Annual Report Data 2006-2007 and Submitted Plans  399 APPENDIX C: Surface Water Rights and Adjudications Filings 403 APPENDIX D: Watershed Partnerships in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area (2008) 411 iv Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 FIGURES Figure 4.0-1 Figure 4.0-2 Figure 4.0-3 Figure 4.0-4 Figure 4.0-5 Figure 4.0-6 Figure 4.0-7 Figure 4.0-8 Figure 4.0-9 Figure 4.0-10 Figure 4.0-11 Figure 4.0-12 Figure 4.0-13 Figure 4.0-14 Figure 4.0-15 Figure 4.0-16 Figure 4.0-17 Figure 4.0-18 Figure 4.1-1 Figure 4.1-2 Figure 4.1-3 Figure 4.1-4 Figure 4.1-5 Figure 4.1-6 Figure 4.1-7 Figure 4.1-8 Figure 4.1-9 Figure 4.1-10 Figure 4.1-11 Figure 4.2-1 Figure 4.2-2 Arizona Planning Areas 2 Upper Colorado River Planning Area 3 Physiographic Regions of Arizona 4 Surface Geology of the Upper Colorado River Plateau Basin 5 Upper Colorado River Planning Area USGS Watersheds 12 Average Monthly Precipitation and Temperature in Kingman, Arizona, 1930-2002 16 Average Annual Temperature and Total Average Precipitation in Kingman, Arizona from 1930-2002  17 Arizona NOAA Climate Division 1 (Mohave County) winter (November-April) precipitation departures from average, 1000-1988, reconstructed from tree rings 18 Upper Colorado River Planning Area Biotic Communities and Ecoregions 20 Upper Colorado River Planning Area Instream Flow Applications 23 LCR MSCP Reaches in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area 25 Upper Colorado River Protected Areas  26 Lake Mead End of Month Elevation 1980-2007 38 Average Annual Water Supply Utilized in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 39 Upper Colorado River Registered Wells and Surface Water Diversion Points 41 Upper Colorado River Planning Area Contamination Sites 45 Average Annual Upper Colorado River Planning Area Cultural Water Demand by Sector, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 46 Average Annual Basin Water Demand, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 47 Big Sandy Basin Geographic Features 70 Big Sandy Basin Land Ownership 73 Big Sandy Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation 76 Big Sandy Basin Surface Water Conditions 80 Big Sandy Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs 83 Big Sandy Basin Groundwater Conditions 86 Big Sandy Basin Hydrographs 87 Big Sandy Basin Well Yields 88 Big Sandy Basin Water Quality Exceedences 91 Big Sandy Basin Cultural Water Demand 94 Big Sandy Basin Adequacy Determinations 97 Bill Williams Basin Geographic Features 104 Bill Williams Basin Land Ownership 107 v Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Figure 4.2-3 Figure 4.2-4 Figure 4.2-5 Figure 4.2-6 Figure 4.2-7 Figure 4.2-8 Figure 4.2-9 Figure 4.2-10 Figure 4.2-11 Figure 4.3-1 Figure 4.3-2 Figure 4.3-3 Figure 4.3-4 Figure 4.3-5 Figure 4.3-6 Figure 4.3-7 Figure 4.3-8 Figure 4.3-9 Figure 4.3-10 Figure 4.3-11 Figure 4.4-1 Figure 4.4-2 Figure 4.4-3 Figure 4.4-4 Figure 4.4-5 Figure 4.4-6 Figure 4.4-7 Figure 4.4-8 Figure 4.4-9 Figure 4.4-10 Figure 4.4-11 Figure 4.5-1 Figure 4.5-2 Figure 4.5-3 Figure 4.5-4 Figure 4.5-5 Figure 4.5-6 Bill Williams Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Bill Williams Surface Water Conditions Bill Williams Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs  Bill Williams Basin Groundwater Conditions Bill Williams Basin Hydrographs Bill Williams Basin Well Yields Bill Williams Basin Water Quality Conditions Bill Williams Basin Cultural Water Demands Bill Williams Basin Adequacy Determinations Detrital Valley Basin Geographic Features Detrital Valley Basin Land Ownership Detrital Valley Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Detrital Valley Basin Surface Water Conditions Detrital Valley Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Detrital Valley Basin Groundwater Conditions Detrital Valley Basin Hydrographs Detrital Valley Basin Well Yields Detrital Valley Basin Water Quality Conditions Detrital Valley Basin Cultural Water Demand Detrital Valley Basin Adequacy Determinations Hualapai Valley Basin Geographic Features Hualapai Valley Basin Land Ownership Hualapai Valley Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Hualapai Valley Basin Surface Water Conditions Hualapai Valley Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Hualapai Valley Basin Groundwater Conditions Hualapai Valley Basin Hydrographs Hualapai Valley Basin Well Yields Hualapai Valley Basin Water Quality Conditions Hualapai Valley Basin Cultural Water Demand Hualapai Valley Basin Adequacy Determinations Lake Havasu Basin Geographic Features Lake Havasu Basin Land Ownership Lake Havasu Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Lake Havasu Basin Surface Water Conditions Lake Havasu Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Lake Havasu Basin Groundwater Conditions vi 110 115 118 121 122 124 129 134 137 144 146 149 152 155 158 159 160 163 167 172 180 182 184 187 190 193 194 196 199 203 208 216 218 221 224 226 229 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Figure 4.5-7 Figure 4.5-8 Figure 4.5-9 Figure 4.5-10 Figure 4.5-11 Figure 4.6-1 Figure 4.6-2 Figure 4.6-3 Figure 4.6-4 Figure 4.6-5 Figure 4.6-6 Figure 4.6-7 Figure 4.6-8 Figure 4.6-9 Figure 4.6-10 Figure 4.6-11 Figure 4.7-1 Figure 4.7-2 Figure 4.7-3 Figure 4.7-4 Figure 4.7-5 Figure 4.7-6 Figure 4.7-7 Figure 4.7-8 Figure 4.7-9 Figure 4.7-10 Figure 4.7-11 Figure 4.8-1 Figure 4.8-2 Figure 4.8-3 Figure 4.8-4 Figure 4.8-5 Figure 4.8-6 Figure 4.8-7 Figure 4.8-8 Figure 4.8-9 Figure 4.8-10 Figure 4.8-11 Figure 4.9-1 Lake Havasu Basin Hydrographs Lake Havasu Basin Well Yields Lake Havasu Basin Water Quality Conditions Lake Havasu Basin Cultural Water Demand Lake Havasu Basin Adequacy Determinations Lake Mohave Basin Geographic Features Lake Mohave Basin Land Ownership Lake Mohave Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Lake Mohave Basin Surface Water Conditions Lake Mohave Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Lake Mohave Basin Groundwater Conditions Lake Mohave Basin Hydrographs Lake Mohave Basin Well Yields Lake Mohave Basin Water Quality Conditions Lake Mohave Basin Cultural Water Demand Lake Mohave Basin Adequacy Determinations Meadview Basin Geographic Features Meadview Basin Land Ownership Meadview Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Meadview Basin Surface Water Conditions Meadview Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Meadview Basin Groundwater Conditions Meadview Basin Hydrographs Meadview Basin Well Yields Meadview Basin Water Quality Conditions Meadview Basin Cultural Water Demand Meadview Basin Adequacy Determinations Peach Springs Basin Geographic Features Peach Springs Basin Land Ownership Peach Springs Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Peach Springs Basin Surface Water Conditions Peach Springs Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Peach Springs Basin Groundwater Conditions Peach Springs Basin Hydrographs Peach Springs Basin Well Yields Peach Springs Basin Water Quality Conditions Peach Springs Basin Cultural Water Demand Peach Springs Basin Adequacy Determination Sacramento Valley Basin Geographic Features 230 231 234 238 241 248 251 254 258 261 264 265 266 270 274 286 295 297 300 303 306 309 310 311 313 316 319 325 327 329 333 336 339 340 341 344 348 350 357 vii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Figure 4.9-2 Figure 4.9-3 Figure 4.9-4 Figure 4.9-5 Figure 4.9-6 Figure 4.9-7 Figure 4.9-8 Figure 4.9-9 Figure 4.9-10 Figure 4.9-11 Figure C-1 Figure C-2 Sacramento Valley Basin Land Ownership Sacramento Valley Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Sacramento Valley Basin Surface Water Conditions Sacramento Valley Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Sacramento Valley Basin Groundwater Conditions Sacramento Valley Basin Hydrographs Sacramento Valley Basin Well Yields Sacramento Valley Basin Water Quality Conditions Sacramento Valley Basin Cultural Water Demand Sacramento Valley Basin Adequacy Determinations General Stream Adjudications in Arizona Registered Wells and Surface Water Diversion Points in Arizona viii 359 362 367 371 374 375 376 380 384 388 406 409 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 TABLES Table 4.0-1 Table 4.0-2 Table 4.0-3 Table 4.0-4 Table 4.0-5 Table 4.0-6 Table 4.0-7 Table 4.0-8 Table 4.0-9 Table 4.0-10 Table 4.0-11 Table 4.0-12 Table 4.0-13 Table 4.0-14 Table 4.0-15 Table 4.1-1 Table 4.1-2 Table 4.1-3 Table 4.1-4 Table 4.1-5 Table 4.1-6 Table 4.1-7 Table 4.1-8 Table 4.1-9 Table 4.2-1 Table 4.2-2 Table 4.2-3 Table 4.2-4 Instream flow claims in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area Threatened and endangered species in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area Wilderness areas in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area 2000 Census population of the Upper Colorado River Planning Area and Indian Reservations Communities in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000 Water adequacy determinations in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area Arizona v California Decree accounting of the consumptive use of Colorado River water in the Upper Colorado River Planning area (in acre-feet/year) Inventory of surface water right and adjudication filings in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area Contamination sites in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area Average annual municipal water demand in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Water providers serving 450 acre-feet or more of water per year in 2000 or 2006, excluding effluent, in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area Golf courses in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area (c. 2008) Agricultural demand in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area Industrial demand in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area Water resource issues ranked by survey respondents in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area Climate Data for the Big Sandy Basin Streamflow Data for the Big Sandy Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Big Sandy Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Big Sandy Basin Springs in the Big Sandy Basin Groundwater Data for the Big Sandy Basin Water Quality Exceedences for the Big Sandy Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Big Sandy Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Big Sandy Basin Climate Data for the Bill Williams Basin Streamflow Data for the Bill Williams Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Bill Williams Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Bill Williams Basin 22 24 28 29 30 32 34 40 44 48 49 50 52 53 58 75 78 78 79 82 85 90 93 96 109 112 113 114 ix Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.2-5 Table 4.2-6 Table 4.2-7 Table 4.2-8 Table 4.2-9 Table 4.2-10 Table 4.3-1 Table 4.3-2 Table 4.3-3 Table 4.3-4 Table 4.3-5 Table 4.3-6 Table 4.3-7 Table 4.3-8 Table 4.3-9 Table 4.4-1 Table 4.4-2 Table 4.4-3 Table 4.4-4 Table 4.4-5 Table 4.4-6 Table 4.4-7 Table 4.4-8 Table 4.5-1 Table 4.5-2 Table 4.5-3 Table 4.5-4 Table 4.5-5 Table 4.5-6 Table 4.5-7 Table 4.5-8 Table 4.5-9 Table 4.6-1 Table 4.6-2 Table 4.6-3 Table 4.6-4 Table 4.6-5 Table 4.6-6 Table 4.6-7 Table 4.6-8 Table 4.6-9 Table 4.6-10 Table 4.7-1 Table 4.7-2 Table 4.7-3 Springs in the Bill Williams Basin Groundwater Data for the Bill Williams Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Bill Williams Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Bill Williams Basin Effluent Generation in the Bill Williams Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Bill Williams Basin Climate Data for the Detrital Valley Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Detrital Valley Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Detrital Valley Basin Springs in the Detrital Valley Basin Groundwater Data in the Detrital Valley Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Detrital Valley Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Detrital Valley Basin Effluent Generation in the Detrital Valley Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Detrital Valley Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Hualapai Valley Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Hualapai Valley Basin Springs in the Hualapai Valley Basin Groundwater Data for the Hualapai Valley Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Hualapai Valley Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Hualapai Valley Basin Effluent Generation in the Hualapai Valley Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Hualapai Valley Basin Climate Data for the Lake Havasu Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Lake Havasu Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Lake Havasu Basin Springs in the Lake Havasu Basin Groundwater Data for the Lake Havasu Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Lake Havasu Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Lake Havasu Basin Effluent Generation in the Lake Havasu Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Havasu Basin Climate Data for the Lake Mohave Basin Streamflow Data for the Lake Mohave Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Lake Mohave Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Lake Mohave Basin Springs in the Lake Mohave Basin Groundwater Data for the Lake Mohave Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Lake Mohave Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Lake Mohave Basin Effluent Generation in the Lake Mohave Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Mohave Basin Climate Data for the Meadview Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Meadview Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Meadview Basin x 117 120 126 131 132 136 148 151 151 154 157 162 165 166 169 185 186 189 192 198 201 202 205 220 222 223 225 228 233 236 237 240 253 256 256 257 260 263 268 272 273 276 299 301 302 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.7-4 Table 4.7-5 Table 4.7-6 Table 4.7-7 Table 4.7-8 Table 4.8-1 Table 4.8-2 Table 4.8-3 Table 4.8-4 Table 4.8-5 Table 4.8-6 Table 4.8-7 Table 4.8-8 Table 4.8-9 Table 4.9-1 Table 4.9-2 Table 4.9-3 Table 4.9-4 Table 4.9-5 Table 4.9-6 Table 4.9-7 Table 4.9-8 Table 4.9-9 Table 4.9-10 Table C-1 Springs in the Meadview Basin Groundwater Data in the Meadview Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Meadview Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Meadview Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Meadview Basin Streamflow Data for the Peach Springs Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Peach Springs Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Peach Springs Basin Springs in the Peach Springs Basin Groundwater Data for the Peach Springs Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Peach Springs Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Peach Springs Basin Effluent Generation in the Peach Springs Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Peach Springs Basin Climate Data for the Sacramento Valley Basin Streamflow Data for the Sacramento Valley Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Sacramento Valley Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Sacramento Valley Basin Springs in the Sacramento Valley Basin Groundwater Data for the Sacramento Valley Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Sacramento Valley Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Sacramento Valley Basin Effluent Generation in the Sacramento Valley Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Sacramento Valley Basin Count of surface water rights and adjudication filings by planning area 305 308 312 315 318 331 331 332 335 338 343 346 347 349 361 364 365 366 369 373 378 382 383 386 408 xi Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 xii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 4 –UPPER COLORADO RIVER PLANNING AREA Preface Volume 4, the Upper Colorado River Planning Area, is the fourth in a series of nine volumes that comprise the Arizona Water Atlas. The primary objectives in assembling the Atlas are to present an overview of water supply and demand conditions in Arizona, to provide water resource information for planning and resource development purposes, and help to identify the needs of communities. The Atlas also indicates where data are lacking and further investigation may be needed. in northwestern Arizona, south and east of the Colorado River. Elevation ranges from 450 feet to 8,417 feet. Most of the planning area is within Mohave County; the planning area also includes small portions of Coconino, La Paz and Yavapai counties. Parts of the Fort Mojave and Hualapai Indian Reservations are within the planning area. The 2000 Census planning area population was approximately 162,100. Basin population ranged from 823 in the Meadview Basin to over 51,500 in the Lake Mohave Basin. Lake Havasu City is the largest metropolitan The Atlas divides Arizona into seven planning area with almost 42,000 residents in 2000. areas (Figure 4.0-1). There is a separate Atlas volume for each planning area, an executive Annual cultural water demand averaged about summary volume composed of background 174,100 acre-feet (including effluent) during the information, and a resource sustainability period 2001-2005. Agriculture was the largest volume. “Planning areas” are an organizational water use sector in the planning area with an concept that provide for a regional perspective annual demand of approximately 99,550 acreon supply, demand and water resource issues. feet during this period, almost entirely within A complete discussion of Atlas organization, the Lake Mohave Basin. Municipal demand purpose and scope is found in Volume 1. Also accounted for about 52,400 acre-feet/year included in Volume 1 is general background (AFA), and industrial demand averaged about information for the state, a description of 22,100 AFA. data sources and methods of analysis for the tables and maps presented in the Atlas, and appendices that provide information on water law, management and programs, and Indian water rights claims and settlements. There are additional, more detailed data available to those presented in this volume. These data may be obtained by contacting the Arizona Department of Water Resources (Department). 4.0 Overview of the Upper Colorado River Planning Area The Upper Colorado River Planning Area is composed of nine groundwater basins located Agriculture in the Lake Mohave Basin. Agriculture was the largest water use sector in the planning area with an annual demand of approximately 99,550 during 2001-2005. Section 4.0 Overview 1 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 2 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.0.1 Geography The Upper Colorado River Planning Area covers about 11,860 square miles (sq. mi.) and includes the Big Sandy, Bill Williams, Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley, Lake Havasu, Lake Mohave, Meadview, Peach Springs and Sacramento Valley basins. Basin boundaries, counties and prominent cities, towns and places are shown in Figure 4.0-2. The planning area is bounded on the north by the Colorado River, the state of Nevada and by the Western Plateau Planning Area, on the east by the Central Highlands Planning Area and the Prescott Active Management Area, on the south by the Lower Colorado River Planning Area and a portion of the Central Highlands Planning Area and on the west by the Colorado River and the states of California and Nevada. (Figure 4.0-1) The planning area includes all or part of five watersheds, which are discussed in section 4.0.2. Within the planning area, the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation encompasses about 23,500 acres and the Hualapai Indian Reservation encompasses about 553,000 acres. Elevation ranges from 450 feet along the Colorado River Figure 4.0-2 Upper Colorado River Planning Area Section 4.0 Overview 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 near Lake Havasu City to 8,417 feet at Hualapai Peak south of Kingman. Unique geographic features of the planning area include the the Colorado River and associated lakes impounded by several dams. The river Arizona’s three physiographic regions are found and lakes influence cultural uses, groundwater in the planning area (Figure 4.0-3). Most of the conditions and habitat in a significant portion of planning area is within the Basin and Range the planning area. physiographic province, which is characterized by northwest-southeast trending mountain rang- 4.0.2 Hydrology1 es separated by broad alluvial valleys. The Detrital Valley and Sacramento Valley basins are Groundwater Hydrology representative of this province. The northeastern portion of the planning area, primarily the The Upper Colorado River Planning Area Peach Springs Basin, falls within the Colorado is characterized by semi-arid to arid alluvial Plateau physiographic province, characterized basins with few perennial streams. Anderson, by high desert plateaus and incised canyons. Freethey and Tucci (1992) divided the alluvial The central eastern portion of the planning area basins in south-central Arizona into categories that includes the eastern, upland areas of the based on similar hydrologic and geologic Big Sandy and Bill Williams basins is located characteristics. These categories are useful in within the Central Highlands transition zone, describing general hydrologic characteristics. characterized by rugged mountains of igneous, Although their study area does not match the metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. Department’s groundwater basins exactly, the Upper Colorado River Planning Area is included Figure 4.0-3 Physiographic Regions of in their study area with the exception of the Arizona Peach Springs Basin. Four basin categories identified by Anderson are represented in the planning area and are discussed below: West, Colorado River, Highland and Southeast. As shown in Figure 4.0-4, there are extensive outcrops of sedimentary and volcanic rocks of varying ages throughout the planning area. Large areas of basin-fill covered by alluvial and surficial deposits are found in the western part of the planning area, primarily in the West basins. Data source: Fenneman and Johnson, 1946 West Basins The West Basins include the Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley, and Meadview basins, most of the Sacramento Valley Basin and part of the Bill Williams Basin. Groundwater inflow and outflow are small and there is almost no stream baseflow. These basins contain extensive areas 1 Except as noted, much of the information in this section is taken from the Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Volume II, ADWR August, 1994. (ADWR 1994a) 4 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 of basin fill deposits that comprise the primary deposits in the older alluvium in the northern groundwater bearing unit (aquifer). part of the basin (Anning and others, 2007). Depth to bedrock may exceed 6,000 feet at the deepest point. A clay unit may extend from 600 Detrital Valley Basin The Detrital Valley Basin is characterized by a to 1,400 feet below land surface (bls) in the cenrelatively long valley whose floor slopes from tral portions of the basin, which acts as an im3,400 feet at the southern boundary to around pediment to groundwater flow and reduces the 1,200 feet at Lake Mead. Groundwater occurs amount of recoverable groundwater due to its mostly in basin-fill material and in alluvial de- low specific yield. The areal extent of this unit posits along mountain washes. Intermediate is not well known due to lack of data (Mason and younger basin fill are above the water ta- and others, 2007). Groundwater flow direcble in most areas, consequently the older basin tion is north toward Lake Mead. At the northern fill aquifer is the primary water supply. In the end of Detrital Valley water from Lake Mead northern part of the basin, the basin fill includes infiltrates to the basin-fill aquifer and near by clastic (weathered) sediments, limestone, and groundwater levels fluctuate with the levels. basalt flows of the Muddy Creek and Chemehu- Depth to water may be less than 100 feet bls in eve Formations. There are extensive evaporate this area (Anning and others, 2007). Figure 4.0-4 Surface Geology of the Upper Colorado River Plateau Basin (Based on Reynolds, 1988) Section 4.0 Overview 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Detrital Valley Basin. In this basin groundwater occurs mostly in basin-fill material and in alluvial deposits along mountain washes. Groundwater recharge is estimated at 1,000 AFA. Groundwater discharge is to springs and from relatively small well withdrawals for municipal purposes. The volume of recoverable groundwater to a depth of 1,200 feet bls is estimated to range from about 1.48 to 3.94 maf (Mason and others, 2007). The median well yield in measured wells is generally 35 gpm or less (Table 4.3-5). As shown in Figure 4.3-6, groundwater levels were relatively stable in wells measured in 1990-91 and 2003-04, although water-level measurements for different time periods show long-term declines in an area northeast of Dolan Springs (Anning and others, 2007). Water quality is suitable for most purposes although concentrations of radionuclides and arsenic that exceed drinking water standards have been measured at wells throughout the basin. (Table 4.3-6, Figure 4.3-9). to stock and domestic wells. The intermediate basin fill, which is composed of coarse-grained sands, silts and clays, is a dependable aquifer only along the valley margins where the unit intersects the water table. As with other basins in this category, the older basin fill is the primary water supply. Similar to the Detrital Valley Basin located to the west, older basin fill in the northern part of the valley includes clastic sediments, limestone and basalt flows of the Muddy Creek and Chemehueve Formations. Volcanic rocks are interbedded with the older basin fill in the southern part of the basin and yield water for municipal and domestic purposes. Groundwater flows into the central part of the basin from the south and along Truxton Wash near Hackberry (Figure 4.4-6). Surface water collects in the Red Lake playa bear the center of the basin, whereas groundwater flows to the north underneath the topographic divide near Pierce Ferry Road (Anning and others, 2007). Groundwater recharge comes primarily from streambed infiltration and is estimated at 2,000 to 3,000 AFA (Table 4.4-4). Groundwater discharge is to several major springs and from relatively large volumes of well pumpage for municipal use by Kingman. The well pumpage is are almost three times the estimated groundwater recharge rate. Groundwater in storage estimates range widely from 3 to 21 maf. Median reported well yields are relatively high at 900 gpm (Table 4.4-4). In the central and northern part of the basin groundwater levels were relatively stable or rising between 1990-91 and 2003-04 while water levels were declining in the southern part of the basin (Figure 4.4-6). Hualapai Valley Basin The Hualapai Valley Basin trends north-north- Water-level measurements over longer time west and is about 60 miles long, stretching from periods show fluctuating water levels in the the Hualapai Mountains to Lake Mead. The basin with long-term declines found in the area basin has relatively deep, sediments divided northwest of Hackberry (Anning and others, into three units. The younger basin fill includes 2007). Groundwater is highly mineralized in recent streambed deposits in Hualapai Valley some areas near the mountains and near Red and alluvium along mountain canyons. This Lake. Chromium has been detected in some unit yields relatively small volumes of water wells in the basin. 6 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Meadview Basin The relatively small Meadview Basin is characterized by a valley formed by Grapevine Wash in the north, and a highland area, Grapevine Mesa in the south. The basin floor slopes toward Lake Mead from an elevation of about 4,400 feet to 1,400 feet. The main aquifer occurs in the Muddy Creek Formation which contains three units. The upper limestone unit yields water to springs and shallow wells. The middle sandstone unit has a high clay content that limits its ability to transmit water. The lower unit is a conglomerate with high hydraulic conductivity. Most well development has been in this lower unit. Groundwater flow is from south to north, following Grapevine Wash. Groundwater recharge is relatively small, about 4,000 AFA, due to low rainfall and high evaporation rates. Groundwater discharge is to springs and a relatively small volume of municipal well pumpage. Groundwater in storage is estimated at 1.0 maf or less. The median measured well yield is 33 gpm (Table 4.7-5). There is little water level monitoring in the basin. Available data show water levels as deep as 931 feet bls in the southern part of the basin and declines of more than 15 feet have been measured in a well in the vicinity of Meadview during the period 1990-91 and 2003-04 (Figure 4.7-6). Groundwater quality is generally good in the basin, with elevated concentrations of radionuclides measured primarily in or near granitic areas (ADEQ, 2005). from the Hualapai Valley Basin. Water stored in the fractures is used as part of the municipal water supply for Kingman and for domestic wells. The fractured granite aquifer beneath the community of Chloride is insufficient to meet its needs and water must be hauled from Kingman. Groundwater flow is toward the center of the Sacramento Valley and west to the Colorado River. Groundwater recharge is from infiltration of runoff in washes and along mountain fronts, except in the vicinity of the Colorado River where infiltration of river water is the main source of recharge. Groundwater recharge is estimated at 1,000 to 4,000 AFA. Groundwater discharge is to a number of springs and from municipal and industrial well pumpage. Groundwater in storage estimates range from 7 to 14 maf. Recent investigations using a range of specific yield values estimated 3.6 to 9.5 maf of groundwater in storage to a depth of 1,200 feet bls (Conway and Ivanich, 2008). Median well yields are between 100 and about 170 gpm (Table 4.9-6). Groundwater levels may be relatively deep with depths greater than 500 feet measured at several locations. Water levels declined in measured wells in the vicinity of Kingman and east of Topock between 1990-91 and 2003-04 (Figure 4.9-6). Water-level measurements over longer Sacramento Valley Basin Sloping alluvial fans extend from surrounding mountains to the north-south trending valley floor of the Sacramento Valley Basin. The valley floor generally slopes to the south with elevation ranging from more than 8,400 feet at Hualapai Peak to about 500 feet where Sacramento Wash enters the Colorado River. Older basin fill is the principal aquifer in the basin. Colorado River, Sacramento Valley Basin. GroundThere are fractured and faulted volcanic rocks in water flow is toward the center of the Sacramento the vicinity of Kingman that separate this basin Valley and west to the Colorado River. Section 4.0 Overview 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 time periods show fluctuating water levels in the basin with long-term declines in the Kingman area and Golden Valley area (Anning and others, 2007). Groundwater quality is generally good in the basin except along the base of the mountains where waters of high mineral content are common. A study conducted by ADEQ found water quality exceedences in the majority of sample sites in three areas: near the town of Chloride; in the central and southern Hualapai Mountains; and near the town of Topock (ADEQ, 1999). Concentrations of radionuclides in Chloride town wells have exceeded Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant levels (City of Kingman, 2003). Available water level data show stable water levels. Well yields may exceed 2,000 gpm along the Bill Williams River. Arsenic and fluoride concentrations that exceed drinking water standards have been reported from this portion of the basin as well as elevated levels of cadmium near the mouth of the Bill Williams River. Colorado River Basins The Colorado River Basins include the Lake Havasu and Lake Mohave basins and those portions of the Sacramento Valley and Bill Williams basins in the vicinity of the Colorado River. In these areas the direction and occurrence of groundwater are influenced by the amount of streamflow in the Colorado River. Infiltration of river water is the main source of inflow to aquifers in this area. The aquifers are Bill Williams Basin (western portion) composed primarily of recent stream alluvium Anderson, Freethey and Tucci (1992) catego- deposits that is hydraulically connected to unrized most of the western portion of the Bill derlying basin fill. Groundwater occurs under Williams Basin as a “West” basin, which generally corresponds to the Alamo Reservoir and Clara Peak sub-basins (see Figure 4.2-6). The area in the vicinity of the Colorado River is influenced by infiltration of river water. Groundwater in the western part of the basin occurs primarily in recent stream alluvium and basin fill. The water-bearing ability of these units varies within the basin. The stream alluvium consists of gravel, sand and silt along the Bill Williams River and its major tributaries. The main water-bearing unit is the basin fill, which is more than 5,000 feet thick in the Bullard Wash-Date Creek Area southeast of Alamo Lake State Park. Groundwater flow is toward the Bill Williams drainage. Groundwater recharge is from streamflow and mountain front precipitation and is estimated at 32,000 AFA for the entire basin. From 10 to 23 maf of groundwater is estimated in storage. There is little groundwater development in the western portion of the basin and relatively Bill Williams River at Lake Havasu. The area in the vicinity of the Colorado River is influenced by little groundwater level data (see Figure 4.2-6). infiltration and flow of river water. 8 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 unconfined conditions in both the stream alluvium and basin fill. Lake Havasu Basin The Lake Havasu Basin is a relatively small basin with its western boundary defined by the Colorado River. Extensive areas of the basin are covered by consolidated rock. Basin fill, consisting of sand, silt and gravel, overlies the Bouse Formation (siltstone and fine-grained sandstone) and an underlying conglomerate unit. These deposits decrease in thickness toward the basin margin. Most wells in the basin penetrate the upper 100-200 feet of the basin fill. There is a direct hydraulic connection between the basin fill and the Colorado River, with groundwater occurrence and movement near the river controlled by the elevation of Lake Havasu. The lake elevation is relatively constant with a maximum fluctuation of approximately five feet during the period 1990-2008 (USBOR, 2009). Regional groundwater flow is north to south. Groundwater recharge is estimated at 35,000 AFA with an estimated 1.0 to 2.0 maf of groundwater in storage. Water withdrawals from wells are primarily pursuant to Colorado River entitlements. Median well yields are relatively high at 1,500 gpm. Water level data for one public supply well showed a decline of 15 to 30 feet between 1990-91 and 2003-04. Drinking water standard exceedences are primarily due to elevated concentrations of nitrate/nitrite and organics measured in the vicinity of Lake Havasu City. Lake Mohave Basin, Colorado River. In the Colorado River basins the direction and occurrence of groundwater are influenced by the amount of streamflow in the Colorado River. across the Colorado River near Davis Dam, restricting recharge from the lake to the south. Groundwater is generally unconfined in the basin. Compared to groundwater recharge from the lake, mountain front recharge is negligible. Groundwater recharge is estimated to total 183,000 AFA. Groundwater in storage estiLake Mohave Basin mates vary from 1.2 to 8.0 maf. Water withThe Lake Mohave Basin is a long narrow drawals from wells in the basin are primarily basin located adjacent to the Colorado River. pursuant to Colorado River entitlements. MeThe principal water-bearing formations are dian well yield is 1,000 gpm reported from 96 alluvial sand, silt and gravel deposits adjacent large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Table 4.6-6). to Lake Mohave and the Colorado River. The Water level change data for the period 1990-91 regional groundwater level is higher than it to 2003-04 show slight declines south of Bullwas prior to filling Lake Mohave upstream head City and an increase north of the city. The of Davis Dam. Groundwater flow direction is water level in these wells ranged between 337 from north to south. A granite ridge extends and 427 feet bls. Elevated concentrations of to- Section 4.0 Overview 9 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 tal dissolved solids (TDS) and fluoride occur in welled completed along the mountain fronts. The drinking water standard for arsenic was the most frequently exceeded standard measured in the basin (Table 4.6-7). Springs, some of which are thermal, occur downstream of Hoover Dam and represent the only surface water in the basin other than the lake and the Colorado River. Santa Maria and Skull Valley sub-basins (see Figure 4.2-6), is found in basin fill, in fractured and porous volcanic rocks and in younger stream alluvium. In the Peeples Valley area, the stream alluvium is the main water-bearing unit. An important water-bearing unit in the Copper Basin area east of Skull Valley is a 1,000-foot thick layer of volcanic rocks with reportedly high well yields in the upper 350 Highland Basins to 400 feet. Other sources of groundwater are The aquifers of the Highland Basins, which gen- from faults in granite and metamorphic rocks. erally encompass the northeastern portions of Groundwater flow in the Skull Valley Sub-basin the Big Sandy and Bill Williams basins, consist is to the southwest in the northern part, and to of hydraulically connected basin fill and young- the northwest south of Kirkland (Figure 4.2-6). er stream alluvium. These aquifers tend to be discontinuous and limited in extent. Ground- Groundwater recharge occurs from streamflow water inflow is from stream channels, mountain and mountain front precipitation. Most front recharge and adjacent consolidated rock groundwater development is in the Skull Valley aquifers. Groundwater outflow is due to evapo- Sub-basin and at Bagdad although most of the transpiration and baseflow to streams (Ander- water used at Bagdad for mining operations son, Freethey and Tucci, 1992). is transported from the Big Sandy Basin near Wikieup. Well yields in this portion of the basin Big Sandy Basin (northeastern portion) are generally less than those in the western In this portion of the Big Sandy Basin, generally portion with a number of wells yielding less the Fort Rock Sub-basin, (see Figure 4.1-6), the than 100 gpm (Figure 4.2-8). Median well primary hydrologic unit consists of sedimentary yield for the entire basin, reported from large rocks composed of Redwall Limestone (a diameter (>10 inch) wells, is 280 gpm. Water coarse-grained, massive limestone) and the level measurements are available primarily for Martin Formation (a fine- to coarse-grained wells located in the Skull Valley Sub-basin. dolomitic limestone). The limestones form a These show relatively shallow water levels in regional aquifer that extends north and east. most measured wells (<100 feet bls). Water level There is little water development in this portion change data was not available for most wells in of the Big Sandy Basin and groundwater flow the sub-basin for the period 1990-91 to 2003direction has not been reported. Well yields in 04, but was relatively stable for the few wells three wells varied from 100 to over 1,000 gpm. measured during this period (Figure 4.2-6). In this area, water levels were stable in most wells Drinking water standard exceedences in this measured between 1990-91 and 2003-04, with area are generally due to elevated concentrations water levels ranging from about 130 to 860 feet of fluoride, arsenic and radionuclides. bls (Figure 4.1-6). Water quality measurements from three wells in the southern portion of the Southeast Basins Fort Rock sub-basin showed drinking water Big Sandy Basin (western portion) exceedences of arsenic and cadmium. With the exception of its northeastern portion, most of the Big Sandy Basin was categorized as Bill Williams (eastern portion) a “Southeast Basin” by Anderson, Freethey and Groundwater in the eastern portion of the Bill Tucci (1992). This area generally corresponds Williams Basin, generally the Burro Creek, to the Wikieup Sub-basin south of Interstate 10 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 near Wikieup and south of Valentine. Depth to water ranges from 15 feet bls along the Big Sandy River south of Wikieup to over 370 feet along Hackberry Road in the northern part of the Wikieup Sub-basin (Figure 4.1-6). Arsenic, fluoride, lead and radionuclide concentrations that exceed drinking water standards have been measured in wells and springs throughout the western portion of the basin (Figure 4.1-9). Elevated radionuclide and fluoride concentrations are found primarily along the mountain drainages (Cady, 1981). Big Sandy Basin near Wikieup. In the Wikieup area, wells greater than 40 feet in depth tap the upper basin fill, which is estimated to be 300 feet deep. 10 (see Figure 4.1-6). Southeast Basins are characterized by moderately thick pre-Basin and Range sediments and an overlying layer of lower basin fill to depths of over 1,000 feet. Aquifers generally consist of two or more water-bearing units separated by a fine-grained unit that forms a leaky confining layer over the lower basin fill. Primary water development in the Big Sandy Basin is along the central valley, primarily in upper basin fill that varies from loosely consolidated silty gravel to sandy silt. The floodplain alluvium in the central valley is 30-40 feet thick and is an unconsolidated deposit of gravel and sand. In the Wikieup area, wells greater than 40 feet in depth tap the upper basin fill, which is estimated to be 300 feet deep. North of Wikieup, the upper basin fill is estimated to be 150 to 200 feet deep. Groundwater flow is generally from north to south down the central valley. Other Peach Springs Basin The Peach Springs Basin was not included in the study area of Anderson, Freethey and Tucci (1992). This basin is characterized by an upland area to the west, the Hualapai Plateau, composed of interbedded limestones, shales and sandstones, and by Aubrey and Truxton Valleys that are filled with recent lava flows and alluvial material (See Figure 4.8-1). The Muav Limestone is the main water-bearing unit on the Hualapai Plateau where depths to groundwater may be as much as 1,300 feet bls. Groundwater is limited to a few permeable layers in the basin’s two primary valleys. In Aubrey Valley in the far northeastern part of the basin near Frazier Wells, groundwater is found in gravel beds at relatively shallow depth. In Truxton Valley, lake-bed deposits are a local source of groundwater. In other areas of the basin, Precambrian rocks, isolated volcanic rocks and local alluvial sands in washes provide small amounts of water. Groundwater flow is toward the north where it exits the basin at springs emanating from the Muav Limestone in the Grand Canyon. Groundwater flow in Aubrey Valley south of Frazier Wells may be from north to south (Myers, 1987). Groundwater recharge is estimated at 22,000 AFA and the volume of groundwater in storage is estimated at 9.5 to 21 maf for the entire basin (Table 4.1-6). Median well yield for the entire basin is 300 gpm reported for large (>10-inch) diameter wells and as high as 2,000 gpm at An annual groundwater recharge estimate is not Cane Springs (Figure 4.1-8). Water levels are available for the basin. The estimated volume relatively stable with some declines measured of groundwater in storage ranges from 1.0 maf Section 4.0 Overview 11 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 hydrologic features. These units are classified into four levels. From largest to smallest these are: regions, subregions, accounting units and cataloging units. A hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two digits for each level in the system is used to identify any hydrologic area (Seaber et al., 1987). A 6-digit unit code corresponds to accounting units, which are used by the USGS for designing and managing the National Water Data Network. One USGS 6-digit HUC watershed is completely within the planning area - Bill Williams River. In addition, Surface Water Hydrology there are portions of four others: the Lower Colorado River-Lees Ferry to Lake Mead; the The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) divides Lower Colorado River below Lake Mead; the and subdivides the United States into Agua Fria River-Lower Gila River; and the successively smaller hydrologic units based on Verde River (Figure 4.0-5). to more than 4.0 maf. Data from the southern part of the basin show well yields ranging from less than 100 gpm up to 1,000 gpm. Water levels vary from 60 feet bls east of Truxton to over 1,300 feet bls northwest of Audley (Figure 4.8-7). Hydrographs of four wells in the basin show relatively stable water level conditions (Figure 4.8-6). Most of the water quality data shown in Table 4.8-7 is from springs, with arsenic most frequently exceeding the drinking water standards. Figure 4.0-5 Upper Colorado River Planning Area USGS Watersheds (USGS, 2005) 12 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Lower Colorado River-Lees Ferry to Lake Mead Watershed The Lower Colorado River-Lees Ferry to Lake Mead watershed is located in the Western Plateau Planning Area and in the northern portion of the Upper Colorado River Planning Area. Included within the Upper Colorado River Planning Area portion of the watershed are the Hualapai Valley and Meadview basins, almost all of the Detrital Valley Basin, all but the far eastern portion of the Peach Springs Basin and the northernmost part of the Big Sandy Basin. The major north-flowing tributaries to the Colorado River in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area portion of the watershed are Hualapai Wash and Detrital Wash. These washes are ephemeral and contribute little to the flow of the Colorado River. The other major wash is Truxton Wash in the Peach Springs and Hualapai Valley basins, which flows north to Red Lake, a dry lake. The Colorado River is the only perennial water supply in the part of the watershed in the planning area. There is only one intermittent stream, a portion of Truxton Wash, located in Peach Springs Basin (AZGF, 1997 & 1993). Lake Mead, created by Hoover Dam, has affected groundwater conditions in adjacent ba- sins in the watershed. There is outflow from the lake into the surrounding aquifers. Lake Mead extends from Hoover Dam in the Lake Mohave Basin, along the planning area boundary to Peach Springs Basin. Maximum storage in Lake Mead is 29.7 maf. Of this, approximately 2.38 maf is “dead storage” - the reservoir capacity from which stored water cannot be evacuated by gravity. The average storage during the period from 1996 to 2005 was 20.3 maf. Twenty-four major springs (springs with a measured discharge rate of 10 gpm or greater at any time) are found in the watershed, primarily located in the Peach Springs and Meadview basins. Generally, springs with the greatest discharge are located in the Hualapai Plateau in the Peach Springs Basin, where discharges of 1,730 gpm at Spencer Spring and 1,233 gpm at Meriwhitica Spring have been measured. With the exception of a number of springs measured in the early 1990s, particularly in the Peach Springs Basin, most of the spring measurements were recorded over 30 years ago and may not reflect current conditions. For example, recent discharge measurements taken at two “major” springs in the Peach Springs Basin were less than 10 gpm. (See Springs tables in each basin section.) There is only one streamgage in the watershed at Spencer Creek near Peach Springs. Median flows at this gage are about 1,500 AFA. Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Lake Mead has affected groundwater conditions in adjacent basins in the watershed. There is outflow from the lake into the surrounding aquifers. Lower Colorado River below Lake Mead Watershed This watershed covers parts of two planning areas. The northern portion is within the Upper Colorado River Planning Area (north watershed) and the southern portion is located in the Lower Colorado River Planning Area. Groundwater basins included in the north watershed are the Lake Havasu Basin and most of the Lake Mohave and Sacramento Valley basins. A very small portion of Detrital Valley Basin also lies Section 4.0 Overview 13 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 within the north watershed. Sacramento Wash, an ephemeral wash in the Sacramento Valley Basin, is the only major contributing tributary to the Colorado River in the north watershed. Sawmill Canyon, located at the northeastern edge of the Sacramento Valley Basin, is the only intermittent stream (Figure 4.9-5). Parker and Davis dams have created lakes that also affect groundwater conditions along the Colorado River. Parker Dam is located in the Lower Colorado River Planning area but the lake it creates, Havasu, extends into the Upper Colorado River Planning Area. Davis Dam, north of Bullhead City, creates Lake Mohave. There is outflow from the river and lakes into the surrounding aquifers. Maximum storage in Lake Mohave is about 1.8 maf (including dead storage) and average storage from 1996 to 2005 was 1.65 maf. Maximum storage in Lake Havasu is 651,000 acre-feet (including dead storage) and average storage from 1996-2005 was about 572,000 acre-feet. The only streamgages in the north watershed are along the Colorado River. Streamflow is largely subject to releases from upstream dams. A gage at Topock reports median annual flow of 8.9 maf, a gage below Davis Dam reports median annual flow of 8.5 maf, and median annual flows below Hoover Dam are 9.2 maf. Twenty-four major springs are found in the north watershed. These springs are located in the northern half of the Sacramento Valley Basin and in the Lake Mohave Basin along the Colorado River immediately below Hoover Dam. Only three of the major springs have had a measured discharge rate of 100 gpm or greater. There are a relatively large number of minor springs (42) in the Sacramento Valley Basin. The most recent spring measurements were taken in 1979 and some measurements date to the 1940s. 14 Davis Dam. Maximum storage in Lake Mohave, created by Davis Dam, is about 1.8 maf (including dead storage) and average storage from 1996 to 2005 was 1.65 maf. Bill Williams River Watershed The Bill Williams watershed has a drainage area of about 5,393 sq. miles (NEMO, 2005). The watershed drains into Lake Havasu just upstream of Parker Dam near the southern boundary of the planning area. The greatest elevational range in the planning area, from 8,417 feet at Hualapai Peak to 450 feet north of Parker Dam, is found in the watershed. The watershed includes the Bill Williams Basin, most of the Big Sandy Basin and the southern portion of the Sacramento Valley Basin. The watershed is drained by the Bill Williams River and its major tributaries, the Big Sandy and the Santa Maria Rivers and by Burro Creek. A number of perennial streams exist in the watershed including segments of the Big Sandy River, the Bill Williams River, Burro Creek, Kirkland Creek, Date Creek, the Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Santa Maria River, and Trout Creek. Numerous intermittent streams are also present (Figures 4.1-5 and 4.2-5). Construction of Alamo Dam on the Bill Williams River in 1968 significantly impacted streamflow below the dam. Built as a floodcontrol structure, the dam is now operated in a manner to benefit downriver wildlife refuges and vegetation along the river. According to NEMO (2005), 185 miles of perennial streamflow exist in the watershed, mostly restricted to the main stem of the Bill Williams River. Water levels in the Bill Williams River below Alamo Dam are affected by the water levels in Lake Havasu. Alamo Lake is the largest lake in the watershed with about 13,400 acres of open water surface. Prior to dam construction the Bill Williams River produced some of the largest floods in Arizona history, with a peak discharge (200,000 ft3/s) comparable to the largest known Colorado River floods (Webb and others, 2007). Median annual streamflow in the Bill Williams River below Alamo Dam is about 34,000 acrefeet, but a maximum annual flow of almost 702,000 acre-feet was recorded in 1993. By comparison, the median annual flow at a gage on the Santa Maria River upstream of the dam is about 10,000 af. The median annual flow recorded at a gage south of Wikieup on the other major tributary to the Bill Williams River, the Big Sandy River, is about 27,000 af. Within the watershed, perennial streams originate from spring discharges from crystalline rocks. Most of the public water supply for the town of Bagdad comes from spring flow that discharges to Francis Creek, a tributary to Burro Creek. Twelve large springs have been identified in the watershed; the largest is located in the Big Sandy Basin where discharge from an unnamed spring south of Cane Springs measured 1,600 gpm. The largest spring in the Bill Williams Basin was measured at 228 gpm. There are no large springs Bill Williams River near its confluence with Lake Havasu. Median annual streamflow in the Bill Williams River below Alamo Dam is about 34,000 acre-feet, but a maximum flow of almost 702,000 acre-feet was recorded in 1993 reported in the Sacramento Valley Basin portion of the watershed. Most springs are located in the vicinity of Valentine, along the Big Sandy River, and near the eastern boundary of the Bill Williams Basin. All measurements were taken prior to 1980 and some measurements are as old as 1943; therefore, the reported discharges may no longer be representative of current conditions. Agua Fria-Lower Gila Watershed A very small portion of this watershed extends into the southeastern portion of the Bill Williams Basin. There are no major tributaries, perennial or intermittent streams, stream gages or major springs in this area. Verde River A very small portion of the Verde watershed extends into the eastern portion of the Peach Springs Basin. There are no major tributaries, perennial or intermittent streams, stream gages or major springs in this area. 4.0.3 Climate2 The Upper Colorado River Planning Area has a distinctive bi-modal precipitation pattern found in other regions of the State, though this 2 Information in this section was provided by the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), University of Arizona, October 2006 Section 4.0 Overview 15 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 planning area is overall relatively dry. Summer precipitation peaks in August during the summer monsoon thunderstorm season. There is a secondary peak during December, and the May-June period is typically extremely dry. The area receives 58% of its precipitation on average during winter months (NovemberApril), and higher elevations (e.g. Hualapai and Cerbat Mountains) typically receive some snow. From 1930-2002, average precipitation in Kingman was 10.2 inches, with 32% coming in July, August, and September (Figure 4.0-6). Average precipitation along the Colorado River is much lower, with an average of 4.9 inches recorded at Lake Havasu City from 1967-1991 and an average of 2.9 inches from 1991 to 2003. Kingman is the only location in the planning area with long-term weather records. Precipitation patterns in Kingman are generally representative of much of the planning area. As in other areas of Arizona, precipitation is extremely variable, both spatially and temporally. For example, in 1988 Kingman recorded 13.3 inches of precipitation; in 1989 the total was 4.3 inches. This variability also may be observed on longer time scales. The 1950s and 1960s were relatively dry decades with an average annual precipitation deficit of -0.95 inches, while the 1980s was a relatively wet decade with an average annual precipitation surplus of 1.42 inches (Figure 4.0-7). Figure 4.0-6 Average Monthly Precipitation and Temperature in Kingman, Arizona, 1930-2002 3 85 Precipitation Temperature 80 2.5 75 70 65 1.5 60 1 Temperature (ºF) Precipitation (in) 2 55 50 0.5 45 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 40 Data are from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network Figure author: CLIMAS 16 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Winter precipitation records dating to 1000 A.D. have been reconstructed from tree rings. They show extended periods of above- and below- average precipitation in every century in the area defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as Climate Division 1, which corresponds to Mohave County (Figure 4.0-8). A climate division is a region within a state that is generally climatically homogeneous. Arizona has been divided into 7 climate divisions. In addition to Climate Division 1, the western part of Climate Division 3 (Yavapai County) and small portions of Climate Divisions 2 (Coconino, Navajo and Apache counties) and 5 (La Paz and Yuma counties) are located in the planning area. Precipitation variability on time scales of 1030 years likely is related to shifts in Pacific Ocean circulation patterns, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The ENSO phases, El Niño and La Niña, impact precipitation in the planning area. During El Niño episodes, there are greater chances for above-average winter precipitation as storm tracks across Figure 4.0-7 Average Annual Temperature and Total Average Precipitation in Kingman, Arizona from 1930-2002 65 18 1930−2002 average annual running 5 year average 1930−2002 average annual running 5 year average 16 64 14 Precipitation (in) Temperature (ºF) 63 62 12 10 61 8 60 6 59 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Time (year) 4 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Time (year) Horizontal lines are average temperature (61.9 °F) and precipitation (10.2 inches), respectively. Light lines are yearly values and highlighted lines are 5-year moving average values. Data are from U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Figure author: CLIMAS Section 4.0 Overview 17 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 North America shift farther south than normal. 4.0.4 Environmental Conditions La Niña conditions usually are associated with below-average winter precipitation. Vegetation Annual average temperature in Kingman is 61.9° F, compared to the statewide average of 59.9° F. The annual average temperature in Bullhead City for the period 1977 to 2006 was 74.2°F. As in other planning areas, temperatures have been increasing the past several decades (Figure 4.0-7), consistent with global temperature trends. Some warming may be attributed to changes in land-cover resulting from population growth. Four of Arizona’s six ecoregions are represented in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area: the Mojave Desert, Sonoran Desert, Colorado Plateau Shrublands and the Arizona Mountains Forests. (Figure 4.0-9) The planning area is diverse in terms of biotic communities, ranging from lower Colorado River Sonoran desertscrub to pine forests. Much of the area vegetation is Mohave and upland Sonoran desertscrub and Figure 4.0-8 Arizona NOAA Climate Division 1 (Mohave County) winter (November-April) precipitation departures from average, 1000-1988, reconstructed from tree rings 2.5 2 Precipitation anomaly (inches) 1.5 1 0.5 0 −0.5 −1 −1.5 −2 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 Year Data are presented as a 20-year moving average to show variability on decadal time scales. The average winter precipitation for 1000-1988 is 5.4 inches. Data: Fenbiao Ni, University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research and CLIMAS. Figure author: CLIMAS. 18 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 semidesert grassland and Great Basin conifer woodland in the northeastern portion. The largest yucca species, the Joshua tree, characterizes the Mojave Desert ecoregion, a transitional desert between the higher and cooler Great Basin Desert and the lower, hotter Sonoran Desert. The Sonoran Desert ecoregion occurs in the southern part of the planning area where the saguaro is the characteristic plant and biodiversity is quite high. The Colorado Plateau Shrublands and Arizona Mountains Forests ecoregions are characterized by chaparral, conifer woodlands and higher elevation grasslands. Rocky Mountain (Petran) and Madrean montane conifer forests commonly occur between about 7,200 to 8,700 feet in Arizona. In the planning area, most of this community is below 8,000 feet in elevation where ponderosa pine is the predominant species in areas that receive about 18 to 26 inches of annual precipitation. About half of the precipitation occurs during the growing season, which permits forests to exist on less than 25 inches of annual rainfall, making them some of the driest forests in North America (Brown, 1982). In the planning area these forests exist in only a few relatively small areas: the Hualapai Mountains south of Kingman; the northeast part of the Bill Williams Basin; and the northeast part of the Peach Springs Basin. Great Basin conifer woodland in the Peach Springs Basin. shadscale and grasses. Great Basin desertscrub is found only in relatively small areas of the Peach Springs Basin. At similar elevations to Great Basin desertscrub (4,000-6,000 feet), interior chaparral is found in areas that receive 13 to 23 inches of annual precipitation. This community occurs extensively in the eastern portion of the Bill Williams Basin. Chaparral consists of dense shrubs that grow around the same height with occasional taller shrubs or small trees. Chaparral communities typically are a mix of several shrubby species such as mountain mahogany, shrub live oak, and manzanita and commonly include cacGreat Basin conifer (piñon-juniper) woodlands tus, agave, and yucca. Chaparral plants are well cover large areas below the ponderosa pine adapted to drought conditions. forest at elevations between about 5,000 and 7,500 feet that receive about 12 to 20 inches of Plains and Great Basin grasslands, primarily annual precipitation. Extensive stands exist in composed of mixed or short-grass communities, the Peach Springs Basin and the eastern part of are found in the Peach Springs Basin primarily the Big Sandy Basin as shown on Figure 4.0-9. at elevations above about 4,000 feet that receive between 11 and 18 inches of annual Great Basin desertscrub occurs in northern precipitation. Semi-desert grasslands are more Arizona mostly at elevations of 4,000 to 6,500 extensive and occur in valleys between the feet with average rainfall of about 7 to 12 inches. desert and woodlands or chaparral at elevations This vegetative community is dominated by between 3,500 and 5,000 feet that receive 10 to multi-branched, aromatic shrubs with evergreen 15 inches of annual precipitation. Semi-desert leaves, primarily sagebrush, blackbrush and grasslands are found primarily in the Hualapai Section 4.0 Overview 19 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 20 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Valley, Big Sandy and eastern portion of the Bill Williams basins. Desert grasslands often contain a mixture of grasses, shrubs and small trees. merges with interior chaparral or semidesert grassland. This subdivision receives between 8 to 16 inches of average annual precipitation. It is the dominant biotic community in the Bill Williams Basin. Vegetation is scrubland The boundary between Mohave desertscrub or low woodland in appearance with blue and and Arizona Upland and Lower Colorado River foothill palo verde, ironwood, mesquite and Sonoran desertscrub is often difficult to discern. cat-claw acacia as common tree species. Cacti While many of the same plants found in the are extremely important in this subdivision other deserts occur here, some are indicative of including saguaro, organ pipe, cholla and barrel the Mohave Desert such as the Joshua tree and cacti. (Brown, 1982) certain cacti and endemic ephemeral plants, most of which are winter annuals (Brown, 1982). The Riparian vegetation has been mapped along community is shrub-dominated and creosote some perennial watercourses in the planning bush and bursage are often dominant species. area including the Colorado, Bill Williams, Big Mohave desertscrub covers most of the Detrital Sandy and Santa Maria rivers and along smaller Valley, Lake Mohave and Sacramento Valley watercourses including Date, Trout and Burro basins at elevations below about 3,500 feet that creeks (Figure 4.0-10). receive 5 to 11 inches of annual rainfall. Webb and others (2007) studied changes in Two subdivisions of the Sonoran desertscrub riparian vegetation along a number of waterregion exist in the planning area-the Lower courses in the southwestern United States. WaColorado River Valley subdivision and the tercourses studied in the Upper Colorado River Arizona Upland subdivision. The Lower Planning Area include Lake Mead, Lake MoColorado River Valley subdivision is the have, Lake Havasu, the Bill Williams River, hottest and driest of the Sonoran desertscrub Big Sandy River, and the Santa Maria River. subdivisions. It covers most of the Lake Historically, locally lush riparian vegetation exHavasu Basin and smaller areas of adjacent isted along reaches of the Colorado, particubasins (Figure 4.0-9). Intense competition larly at major tributary confluences, although for water results in widely spaced plants and most of the now submerged river corridor was more concentrated vegetation along drainage either barren sand or bedrock (Webb and others, channels. In some areas the soil is covered by 2007). With construction of dams on the river, a single layer of tightly packed pebbles known as “desert pavement” that restricts plant types to ephemeral species. Characteristic plants include creosote bush, bursage, saltbush, and mixed, more diverse vegetation along washes including blue palo verde, ironwood and jojoba. Also commonly found in the subdivision are several types of cholla and other cacti. (Brown, 1982) The Arizona Upland subdivision occurs primarily on slopes and sloping plains at elevations of 980 to over 3,000 feet where it Riparian vegetation along the Bill Williams River. Section 4.0 Overview 21 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 new habitat has formed including cottonwood and willow, and tamarisk along reservoir margins. Fluctuating reservoir elevations and high salinity favor tamarisk. The mouth of the Bill Williams River at the Colorado River historically supported a considerable amount of riparian vegetation including cottonwood-willow. Lake Havasu now inundates the mouth of the river, supporting a 2,300 acre riparian zone including a cottonwood-willow forest and 500 acres of cattail marshes designated as the Bill Williams National Wildlife Refuge that extends 12 miles upstream. This area is also supported from releases of water from Alamo Dam, which completely regulates flow in the river downstream from the dam. Beaver dams are now common and riparian vegetation has increased substantially in many places. Arizona Water Protection Fund Programs Six riparian restoration projects in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area have been funded by the Arizona Water Protection Fund Program (AWPF) through 2008. The objective of the AWPF program is to provide funds for protection and restoration of Arizona’s rivers and streams and associated riparian habitats. There are funded projects in three of the nine planning area basins. Four projects have been funded in the Bill Williams Basin and one each in the Big Sandy and Lake Mohave basins. A list of projects and types of projects funded in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area through 2008 is located in Appendix A of this volume. (A description of the program, a complete listing of all projects funded, and a reference map is The floodplain of the Big Sandy River upstream found in a Volume 1 Appendix). from Wikieup supports dense riparian vegetation including cottonwood and tamarisk. Down- Instream Flow Claims stream from Burro Creek, native and non-native vegetation have increased from historic obser- Seven claims for instream flow water rights vations. At the confluence of the Santa Maria have been filed in the Upper Colorado River River and the Big Sandy River, riparian vegeta- Planning Area, listed in Table 4.0-1 and shown tion, including tamarisk, has increased but also on Figure 4.0-10. An instream flow right is a native species, particularly cottonwood and non-diversionary appropriation of surface water for recreation and wildlife use. Claims were black willow. (Webb and others, 2007) filed only in the Bill Williams and Big Sandy Table4.0-1 4.0-1 Instream Instreamflow flowclaims claimsin inthe theUpper UpperColorado ColoradoRiver RiverPlanning PlanningArea Area Table Map Key Stream Applicant Application No. Permit No. Certificate No. Filing Date 1 Big Sandy River BLM (Phoenix) 33-96348.0 Pending Pending 2/8/1994 2 Bill Williams River U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 33-96300.0 96300 96300 9/13/1993 3 Bill Williams River BLM (Phoenix) 33-94245.0 Pending Pending 4/4/1988 4 Burro Creek BLM (Phoenix) 33-89119.0 Pending Pending 4/3/1984 5 Francis Creek BLM (Phoenix) 33-96510.0 Pending Pending 4/3/1984 6 Kirkland Wash W & L Collier Ranch LP 33-95476.1 95476 95476 9/13/1990 7 People's Canyon Creek BLM (Phoenix) 33-90410.0 90410 NA 3/24/1986 Source: ADWR 2008a NA = Not Applicable 22 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.0 Overview 23 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 basins on six different watercourses. Permits or certificates were issued for claims on the Bill Williams River, Kirkland Wash and People’s Canyon Creek. Threatened and Endangered Species A number of listed threatened and endangered species may be present in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area. Those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as of 2008 are shown in Table 4.0-2. Presence of a listed species may be a critical consideration in water resource management and supply development in a particular area. The USFWS should be contacted for details regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA), designated critical habitat and current listings. Actions related to operation of the Lower Colorado River water delivery and electrical power generation systems by both federal and non-federal entities may affect listed species and habitat or contribute to the listing of additional species in the future. The ESA directs Federal agencies to support the conservation of listed threatened and endangered species and to make sure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in adverse modification of critical habitat. To comply with the requirements of the ESA, state and federal water and power interests created the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP). The LCR MSCP is a cooperative, Habitat Conservation Program that identifies specific measures to address the needs of 26 threatened, endangered and other species that rely on habitat associated with the lower Colorado River (USDOI, 2004). Table 4.0-2 4.0-2 Threatened Listed threatened and endangered in the Colorado Upper Colorado Table and endangered speciesspecies in the Upper River River 3 Planning Area Area Planning Common Name Threatened Endangered Elevation/Habitat X < 4,000 ft/ white soils of tertiary limestone lakebed deposits Arizona cliffrose Bald eagle X Bonytail chub X California brown pelican California condor X X Desert pupfish X Desert tortoise, Mohave population Gila topminnow X X Hualapai mexican vole Mexican spotted owl X X Razorback sucker Southwestern willow flycatcher Yuma clapper rail X X X Varies/large trees or cliffs near water <4,000 ft/warm, swift, turbid mainstem rivers of the Colorado River area Varies/lakes and rivers Varies/high desert canyon lands and plateaus <5,000 ft/shallow springs, small streams and marshes 500-5,100 ft/Mohave desertscrub north and west of the Colorado River <4,500 ft/small streams, springs and cienegas 3,500-7,000 ft/grass forb habitats in ponderosa pine 4,100-9,000 ft/canyons and dense forests <6,000 ft/riverene and lacustrine areas, not in fast water <8,500 ft/cottonwood/willow and tamarisk vegetation along rivers and streams <4,500 ft/fresh water and brackish marshes Source: USFWS 2008, AZGF 2008 An “endangered species” is defined by the USFWS as “an animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” while a “threatened species” is “an animal or plant species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” 3 24 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Figure 4.0-11 LCR MSCP Reaches in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate the effect of the take (USDOI, 2004). Implementation of the LCR MSCP began in 2005. The program area extends from the full pool elevation of Lake Mead to the Southern International Boundary with Mexico, a distance of 400 river miles and includes the historical floodplain of the Colorado River (USBOR, 2007a). The LCR MSCP is intended to serve as a coordinated and comprehensive conservation approach for a 50-year period and therefore includes measures for species not currently listed that may become listed in the future. Implementation of the program is funded by a partnership of state, Federal and other public and private stakeholders in Arizona, California and Nevada. The plan will create riparian, marsh and backwater habitat for six federally listed species and 20 other native species including conservation programs for razorback sucker and bonytail chub, both federally listed endangered species. The LCR MSCP for the Lake Mead area includes conservation measures for two plants listed by Source: USDOI 2004 the State of Nevada, for conservation of relict Its purposes include: 1) protection of habitat leopard frog, and for conservation of a number of while ensuring current river water and power riparian obligate species. In addition, razorback operations; 2) addressing the needs of listed sucker larvae are collected from Lake Mead and species under the ESA; and 3) reduction of the raised to a size less vulnerable to predation prior likelihood of listing additional species along the to release back into the lake. river (USBOR, 2007a). LCR MSCP reaches 1-3 are within the planning area and their general Lake Mohave functions as a genetic refuge location is shown in Figure 4.0-11. for razorback sucker. Under the LCR MSCP for the Lake Mohave area, razorback sucker The LCR MSCP also addresses compliance with larvae are collected and reared prior to release the “take” provisions of the ESA.4 Incidental back into that lake or elsewhere, including take of a listed species, as the result of carrying Lake Havasu. Suitable habitat within Havasu out an otherwise lawful activity, is not allowed NWR adjacent to Topock Marsh is maintained without acquiring a permit from the U.S. Fish and for southwestern willow flycatcher and Yuma Wildlife Service. The LCR MSCP documents clapper rail. In addition, Beal Lake, just west of the extent of the incidental take related to river Topock Marsh, is managed as a refuge for native operations and maintenance activities by both razorback sucker and bonytail chub. There is Federal and non-Federal entities and includes experimental planting to create cottonwoodAs defined by the ESA, 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]) 4 Section 4.0 Overview 25 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 willow habitat suitable for southwest willow flycatcher and other riparian obligate species on lands adjacent to Beal Lake. National Park is located along the MeadviewPeach Springs basin boundary. These protected areas are shown in Figure 4.0-12. A significant portion of the Lake Mead NRA, created in 1964 and administered by the National Park Service, is located in the The Upper Colorado River Planning Area con- northwestern portion of the planning area. The tains most of the Lake Mead National Recre- NRA stretches from Davis Dam at Bullhead ation Area (NRA), two national wildlife refuges City in the Lake Mohave Basin to the western (NWR) and 11 wilderness areas administered boundary of Grand Canyon National Park in by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Meadview Basin and includes Lake Mead, Lake The southwestern portion of Grand Canyon Mohave, the Colorado River and adjacent areas. Recreation Areas, Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness Areas Figure 4.0-12 Upper Colorado River Protected Areas (Wilderness Data Source: National Atlas of the United States, Land Ownership Data Source: ALRIS 2004) 26 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 NRA lands also are located in Detrital Valley and Hualapai Valley Basins. The two national wildlife refuges in the planning area are the Havasu NWR in the Lake Havasu Basin and the Bill Williams River NWR in the Bill Williams Basin. The Havasu NWR, managed by the USFWS, was established in 1941 at the time of construction of Parker Dam as a refuge for migratory birds and other wildlife. The refuge protects 30 river miles of the Colorado River from Needles, CA to Lake Havasu City and contains one of the last remaining natural stretches of the lower Colorado River through the 20-mile long Topock Gorge. A portion of the refuge in Arizona is designated as the Needles Peak Wilderness. The Bill Williams River NWR, located along the Bill Williams River at its confluence with Lake Havasu, includes lands originally set aside as Havasu NWR and additional lands purchased by USFWS since then. The refuge protects one of the last stands of natural cottonwood-willow habitat along the lower Colorado River (USFWS, 2002). The refuge provides habitat for at least two endangered species, the Yuma clapper rail and the southwestern willow flycatcher (NEMO, 2005). Not shown on Figure 4.0-12, Alamo Wildlife Area, managed by Arizona Game and Fish, is located at the confluence of the Big Sandy, Santa Maria, and Bill Williams Rivers. The area includes lands withdrawn and acquired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Alamo Lake at the time of construction of Alamo Dam in 1968. Arizona State Parks manages Alamo Lake State Park on the south shore of Alamo Lake. The Bill Williams River Corridor Steering Committee coordinates activities related to the operation of Alamo Dam and management of resources from Alamo Lake downstream along the Bill Williams River to Lake Havasu. In general, water is released in a manner that mimics natural flooding to promote establishment of native riparian woodland vegetation, including cottonwood and willow, and to ensure sufficient baseflow to support riparian vegetation between Alamo Dam and Lake Havasu. Bill Williams River, Bill Williams Basin. This reach within the Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge is one of seven reaches in the planning area with an instream flow claim. A prominent feature of the planning area is the large number of wilderness areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management. These areas are designated under the 1964 Wilderness Act to preserve and protect the designated area in its natural condition. Designated areas, their size, basin location and a brief description are listed in Table 4.0-3. Wilderness areas represent about 6% of the total planning area lands and almost 12% of the lands within the Bill Williams Basin. Section 4.0 Overview 27 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table4.0-3 4.0-3BLM Wilderness areas in theinUpper Colorado RiverRiver Planning AreaArea Table Wilderness Areas the Upper Colorado Planning Wilderness Area Acres Basin Description Arrastra Mountain 129,800 Bill Williams Aubrey Peak 15,400 Bill Williams Mt. Nutt 27,660 Mt. Tipton 30,760 Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley Highest peaks in the Cerbat Mountains and Cerbat Pinnacles Mt. Wilson 23,900 Detrital Valley Most prominent range in Hoover Dam area, bighorn sheep Rawhide Mountains 38,470 Bill Williams 8 miles of the Bill Williams River and gorge Swansea 16,400 Bill Williams Buckskin Mountains and 6 miles of Bill Williams River Tres Alamos 8,300 Bill Williams Colorful Tres Alamos monolith and Black Mountains Upper Burro Creek 27,440 Bill Williams Perennial, lower elevation stream, basalt mesas. Francis Creek, and Burro Creek from Francis Creek to Boulder Creek, are classified as unique waters. Wabayuma Peak 40,000 Sacramento Valley Warm Springs 112,400 Lake Mohave, Black Mesa, canyons and springs Sacramento Valley Total Acres 470,530 Includes portions of the Big Sandy and Santa Maria Rivers, and Peoples Canyon riparian area, classified as a unique water. Mohave/Sonoran Desert transition zone, volcanic formations, caves and tinajas Lake Mohave, Highest portions of the Black Mountains, steep Sacramento Valley canyons, bighorn sheep One of highest peaks in region, wide range of ecosystems Source: BLM 2008 Unique Waters 4.0.5 Population Several “unique waters”, designated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) pursuant to A.A.C. R18-11-112, as having exceptional recreational or ecological significance and/or providing habitat for threatened or endangered species, have been identified in the planning area. Designated unique waters include sections of Peoples Canyon, Francis Creek and Burro Creek in the Bill Williams Basin. Census data for 2000 show about 162,100 residents in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area. Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC) population projections forecast that the planning area population will double by 2030, to about 323,100 residents. Historic, current and projected populations for each basin are shown in the basin cultural water demand tables. Projections may not accurately reflect the most recent proposed developments, which include large master-planned communities in the Detrital Valley and Hualapai Valley basins. 28 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 As listed in Table 4.0-4 the most populous basins reported in the 2000 Census were Lake Mohave (51,549), Lake Havasu (44,591), Hualapai Valley (37,544), and Sacramento Valley (17,575). The remaining basins had a combined population of less than 10,000 residents. The 2000 Census population of the Fort Mojave Reservation was 773, with 1,353 residents on the entire Hualapai Indian Reservation. Listed in Table 4.0-5 are incorporated and unincorporated communities in the planning area with 2000 Census populations greater than 1,000 and their growth rates for two time periods. Only three incorporated communities exist within the planning area, Lake Havasu City, Bullhead City, and Kingman. Communities are listed from highest to lowest population according to the 2000 Census. Mohave County was the fastest growing county in Arizona between 1990 and 2000, growing at a rate of 65.8% during that period. The planning area population, which includes parts of other counties, grew by 71% during this time. Mohave County is the fourth most “urban” county in the state, with 75% of its residents residing in “urban clusters,” defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as densely settled areas with a population of Table 4.0-4 2000 Census population of the Upper Colorado River Planning Area and Indian Reservations Basin/Reservation Lake Mohave 2000 Census Population 51,549 773 Fort Mojave Lake Havasu Hualapai Valley Sacramento Valley Bill Williams Peach Springs 44,591 37,544 17,575 4,691 1,780 1,353 Hualapai Detrital Valley Big Sandy Meadview 1,373 1,142 823 London Bridge in Lake Havasu City, Lake Havasu Basin. Lake Havasu City is the largest city in the Planning Area with a 2000 Census population of 41,938. 2,500 to 49,999. Communities with more than 1,000 residents grew at a rate of 58% compared to 184% outside these areas between 1990 and 2000. Population Growth and Water Use Growing Smarter and Local Planning The State has limited mechanisms to address the connections between land use, population growth and water supply. The Growing Smarter Plus Act of 2000 (Act) is a legislative attempt to link growth and water management planning. It requires counties with a population greater than 125,000 (2000 Census) to include a water resources element in their comprehensive plans. Both Mohave and Yavapai counties fit the population criteria. There is little population or water development within the Yavapai County portion of the planning area. The Mohave County water resources element includes an overview of water resources, information on wells, surface water flows, water quality, Colorado River entitlement holders, water issues and projected water use. The Act requires that 23 communities outside AMAs include a water resources element in their general plans. For the Upper Colorado River Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006 Section 4.0 Overview 29 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.0-5Communities Communities in the Upper Colorado Planning Area withCensus a 2000 Table 4.0-4 in the Upper Colorado River River Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater population greater than 1,000 than 1,000 Communities Basin 1990 Census Pop. 2000 Census Pop. Percent Change 1990-2000 2006 Pop. Estimate1 Percent Change 2000-2006 Projected 2030 Pop. Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu 24,363 41,938 72% 54,610 30% 103,093 Bullhead City Lake Mohave 21,951 33,769 54% 39,930 18% 57,391 Sacramento Valley 12,722 20,069 58% 27,635 38% 50,872 New KingmanButler Hualapai Valley 11,627 14,810 27% 16,651 12% 22,911 Mohave Valley Lake Mohave 6,962 13,694 97% 17,587 28% 30,826 Golden Valley Lake Mohave 2,619 4,515 72% 5,611 24% 9,340 Desert Hills Lake Havasu 1,700 2,183 28% 2,462 13% 3,412 Dolan Springs Detrital Valley 1,090 1,867 71% 2,316 24% 3,845 Bill Williams 1,858 1,578 -15% 1,578 0% 1,578 Total >1,000 84,892 134,423 58% 168,380 25% 283,268 Other 9,722 27,645 184% 26,928 -3% 40,079 Total 94,614 162,068 71% 195,308 21% 323,347 Kingman Bagdad 1 2006 populations are estimated for incorporated areas and projected for unicorporated areas. Source: Arizona Department of Commerce, 2006 & 2007, U.S. Census Bureau 2006 Planning Area these communities are Bullhead Lake Havasu City General Plan includes poliCity, Kingman and Lake Havasu City. cies to acquire additional water supplies and implement water conservation strategies to enThe Bullhead City water resource element fo- sure that implementation of the general plan, cuses on Colorado River entitlements within its which guides development, does not negatively planning area and identifies as goals: 1) to ac- impact Lake Havasu City’s water resources. quire water resources to meet anticipated future Completed plans are listed in basin references needs; and 2) to continue water conservation in this volume. measures. The Kingman water resource element discusses its groundwater supplies in the Water System Plans and Annual Reports Hualapai Valley and Sacramento Valley basins, Beginning in 2007, all community water sysfuture wellfield development and potential use tems in the state were required to submit Anof alternative supplies, including effluent. The nual Water Use Reports and System Water 30 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Plans. The reports and plans are intended to reduce community water system vulnerability to drought, and to promote water resource planning to ensure that water providers are prepared to respond to water shortage conditions. In addition, the information will allow the State to provide regional planning assistance to help communities prepare for, mitigate and respond to drought. An Annual Water Use Report must be submitted each year by the systems that includes information on water pumped, diverted and received, water delivered to customers, and effluent used or received. The System Water Plan must be updated and submitted every five years and consist of three components, a Water Supply Plan, a Drought Preparedness Plan and a Water Conservation Plan. By January 1, 2008, all systems were required to submit plans. By the end of 2008, plans had been submitted by 34 community water systems in the planning area. Almost all of the larger systems submitted plans and were used to prepare this document. Annual water report information and a list of water plans are found in Appendix B. provision, the legislation allows a city or town to adopt a local adequacy ordinance that requires a demonstration of adequacy before the final plat can be approved. To date, no counties, cities or towns in the planning area have adopted the provisions of SB 1575. Subdivision adequacy determinations (Water Adequacy Reports), including the reasons for inadequate determination, are provided in basin tables and maps and are summarized in Table 4.0-6. Also shown in the basin sections are approved applications for an Analysis of Adequate Water Supply (AAWS). This application is typically associated with large, master planned communities. During 2005 to 2007, there was considerable development activity in the northwestern part of the planning area. This area is relatively near Las Vegas, NV, then one of the fastest growing communities in the United States. The completion of a bridge across the Colorado River south of Hoover Dam, slated for 2010, will facilitate access to the area from Las Vegas. AAWS applications for a number of large developments in the planning area have Water Adequacy Program been approved by the Department. As of the end The Department’s Water Adequacy Program of 2008 a total of 19 applications totaling more also relates water supply and demand to growth than 421,800 lots had been approved. Approved to some extent, but does not control growth. applications include approximately: 51,000 lots Developers of subdivisions outside of AMAs are required to obtain a determination of whether there is sufficient water of adequate quality available for 100 years. If the supply is inadequate, lots may still be sold, but the condition of the water supply must be disclosed in promotional materials and in sales documents. 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 White Hills Road, Detrital Valley Basin. During approve a subdivision unless it has an adequate 2005-2007 there was considerable development water supply. If the county does not adopt the activity occurring in the northwestern part of the planning area. Section 4.0 Overview 31 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 • in the Detrital Valley Basin; 259,900 lots in the Hualapai Valley Basin; and 110,300 lots in the Sacramento Valley Basin. Information regarding the status of pending and approved applications is available at the Department’s website. The service areas of eight water providers in the planning area are designated as having an adequate water supply. A service area designation exempts subdivisions from demonstrating water adequacy if served by the provider. Designation information and the general location of designated service areas are also shown in basin maps and tables. As of December, 2008, designated providers included: • Cerbat Water Company (Cerbat Ranches, Hualapai Valley Basin) • Golden Valley Water Improvement District (Golden Valley, Sacramento Valley Basin) • • • • • Joshua Valley Utility Company (Meadview, Meadview Basin) City of Kingman (Hualapai Valley and Sacramento Valley Basins) Lake Havasu City (Lake Havasu Basin) Valley Pioneer Water Company (Golden Valley, Sacramento Valley Basin) City of Bullhead City (Arizona-American Water Works, Bermuda Water Company, North Mohave Valley Corporation; Lake Mohave Basin) Walnut Creek Water Company (Walnut Creek Estates, Sacramento Valley Basin) As of April 2009, an application was pending to modify the designation of the Golden Valley Water Improvement District. The designation modification for the City of Bullhead City was approved in 2008. It is planning to become a water provider and applied to modify its des- Table 4.0-5 Adequacy Determinations in the Upper River Planning Area as of 12/2008 Table 4.0-6Water Water adequacy determinations in theColorado Upper Colorado River Planning Area Number of Subdivisions Number of Lots Lots w/Adequate Determination Lots w/Inadequate Determination Approx. Percent of Lots w/ Inadequate Determination Big Sandy 4 >608 UNK 608 UNK Bill Williams 8 >264 >264 0 0% Detrital Valley 29 >6,090 0 >6,090 100% Hualapai Valley 50 >19,393 10,969 >8,424 43% Lake Havasu 14 >1,697 >1,697 UNK UNK Lake Mohave 265 >32,802 >32,530 272 1% Meadview 5 4,793 0 4,793 100% Peach Springs 2 51 0 51 100% Sacramento Valley 32 >4,415 1,200 >3,215 73% TOTAL 409 >70,113 >46,660 >23,453 33% Basin 1 Source: ADWR 2008b Data on number of lots are missing for some subdivisions, actual number is larger (>) UNK = Unknown 1 32 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 ignation to reflect that change. Prior to modification it was designated pursuant to A.R.S. 45-108D, which allows designation of a city or town without it being a water provider if it has a Colorado River allocation and other conditions are met. Colorado River Water Decree Accounting The right or authorization to beneficially use Colorado River water is defined as an entitlement. Entitlements held by Colorado River water users are created by decree of the 4.0.6 Water Supply United States Supreme court in Arizona v. California et al. (Decree), through a contract Water supplies in the Upper Colorado River with the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) Planning Area include Colorado River water, under Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project other surface water, groundwater, and effluent. Act (BCPA) of December 21, 1928, or by Colorado River water is the primary water Secretarial reservation. supply in the Lake Havasu and Lake Mohave basins. It is also used to meet environmental Table 4.0-7 shows the average annual Colorado water demands for the Havasu National River water that was consumptively used Wildlife Refuge in the Sacramento Valley within each basin in the planning area based on Basin. Elsewhere, groundwater is the primary an accounting system established by Decree. water supply. A discussion of Colorado River Article V of the Decree directs the U.S. Bureau water entitlements and accounting is presented of Reclamation (Reclamation) to prepare an here. Subsequent water supply and demand annual report of diversions from the mainstream, discussions and basin chapters report the use of return flows to the mainstream that makes water Colorado River water as either groundwater, if it available for downstream consumptive use is pumped from a well within the hydraulically in the U.S. or in satisfaction of the Mexican connected aquifer, or as surface water when it is Treaty obligation, and the consumptive use of directly diverted from the river. such water. The Article V report lists diversions Colorado River, Bill Williams Basin. Water supplies in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area include Colorado River water, other surface water, groundwater, and effluent. Section 4.0 Overview 33 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.0-7 Arizona v California Decree accounting of the consumptive use of Colorado River water in the Upper Colorado River Planning area (in acre-feet/year) Basin/Year 1 1971-75 Bill Williams Agricultural Industrial Municipal Environmental Detrital Agricultural Industrial Municipal Environmental Lake Havasu Agricultural Industrial Municipal 3 Environmental Lake Mohave Agricultural Industrial Municipal 3 Environmental Sacramento Agricultural Industrial Municipal 3 Environmental TOTAL Central Arizona Project 4 0 0 1976-80 0 0 1981-85 0 0 1986-90 None None 0 None None None 0 None 1991-95 1996-00 2001-03 2 Current Entitlement 20 18 26 84 116 146 126 Unspecified 5,554 8,075 8,872 None None 11,604 13,376 15,053 14,619 29,254 14,300 14,064 7,828 15,456 15,927 12,561 7,577 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 82,639 0 9,328 144,535 175 44,192 14,300 14,064 7,828 15,456 15,927 12,561 7,577 16,317 None None None 8,066 62,939 7,934 91,826 4,416 103,567 8,719 140,507 8,984 158,409 7,086 164,793 4,274 126,167 9,205 260,079 0 0 33,502 499,917 717,514 1,330,109 1,596,626 Unspecified Notes: 1 The reported consumptive use for individual users may not cover an entire 5 year period; the averages are based on the years of record. 2 In 2003, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) began deducting unmeasured return flows from individual divertors. Prior to this time, Reclamation only deducted the total unmeasured return flow from the total Lower Basin diversions. 3 The Havasu National Wildlife Refuge spans an area in the Lake Mohave, Lake Havasu, and Sacramento Valley basins. Consumptive use has been prorated based on the percentage of refuge land area in each basin. 4 The Central Arizona Project diverts water out of Lake Havasu (located in the Lake Havasu Basin) for multiple uses in Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties. and return flowe separately by diverter for each lower basin state. flow and estimates of unmeasured return flows to the mainstream. According to the Article V report, consumptive use of Colorado River water in the planning area for agricultural, municipal, industrial and environmental purposes averaged 107,923 AFA for the 2001-2005 time period. Table 4.0-7 lists the total quantities of Colorado River water diverted by surface water diversions, in-river pumps, or pumped from wells assumed to be located within the hydraulically connected aquifer of the Colorado River. When determining consumptive water use, the Article V accounting system considers measured return Reclamation has made a preliminary delineation of the lateral and vertical extent of the Colorado River aquifer to provide a basis for accounting of withdrawals against river water allocations. On July 16, 2008, Reclamation proposed to develop a rule for Regulating Non-Contract Use of Colorado River Water in the Lower Basin (73 Federal Register 40916 et seq.) to prevent non-contract Colorado River water use from depleting the river and taking water from holders of Colorado River water entitlements. Reclamation’s most current assessment indicates that most existing non-contract water use results 34 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 from water withdrawn from wells located 1972, as amended, between the United within the hydraulically connected aquifer of States and the Central Arizona Project the Colorado River or from river pumps. The (CAP). Entitlements having a 4th priority proposed rule would establish a methodology as described in (i) and (ii) are coequal; that Reclamation would use to determine if a e. 5th Priority: Unused Arizona entitlewell pumps Colorado River water and a process ment; and for a water user to appeal a subsequent finding f. 6th Priority: Surplus water (USBOR, 2008). As of June 2009, Reclamation had not adopted a rule. In general, the lower priority entitlements will be the first to be impacted when the Secretary Because of the complexity of the accounting declares a shortage on the Colorado River system and its unique methodology that in- system. Within the planning area, entitlement cludes return flow and other considerations, the holders with a first priority or present perfected surface water and groundwater discussions in rights include the Fort Mojave Indian this overview section and the cultural water de- Reservation and several private entities within mand tables in sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.9 the Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage (those basins that utilize this supply), reflect the District. Second and third entitlement holders amount of water pumped from wells and divert- (which are coequal during a shortage), include ed from streams. This approach is comparable Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, Bureau of to that used for other planning areas. The tables Reclamation (Davis Dam), and the National do not attempt to distinguish whether the water Park Service. Fourth priority entities include is used pursuant to the Colorado River entitle- Arizona-American Water Company (Lake ment system. Havasu), Bullhead City, Golden Shores Water Conservation District, Lake Havasu City, Entitlement Priority Levels Mohave Water Conservation District, Mohave Rights to Colorado River water include the fol- Valley Irrigation and Drainage District, and the lowing priority levels in the State of Arizona: Mohave County Water Authority. Lake Havasu a. 1st Priority: Satisfaction of Present Perfected Rights as defined in the Arizona v. California decree; b. 2nd Priority: Satisfaction of Secretarial Reservations and Perfected Rights established prior to September 30, 1968; c. 3rd Priority: Satisfaction of entitlements pursuant to contracts between the United States and water users in Arizona executed on or before September 30, 1968 (2nd and 3rd priority are coequal); d. 4th Priority: i) Contracts, Secretarial Reservations and other arrangements between the U.S. and water users in Arizona Agriculture on the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation. entered into after September 30, 1968, for Within the planning area, entitlement holders with a first priority or present perfected rights include the a total quantity not to exceed 164,652 acre- Fort Mojave Indian Reservation and several private feet of diversions annually and ii) contract entities within the Mohave Valley Irrigation and No. 14-06-W-245, dated December 15, Drainage District. Section 4.0 Overview 35 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 City and the Mohave County Water Authority ment. On January 1, 1998, the AWBA adopted also have fifth and sixth priority entitlements. 420,000 acre-feet as the reasonable number of long-term storage credits for on-river M&I Mohave County Water Authority “firming.” Contractors may recover this firmed The Mohave County Water Authority (MCWA) or stored water in times of shortage. (See Volwas organized pursuant to A.R.S.§ 45-2201 ume 1 for more information on the AWBA). primarily for the purpose of acquiring the city of Kingman’s unused 18,500 acre-feet entitle- The manner in which the general fund credits ment and making it available to other author- would be reserved, and then recovered and ity members for municipal and industrial water distributed during a shortage, has long been uses. MCWA members include Arizona-Amer- an issue of concern to the on-river users. In ican Water Company (Havasu), Bullhead City, recognition of the concerns, the AWBA and Golden Shores Water Conservation District, the MCWA entered into the Agreement to Firm Kingman, Lake Havasu City, Mohave County, Future Supplies (Agreement to Firm). The Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Agreement to Firm recognizes that the MCWA and Mohave Water Conservation District. As can enter into subcontracts with on-river M&I well as providing other services and functions, water users having the same priority as the MCWA can acquire additional water supplies, CAP. These are the same water users for whom including effluent, and it may store, recharge the AWBA must firm M&I supplies. Upon and recover these supplies for the benefit of execution of the subcontracts and payment of Mohave County water users. MCWA can also the appropriate fees, the AWBA would reserve assist members with the development and op- the appropriate quantity of long-term storage eration of water diversion, conveyance, treat- credits as described in the Agreement to Firm. ment, storage and recharge facilities and the development of augmentation and conservation The parties executed the Agreement to Firm on programs. February 4, 2005. The MCWA offered all entities in Mohave County the option to participate in Arizona Water Banking Authority the Agreement. Subcontract entities included The Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA) in the Agreement to Firm are Arizona State was created in 1996 to protect Arizona’s Colo- Parks, Bullhead City, Lake Havasu City, and rado River interests and to provide for interstate water banking opportunities. Among its statutory authorities is the requirement to reserve a reasonable number of long-term storage credits developed with general fund appropriations for the benefit of Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water users located near the Colorado River (on-river users), during times of shortage. Fourth priority on-river Colorado River M&I water users have no alternate water supply during times of shortage. Regardless of whether water is diverted directly from the Colorado River or pumped from wells within the hydraulically connected river aquifer, the limit of an Colorado River, Lake Mohave Basin. entity’s water right is its Colorado River entitle- 36 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Mohave Water Conservation District. Pursuant to the Agreement to Firm, 230,280 acre-feet of the current 396,499 acre-feet of credits in the General Fund Account were transferred to a sub-account in MCWA’s name. The remaining credits in the General Fund Account could still be available to firm on-river supplies. Drought The Colorado River reservoirs are operated in accordance with the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-537). Hydrologic conditions in the Colorado River Basin affect reservoir operation. The Colorado River Basin experienced five consecutive years of extreme drought during water years 2000-2004 and, while there was above average inflow to Lake Powell and record-breaking tributary flows in the Lower Colorado Basin in 2005, there was below average streamflow in 2006 and 2007 (USBOR, 2006a and 2007c). During this period, storage in Colorado River reservoirs dropped from near capacity to 54 percent of capacity by the end of 2007. Conditions improved somewhat in 2008 but by April 2009 Lake Powell water levels were at 52% of capacity. Reclamation lacked specific guidelines to address the operation of Lake Mead and Lake Powell during drought. To address this situation, in February 2007, Reclamation released a draft environmental impact statement on proposed adoption of specific interim guidelines for Lower Basin shortages and coordinated operation of the two reservoirs. The Final EIS was adopted in November 2007 and the Record of Decision was signed in December (USDOI, 2007). One of the purposes of the guidelines is to provide greater predictability regarding the amount of annual water deliveries to mainstream Colorado River water users in the Lower Division states (USBOR, 2007a). The effect of drought and other hydrologic conditions on water levels in Lake Mead is shown in Figure 4.0-13. Lowering water levels have resulted in closure Black Canyon below Hoover Dam, Lake Mohave Basin. The Colorado River Basin experienced five consecutive years of extreme drought during water years 2000-2004. Section 4.0 Overview 37 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 and relocation of boat marinas at Lake Mead, mine. Small volumes of surface water, diverted and formation of a rapid at Pearce Ferry which from the Colorado River, are used in the Dehad been a boat ramp. trital Valley and Lake Havasu basins. Surface water may have been used elsewhere but records are not available. There are few springs Surface Water in proximity to water demand centers and, with An average of about 69,800 AFA of surface wa- the exception of the Colorado River, perennial ter was used during 2001-2005, which consti- streams are located only in the Bill Williams and tutes about 39% of the total water supply dur- Big Sandy basins. The volume of surface water, ing this period. Surface water diverted from the groundwater and effluent used in the planning Colorado River was the primary water supply area is shown in Figure 4.0-14. in the Lake Mohave Basin (69,000 AFA) where it was the principal supply for agricultural and Legal availability of a surface water supply is an industrial use, particularly by the Fort Mojave important consideration. As described in detail Indian Tribe. About 500 acre-feet of surface in Appendix C, the legal framework and process water from springs near Bagdad in the Bill Wil- under which surface water right applications liams Basin provided a municipal and industrial and claims are administered and determined is supply for the town of Bagdad and the Bagdad complex. Rights to surface water are subject Figure 4.0-13 Lake Mead End of Month Elevation 1980-2007 1240 1220 1200 Elevation (ft) 1180 1160 1140 1120 1100 1080 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 1060 Source: USBOR, 2007c 38 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 to the doctrine of prior appropriation which is based on the tenet “first in time, first in right”. This means that the person who first put the water to a beneficial use acquires a right that is superior to all other surface water rights with a later priority date. Under the Public Water Code, beneficial use is the basis, measure and limit to the use of water. Each type of surface water right filing is assigned a unique number as explained in Appendix C and shown in Table 4.0-8. A Certificate of Water Right (CWR) may be issued if the terms of the permit to appropriate water (3R, 4A, or 33, and in certain cases 38), are met. CWRs retain the original permit application number. However, the act of filing a statement of claim of rights to use public waters (36) does not in itself create a water right. are considered the most certain surface water right. A court decree, Arizona v. California 373 U.S. 546 (1963), confirmed the apportionment of waters from the mainstem of the Colorado River to the Lower Basin States, set Arizona’s allotment of Colorado River water at 2.8 maf and reserved irrigation water for reservations along the river including the CRIT and Fort Mohave reservations in the planning area. Surface water rights may also be determined through judicial action in state or federal court in which the court process establishes or confirms the validity of the rights and claims and ranks them according to priority. Court decreed rights Table 4.0-8 summarizes the number of surface water right filings in the planning area. The methodology used to query the Department’s surface water right and statement of claimant (SOC) registries is described in Appendix C. Of the 9,916 filings that specify surface water diversion points and places of use in the planning area, 1,223 CWRs have been issued to date. Most of these are located in the Bill Williams (713) and Big Sandy (301) basins. Figure 4.015 shows the location of surface water diversion points listed in the Department’s surface water rights registry. The numerous points reflect the large number of stockponds and reservoirs that have been constructed in the planning area as well as diversions from streams and springs. Locations of registered wells, many of which are referenced as the basis of claim in SOCs are also shown in Figure 4.0-15. Figure 4.0-14 Average Annual Water Supply Utilized in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Effluent 3,150 Surface Water 69,800 Groundwater 101,120 Total Demand = 174,070 acre-feet Arizona has two general stream adjudications in progress to determine the nature, extent and priority of water rights across the entire river systems of the Gila River and the Little Colorado River. The Upper Colorado River Planning Area is outside of the stream adjudication boundaries. The location of surface water resources for each basin are shown on surface water condition maps and maps showing perennial and intermittent streams and major springs in sections 4.1 to 4.9. Basin tables list data on streamflow, flood ALERT equipment, reservoirs, stockponds and springs. Section 4.0 Overview 39 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.0-8 Inventory of surface water right and adjudication filings in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area1 Type of Filing Basin Total BB2 3R3 4A3 333 364 385 396 Big Sandy 0 80 81 75 743 205 0 1,184 Bill Williams 0 111 136 326 1,492 5,595 0 7,660 Detrital Valley 0 2 6 4 58 41 0 111 Hualapai Valley 0 5 34 15 103 73 0 230 Lake Havasu 0 0 2 1 6 0 0 9 Lake Mohave 0 0 11 9 75 1 0 96 Meadview 0 0 6 1 20 14 0 41 Peach Springs 0 25 0 13 70 111 0 219 Sacramento Valley 0 1 34 12 279 40 0 366 Total 0 224 310 456 2,846 6,080 0 9,916 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 basin. If a file lists more than one POD in a given basin, it is only counted once in the table for that basin. Numerous surface water right filings are not counted here due to unsufficient information on POD locations. 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 right 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. Groundwater Groundwater is a major water supply in the planning area, meeting 59% of the water demand during the period 2001-2005. (Some of this water was pumped pursuant to a Colorado River entitlement). The location of registered exempt and non-exempt wells is shown in Figure 4.0-15. Groundwater met 92% of the municipal demand, 83% of the industrial demand and 35% of the agricultural demand during this time period and averaged about 101,000 AFA. Groundwater is found at varying depths in the planning area, generally in the 200 to 600-foot range although water levels of more than 1,000 feet bls are found in the Hualapai Valley, Peach Springs and northern Sacramento Valley basins. Groundwater is pumped from basin fill in most basins with the exception of the Meadview and 40 Lake Mohave basins. Recent stream alluvium is a potentially important aquifer in the Big Sandy, Bill Williams, Detrital Valley and Lake Mohave basins. Sedimentary rocks are principal aquifers in five north and northeastern basins including the Big Sandy, Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley, Peach Springs and Meadview basins. In the Bill Williams and Sacramento Valley basins, aquifers in volcanic rock are also utilized. Groundwater is limited due to water quality and quantity problems at the town of Chloride, north of Kingman. Groundwater is the primary or only water supply in most basins with the exception of the Lake Mohave Basin where large volumes of surface water are diverted for agricultural and industrial use. Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.0 Overview 41 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Well yields appear to be sufficient for most uses in the planning area. Median well yields from large (>10-inch) diameter wells ranged from approximately 35 gpm in Detrital Valley and Meadview basins to more than 1,000 gpm in Lake Havasu and Lake Mohave basins where most wells are in proximity to the Colorado River. Yields from large wells in the Hualapai Valley Basin were also relatively high, with a median of 900 gpm. In other basins median well yields range from 100 gpm in the Sacramento Valley Basin to 300 gpm in the Bill Williams Basin. Estimated volumes of groundwater in storage may be relatively limited to meet future demands in some areas especially given low groundwater recharge rates. loaded to access local information for planning, drought mitigation and other purposes. Approximately 1,700 wells are designated as Index Wells statewide out of over 43,700 GWSI sites (GWSI sites are primarily wells but include other types of sites such as springs and drains). Typically, Index Wells are visited once each year by the Department’s field staff to obtain a long-term record of groundwater level fluctuations. Approximately 200 of the GWSI sites are designated as Automated Wells. These systems measure water levels 4 times daily and store the data electronically. Automated wells are established to better understand the water supply situation in areas of the state where data are lacking. These devices are located based on The USGS, in conjunction with the Department, areas of growth, subsidence, type of land use, in light of proposed land developments, recently proximity to river/stream channels, proximity conducted investigations of groundwater condi- to water contamination sites or areas affected tions in the Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley and by drought. Sacramento Valley basins. As a result, the Department released revised estimates of the volume of groundwater in storage in the Detrital Valley and Sacramento Valley basins. Groundwater storage estimates to a depth of 1,200 feet bls in these basins are: 1.4 to 3.7 maf in the Detrital Valley, 5 to 5.3 maf in the Hualapai Valley, and 7 to 8.3 maf in the Sacramento Valley. The Department’s Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI) database, the main repository for statewide groundwater well data, is available on the Department’s website (www.azwater.gov). The GWSI database contains of over 42,000 records of wells and over 210,000 groundwater level records statewide. GWSI contains spatial and geographical data, owner information, well construction and well log data, and historic groundwater data including water level, water quality, well lift and pumpage records. Included are hydrographs for statewide Index Wells and Automated Groundwater Monitoring Sites (Automated Wells), which can be searched and down- Automated Groundwater Monitoring Site in the Hualapai Valley Basin. Section 4.0 Overview 42 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Volume 1 of the Atlas shows the location of Index Wells and Automated Wells as of January 2009. At that time there were a total of 93 Index Wells and nine Automated Wells in the Planning Area. The Automated Wells are located in the Hualapai Valley, Sacramento Valley, Detrital Valley, Bill Williams and Meadview basins. The most updated maps of Index and Automated wells may be viewed at the Department’s website. in 2006 more than 2,400 acre-feet was used. Lake Havasu City is evaluating new sources of effluent demand as well as effluent recharge. Approximately 3,100 acre-feet of effluent is produced in the Lake Mohave Basin each year. Within the basin, Bullhead City annually delivers about 600 acre-feet of effluent and Arizona-American Water Company delivers about 180 acre-feet. The Kingman-Hilltop Wastewater Treatment Plant, located in the Hualapai Valley Basin, generates about 1,800 acre-feet of effluent per year which is currently disposed in a wetland and evaporation ponds. The treatment system that serves the community of Peach Springs consists of a sewer with secondary treatment and disposal in evaporation ponds and unlined impoundments. There are four wastewater treatment Effluent plants in the Sacramento Valley Basin, one in Effluent is a potential water supply at locations Kingman, one at the Griffith power plant and throughout the planning area, with about 10,200 two in the vicinity of Franconia, located about acre-feet produced annually. Currently, about midway between Topock and Yucca. Informa3,100 AFA of effluent is used in the Lake Havasu tion is available on only two plants in the basin, and Lake Mohave basins for turf irrigation. which produced a total of about 400 acre-feet of Approximately 3,300 acre-feet of effluent was effluent, that was disposed in evaporation ponds produced in the Lake Havasu Basin in 2008 and or in a watercourse. Information on major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, aquifer flow direction, and water level changes are found in groundwater data tables, groundwater conditions maps, hydrographs and well yield maps for each basin in the basin sections. View of the City of Kingman from the Hualapai Valley Basin. Effluent is not currently reused in the Hualapai Valley or Sacramento Valley Basins. 43 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 There are five active VRP sites, primarily associated with crude oil contamination of soil. The VRP is a state-administered and funded voluntary cleanup program. Any site that has soil and/or groundwater contamination, provided that the site is not subject to an enforcement action by another remediation program, is eligible to participate. To encourage participation, ADEQ provides an expedited process and a Contamination Sites single point of contact for projects that involve Sites of environmental contamination may more than one program (Environmental Law impact the availability of water supplies. An Institute, 2002). inventory of Department of Defense (DOD), Superfund (Environmental Protection Agency There are 153 active LUST sites including 60 designated sites), Resource Conservation and sites in the Kingman area in the Sacramento Recovery Act (RCRA), Water Quality Assur- Valley Basin, 30 sites in and around Bullhead ance Revolving Fund (state designated WQARF City in the Lake Mohave Basin, and 47 sites in sites), Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP), the vicinity of Lake Havasu City in the Lake and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Havasu Basin. sites was conducted for the planning area. Of these various contamination sites only LUST 4.0.7 Cultural Water Demand and VRP sites are found in this planning area. Table 4.0-9 lists VRP sites, their contaminants Cultural water demand in the Upper Colorado and affected media, and respective basins. The River Planning Area is shown in Figure 4.0-17. location of all contamination sites in the plan- As shown, agricultural demand is the largest use sector at approximately 99,550 AFA due ning area is shown on Figure 4.0-16. No wastewater treatment facilities were identified by the Department in the Big Sandy, Bill Williams or Meadview basins. A facility exists at Temple Bar in the Detrital Valley Basin but information on the volume of wastewater treated and the disposal method(s) was not available to the Department. Table4.0-9 4.0-7 Contamination Active contamination in theColorado Upper Colorado River Area Table sites insites the Upper River Planning Planning Area SITE NAME MEDIA AFFECTED AND CONTAMINANT GROUNDWATER BASIN Voluntary Remediation Sites Groundwater-copper, zinc, pH, other metals or organic contaminants Bill Williams Juniper Pump Station Soil-crude oil Big Sandy New Kingman Pump Station Soil-crude oil Big Sandy Oatman Pump Station Soil-crude oil Lake Mohave Old Kingman Pump Station Soil-crude oil Sacramento Valley Inactive Bruce Mine Sources: ADEQ 2006a, ADEQ 2006b Section 4.0 Overview 44 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 45 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Needles, CA. In Arizona, the tribal population is approximately 800 and the primary water demand is farming. A small casino, with associated services is located in Mohave Valley while a large hotel/casino and golf course are located in Laughlin, NV. The Fort Mojave Tribal Utilities Authority serves about 850 customers in parts of Mohave Valley. The Bermuda Water Company provides municipal service to The volume of cultural demand varies parts of Fort Mojave. In 2005, the tribal utilsubstantially between the planning area basins ity pumped about 260 acre-feet of groundwater and ranges from about 150 AFA in the Meadview (ACC, 2005). In 1999, the tribe entered into an Basin to about 118,800 AFA in the Lake Mohave agreement to allow construction of a gas-fired power plant on the reservation. The South Point Basin (see Figure 4.0-18). Energy Center came on line in 2001 and was the first “merchant plant” built by an independent Tribal Water Demand power company on tribal land (Calpine, 2001). The Fort Mojave Indian reservation includes All power generated is sold on the open market. lands in Arizona, Nevada and California but Fort Mojave receives electricity generated at almost 70% of its land base (23,500 acres), is Parker Dam. The South Point plant is designed located within Arizona in the Lake Mohave to capture waste heat to generate a second phase Basin. The Tribal headquarters are located in of electricity, making it 40% more efficient than almost entirely to farming in the Lake Mohave Basin. Municipal demand is the next largest water demand sector with approximately 52,400 AFA met primarily by groundwater. Industrial demand, mainly for mining, is about 22,100 AFA. Total demand averaged approximately 174,100 AFA during the period from 20012005. Figure 4.0-17 Average Annual Upper Colorado River Planning Area Cultural Water Demand by Sector, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 64,900 3,150 50,000 1,200 40,000 30,000 20,000 48,050 34,650 3,700 10,000 0 18,420 Agricultural 99,550 groundwater Municipal 52,400 surface water Section 4.0 Overview Industrial 22,120 effluent 46 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 older natural gas plants. Water use is estimated The Hualapai Nation operates a tourist development at Grand Canyon West where a at 4,000 AFA of surface water (BIA, 1998). glass walkway, “Skywalk”, extends 70 feet The Hualapai Indian Reservation encompasses beyond the canyon edge almost a mile above about 552,800 acres in the planning area, the Colorado River. Water is an issue at the site primarily in the Peach Springs Basin. There and is currently trucked in. The tribe anticipates also are small tracts of tribal lands in the Big further development at the site, requiring a Sandy, Hualapai Valley and Meadview basins. local source of water (Cart, 2007). The tribe The reservation, created in 1883, has a current has considered drilling a local well, extending a population of about 1,500. Peach Springs is the water pipeline 26 miles from wells on the west tribal capital. Tribal water use is estimated to be side of the Reservation, or pumping water to the less than 300 AFA. The tribal economy is based rim from the Colorado River. An exploratory on cattle ranching, tourism, timber sales and well drilled near Grand Canyon West located big game hunting. The Hualapai Department water at more than 2,600 feet with an estimated of Public Works operates water and sewer flow of just 12 gpm (Hualapai Tribe, 2007). systems in Peach Springs. The Hualapai Water Resource Program develops non-community While the U.S. asserted tribal claims to the water sources and is responsible for a wetland Colorado River in Arizona v. California, the and water quality monitoring program. The Court only decided the claims of those tribes Range Water Program performs water pipeline below Hoover Dam. There presently is no maintenance to cattle districts. (Hualapai Tribe, court action pending to adjudicate any Hualapai claims. 2007) Figure 4.0-18 Average Annual Basin Water Demand, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Sacramento Valley 3,700 Bill Williams Other Basins 5,700 950 Hualapai Valley 9,050 Big Sandy 15,900 Lake Havasu 16,800 Lake Mohave 118,800 47 Municipal Demand Average municipal demand for 2001-2005 was about 52,400 AFA; 32% of the total cultural water demand. Municipal water demand is summarized by groundwater basin and water supply in Table 4.0-10. Water pumped from wells is the primary water supply for municipal use throughout the planning area as reflected in the cultural water demand tables for each basin. An average of 48,050 AFA of groundwater was used during the period 2001-2005. The largest volume of municipal groundwater use is in the Lake Mohave Basin with 18,800 AFA of demand, 39% the total groundwater use. About 1,200 AFA of surface water is used for municipal purposes. The town of Bagdad in the Bill Williams Basin may use up to 500 acre-feet of surface water diverted from springs as a primary municipal supply. About 3,100 acre-feet of effluent is used annually for turf irrigation. Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Principal municipal demand centers are Lake Havasu City, Bullhead City, and the Kingman area. There is little population or municipal demand in a number of basins including the Big Sandy, Detrital Valley, Meadview and Peach Springs basins. Municipal demand on the Fort Mojave and Hualapai reservations is estimated at less than 300 AFA. Only nine water providers in the planning area served 450 acre-feet of water or more in 2000 or 2006. These providers and their demand in selected years are listed in Table 4.0-11 and are discussed below. Municipal utilities serve Lake Havasu City and the City of Kingman while other communities, including Bullhead City, are served by private water companies. Bullhead City is served by Arizona-American Water Company, Bermuda Water Company and North Mohave Valley Water Company. In 2007, the City acquired the legal authority to become a municipal water provider and serves Laughlin Ranch on the east side of the city. Corporation Commission. In addition, municipal utilities have the authority to enact water conservation ordinances. These authorities may enable municipal utilities to better manage water resources within water service areas. Water provider issues are discussed in section 4.0.8. With two exceptions, all golf courses in the planning area are served from a municipal water supply. All golf courses are listed in Table 4.0-12 with estimated demand and source of water. Golf courses that irrigate with water pumped entirely from facility wells are considered “industrial” golf courses and this use is accounted for as an industrial demand. Demand was not reported for a number of golf courses and in those cases estimates are based on turf water needs, elevation and duration of the irrigation season. Most golf courses are located in the Lake Havasu or Lake Mohave basins. There are two golf courses in the Kingman area in the Hualapai Valley Basin, and one in Bagdad in the Bill Williams Basin. Fifty-six percent of the golf course demand in Municipal water utilities have more flexible the planning area is met with effluent. Effluent is water rate-setting ability than private water utilized in Bullhead City, Lake Havasu City and companies, which are regulated by the Arizona in Mohave Valley. In the Lake Havasu Basin, two facilities used 100% effluent in Table 4.0-10 Average annual municipal water demand 2006: London Bridge Golf Course, in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area, 2001and Nautical/Havasu Island Inn Golf 2005 (in acre-feet) Club. In addition, some effluent was delivered to Refuge Golf Course Surface Basin Groundwater Total Effluent1 Water (amount not known) and about 100 Big Sandy <300 0 0 150 acre-feet of effluent was used for Bill Williams 950 500 0 1,450 other turf irrigation. In the Lake Detrital Valley <300 <300 0 300 2 Hualapai Valley 8,900 0 0 8900 Mohave Basin, about 720 acre-feet Lake Havasu 16,500 <300 2,433 19,083 of effluent is used to irrigate three Lake Mohave 18,800 400 715 19,915 golf courses and one park. BullMeadview <300 0 0 150 head City delivers about 475 acrePeach Springs 350 0 0 350 Sacramento Valley 2,100 0 0 2,100 feet of effluent per year to Chaparral Total Municipal 48,050 1,200 3,148 52,398 Country Club and Laughlin Ranch, Sources: USGS 2007, ADWR 2007 and about 65 AFA to Rotary Park. Notes: Arizona-American Water Company 1 Effluent figures are for golf course and other turf irrigation in 2006 delivers about 180 acre-feet of efflu2 The City of Kingman in the Sacramento Valley Basin obtains ent per year to the Riverview Golf most of its water from well fields in the Hualapai Valley Basin Section 4.0 Overview 48 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.0-11Water Water providers serving acre-feet or more Table 4.0-9 Providers serving 450 450 acre-feet or more of of water per year in 2000 or 2006, excluding effluent, in the water per year in 2000 or 2006, excluding effluent, in the Upper Upper Colorado River Planning Area Colorado River Planning Area Water Provider Bill Williams Phelps Dodge Bagdad, Inc, Utilties Dept. Lake Havasu Lake Havasu City Lake Mohave Arizona American Water-Mohave Water (Bullhead City) Bermuda Water Company (Bullhead City) Golden Shores Water Company North Mohave Valley Water (Bullhead City) Willow Valley Water (Mohave Valley) Sacramento Valley City of Kingman Valley Pioneers Water Company 1991 (acre-feet) 2000 2006 (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 871 749 445 11,961 14,630 14,534 4,012 6,220 6,733 915 353 269 542 951 452 642 455 3,883 492 1,148 395 main town site, Freeport McMoRan serves the Sycamore Springs Mobile Home Park from 2 wells. Commercial customers include shopping centers and a school. Turf includes a nine-hole golf course, a park and school playing fields. Treated effluent is reportedly used for industrial purposes at the mine. Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City is the larg5,950 7,294 9,078 est community in the plan316 500 688 ning area and a popular tourSources: ADWR 2004, ADWR Community Water System 2006 Annual Reports Notes: ist destination with a 2006 1991 and 2000 demand for the Town of Bagdad may include some industrial population of almost 56,000. demand by the Bagdad Mine. In 2006, it reported 14,534 Course. It is anticipated that effluent use for turf acre-feet of Colorado River water withdrawn priirrigation will increase in the planning area since marily from one well. Approximately 65% of this Colorado River contract entitlements are capped was delivered to single family residential customers, 6% to multi-family, 11% to commercial, 9% and growth continues. to turf and 8% to other. Its total gallon per capita Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold, Inc. Utili- per day rate in 2005 was 240 (Lake Havasu City, 2006). Lake Havasu City is engaged in an agties Department The Town of Bagdad is a mining community gressive wastewater system expansion program served water by Freeport McMoRan Copper and to convert the majority of residences within the Gold, Inc. Utilities (Freeport McMoRan) for- city limits to a conventional sewer system. This merly Phelps Dodge, Inc. Utilities. The reported expansion included construction of the Northwest groundwater withdrawal in 2006 was 445 acre- Regional WWTP, completed in 2007. The three feet, and 991 acre-feet in 2007. Six wells and treatment plants treated about 3,300 acre-feet in 2 emergency wells serve the community of ap- 2008 (Table 4.5-8). In 2005, approximately 2,400 proximately 1,600 residents. The system water acre-feet of effluent was used to irrigate two golf plan for Freeport McMoRan refers to water from courses and landscaping and in 2006, effluent deFrancis Creek Springs as “the primary source of liveries began to the Refuge Golf Course. The potable water” for the town of Bagdad, but this City is seeking additional sources of water to is not reported on the CWS annual reports (Mal- meet future demands since its Colorado River encolm Pirnie, 2006). Either this water is used en- titlement is insufficient. It has secured additional tirely at the mine site or the actual water use by water supplies from the AWBA and MCWA and the town is larger. Freeport McMoRan reported is exploring options to acquire more. Water con82% of its deliveries to residential customers, 6% servation and effluent recharge and recovery are to commercial and 12% to turf. In addition to the considered potential future supplies. 49 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.0-10 Golf course demand in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area (c. 2006) 4.0-12 Golf courses in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area (c. Table 2008) Facility Basin # of Holes Demand (acre-feet) Water Supply Mesa View Golf Club Bill Williams 9 120 Groundwater Cerbat Cliffs Golf Course Hualapai Valley 18 423 Groundwater Valle Vista Country Club Hualapai Valley 18 423 Groundwater Bridgewater Link/Queens Bay Lake Havasu 9 220 Groundwater London Bridge Golf Course Lake Havasu 36 1,288 Effluent Nautical/ Havasu Island Inn Lake Havasu 18 560 Effluent Golf Club Refuge Golf Course Lake Havasu 18 441 Groundwater/Effluent Chaparral Country Club Lake Mohave 9 172/48 Groundwater/Effluent Desert Lakes Golf Club* Lake Mohave 18 441 Groundwater El Rio Country Club* Lake Mohave 18 441 Groundwater Laughlin Ranch Lake Mohave 18 425 Effluent Riverview Golf Club Lake Mohave 9 178 Effluent Total Demand 5,180 Source: ADWR 2008c, USBOR 2006c Notes: * These golf courses are served by their own wells and considered to be industrial users Arizona American Water-Mohave Water Arizona American Water is the largest of the three large systems that serve Bullhead City. It serves all but the southern and northern portions of the city. In 2006 it withdrew approximately 6,700 acre-feet of water from six wells. In that year it served almost 5,200 acre-feet to residential customers and 1,500 acre-feet to non-residential customers. The system has an emergency interconnection with the Bermuda Water Company. North Mohave Valley Water The third large system serving Bullhead City serves the northern part of the city. It withdrew 1,148 acre-feet of water from seven wells in 2006. Of this, 674 acre-feet was delivered to residential customers and 415 acre-feet to commercial and construction customers. Golden Shores Water Company Golden Shores Water Company (GSWC) serves the Town of Golden Shores located in the far southern portion of the Lake Mohave Basin. The water system has approximately 1,516 Bermuda Water Company Bermuda Water Company, the second largest connections in an eight square mile service area. system serving Bullhead City, serves the In 2006 it withdrew 492 acre-feet from four southern portion of the city, most of Fort Mojave of its five wells to serve primarily residential Mesa and the northern portion of Mohave customers. Valley. It withdrew 3,883 acre-feet of water from 8 wells in 2006. Of this total, 318 acre-feet Willow Valley Water Company was delivered to other utilities located at Fort The Willow Valley Water Company consists Mojave and Mohave Valley. Within its service of two systems that are not interconnected: the area it delivered 3,264 acre-feet to single family larger King Street System and the Lake Cimarresidences, 106 acre-feet to turf and 151 acre- ron System. The systems are about three miles apart. The water company service area covers feet to commercial customers. 2,700 acres of non-contiguous sections dispersed within Fort Mojave Indian Reservation lands. In 2006 the systems withdrew approxi- Section 4.0 Overview 50 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 mately 395 acre-feet of water from 3 of 6 company wells. Of this, 342 acre-feet was delivered to residential customers and 28 acre-feet to nonresidential customers. Valley Pioneers Water Company Valley Pioneers Water Company (VPWC) serves approximately 2,200 residential connections and 70 non-residential customers in Golden Valley, located east of Kingman along Highway 68. In 2006 it withdrew 688 acre-feet of water from three wells and served almost 500 acrefeet to residential customers and 160 acre-feet to commercial customers. In 2007 VPWC withdrew 930 acre-feet of water and delivered 218 acre-feet of water to the Mineral Park Mine in addition to deliveries to its residential and commercial customers. If needed, an emergency water supply is available from Golden Valley Improvement District #1, located west of Valley Pioneers (VPWC, 2007). City of Kingman The second largest water provider in the planning area, the City of Kingman Municipal system serves Kingman and New Kingman-Butler. The community straddles the Sacramento Valley/ Hualapai Valley basin boundary. Kingman/New Kingman-Butler is a rapidly growing area with a number of large master planned communities planned in the area. It has a service area of over 46 square miles and provides water service to over 44,000 residents. Kingman has a contract with Mohave County to provide water service to over 9,000 connections outside the city limits Agricultural Demand (City of Kingman, 2007). Average agricultural demand for 2001-2005 In 2006, Kingman reported groundwater with- was about 99,550 AFA; 56% of the total culturdrawals of 9,078 acre-feet from 14 wells. Of al water demand. Ninety-six percent of the agthis, 5,123 acre-feet was delivered to residential ricultural demand occurred in the Lake Mohave customers and 3,381 acre-feet to non-residential Basin where principal crops include cotton, alcustomers. Most of the water is pumped from falfa, hay and wheat. Relatively small amounts a well field in the southern part the Hualapai of agricultural water demand were reported in Valley Basin. A smaller portion, approximately the Big Sandy and Bill Williams basins. Sur400-500 AFA, is pumped from wells completed face water and groundwater use for agriculture in volcanic rock of the Sacramento Valley Ba- in selected years for the entire planning area is sin. Although Kingman had a Colorado River shown in Table 4.0-13. As shown, total agriwater entitlement of 18,500 AFA, it transferred cultural demand declined by 9,500 acre-feet the allocation to the Mohave County Water Au- between 1991 and 2005. About 65% of the agthority since the costs of physically transferring the water was not economically feasible. In exchange for the transfer, the City of Kingman receives revenue for development of its groundwater resources (City of Kingman, 2003). The City of Kingman operates the Hilltop and Downtown Wastewater Treatment Plants that together produce over 2,000 acre-feet of effluent per year, primarily from the Hilltop plant in the Hualapai Valley Basin. Presently, effluent is not reused and is disposed of in a watercourse, evaporation pond and wetland (Tables 4.4-7 and Agriculture in the Bill Williams Basin 4.9-9) 51 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.0-13 Agricultural demand in the Upper Table 4.0-11 Agricultural demand in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area Colorado River Planning Area In the Big Sandy and Bill Williams basins irrigation is primarily for pasture. Irrigation 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 in the Big Sandy Basin has been estimated Water Use (acre-feet) at less than 300 acre-feet of groundwater per Big Sandy year since 1991, consisting of small pasture Groundwater <300 <300 <300 in the vicinity of the Big Sandy River. In the Bill Williams Groundwater 15,600 4,200 4,100 Bill Williams Basin, irrigation has declined Lake Mohave from an average of 15,600 AFA during the Surface Water 56,600 68,100 64,900 1991-1995 period to just 4,100 AFA during Groundwater 36,700 35,600 30,400 TOTAL 109,050 108,050 99,550 the 2001-2005 time period. This decline is primarily a result of cessation of farming Source: USGS 2007, ADWR 2005 at Planet Ranch, downstream from Alamo ricultural demand was met with surface water Dam, where flooding in 1993 washed out much during the period 2001-2005. of the irrigation infrastructure. Reportedly, only one cotton farm remains along the Bill In the Lake Mohave Basin, agricultural Williams River below Alamo Dam. Most of the irrigation occurs in the Mohave Valley on other remaining agricultural lands are located in the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation and on the vicinity of Kirkland and Skull Valley (see private lands located within the Mohave Valley Figure 4.2-10). Irrigation and Drainage District (MVIDD). In the southern end of the valley, tribal and district Industrial Demand lands are interspersed in a checkerboard pattern. About 15,000 acres of reservation lands were Industrial demand averaged approximately recently under cultivation (ITCA, 2003), which 22,100 AFA during the period 2001-2005; 13% may include non-Indian agricultural lessees. of the total cultural water demand. Industrial There are a total of about 31,500 acres within water demand in the planning area includes the MVIDD boundaries, of which about 3,800 mining, electrical power generation, dairy/ acres are reported in cultivation. MVIDD does feedlot and golf course irrigation served by a not divert or deliver water to its water users. facility water system. If these use categories District farmers operate and maintain their are served by a municipal water system they are own production wells, pumps and distribution accounted for as municipal demand. Industrial systems (ADWR, 1998). demand is summarized in Table 4.0-14 for selected time-periods. Agricultural demand in the Lake Mohave Basin has increased substantially since the Mining is the largest industrial user in the planearly 1970s when less than 20,000 AFA was ning area, primarily due to activities at the used. Since 1990, annual agricultural demand Freeport McMoRan (formerly Phelps Dodge) has remained relatively constant, with up to Bagdad Mine in the Bill Williams Basin. Most 103,700 AFA used on average during the 1996- of the water used at the mine is pumped from 2000 time period. The increase is primarily due a series of wells along a 10-mile reach of the to Fort Mojave Indian agricultural water use. It Big Sandy River north of Wikieup in the Big is estimated that approximately 60-65% of the Sandy Basin, and delivered via pipeline to the total current irrigation demand is attributable to mine site. A relatively small volume of surface tribal irrigation. water (probably <500 AFA) from Francis Creek springs and wells in the vicinity of Bagdad may Section 4.0 Overview 52 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.0-14 4.0-12 Industrial in in selected years in Table Industrialdemand demand the Upper the Upper Colorado River Planning Area Colorado River Planning Area 1991-1995 Type 1996-2000 2001-2005 Water Use (acre-feet) Mining Total 16,740 Big Sandy Groundwater 16,200 Bill Willams Groundwater <300 Hualapai Valley Groundwater <300 Lake Havasu Groundwater 30 Lake Mohave Groundwater 60 Peach Springs Groundwater <300 Sacramento Valley Groundwater <300 Power Plant Total 0 Lake Mohave Surface Water 0 Sacramento Valley Groundwater 0 Golf Course Total 0 Lake Mohave Groundwater 0 Dairy/Feedlot Total 0 Sacramento Valley Groundwater 0 Source: ADWR 2008d, USGS 2007 17,800 16,610 16,800 15,600 <300 <300 <300 <300 130 70 site is recognized as the world’s first commercial-scale concentrate leach processing facility (beginning in 2003) and is the longest continuously operating SX/EW (solution extraction/ electrowinning) plant in the world (since 1970). Phelps Dodge Corporation acquired the property in 1999 from Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (Freeport McMoRan, 2007). The Mineral Park Mine, located in the Sacramento Valley Basin northwest of <300 <300 Kingman, operated a milling operation from 1964 to 1980 that produced a total 350 400 of 646.4 million pounds of copper, 46.8 0 4,900 million pounds of molybdenum and 5 0 3,700 million ounces of silver as concentrate. Milling operations ceased in 1980 due 0 1,200 to changes in ownership and low met440 530 als prices. Mercator Minerals Ltd. re440 530 cently acquired the property and plans 0 80 to increase copper production from the current level of approximately 6 mil0 80 lion pounds of copper per year through a phased expansion to include enlarging also be used at the mine site or provide water the existing SX/EW plant capacity and eventual for potable use in the company town of Bag- construction of a milling operation to process dad. The volume of water used at the mine is copper-molybdenum resources found at lower proprietary and recent estimates were based on depths (Mercator Minerals, 2005). Mercantor reported copper production and known process- Minerals commenced crushing and stacking ore ing methods. in late 2008 and shipped the first molybdenum concentrates from the mine in 2009 to a roasting Claims were first staked at the Bagdad Mine facility in Tucson (Reuters, 2009). Current waproperty in 1882 with open pit mining beginning ter use is about 220 AFA, delivered from Valley in 1945. Historically, mining operations were Pioneers Water Company. relatively small-scale due to the low grade copper ore. However, advances in ore processing have The only other mining activities in the planning resulted in increased copper production at the area are associated with small mines/quarries, site. Estimated water use has increased from principally sand and gravel operations in the approximately 2,000 AFA in the early 1970s Hualapai Valley, Lake Havasu, Lake Mohave and to an estimated 15,600 AFA on average. The Peach Springs basins. Some of these operations mine consists of a porphyry copper open-pit are identified on the cultural demand maps copper mine and concentrator. Molybdenum for these basins. Water is used for aggregate is a by-product of the mining operation. The washing, dust control, vehicle washing, and 70 53 90 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 equipment cooling. Typically, relatively little mation Project Act of 1939. Power generated from this power plant is marketed to wholesale water is consumed at these sites. customers in Arizona, Southern California, and Four power plants operate in the planning area. Southern Nevada after priority use power obThe hydroelectric plants at Hoover Dam and ligations have been met. Davis generation is Davis Dam in the Lake Mohave Basin are not the direct result of downstream irrigation needs. considered direct consumers of water so their Net power generation is about 969,000 MWh associated water demand is not included in (USBOR, 2005). Table 4.0-14. However, they are prominent industrial facilities in the planning area and are The South Point power plant is located on the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation in the Lake briefly described below. Mohave Basin. The 540-megawatt natural gasThe Hoover Dam and power plant were autho- fired plant with two gas-combustion turbines rized by the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 began operations in 2001. It is operated as a with electrical generation as one of its purposes. “merchant plant”, meaning that the energy The power plant generators are used primarily generated at the plant is sold on the open market. to generate a low-cost peaking resource. The The Fort Mojave Tribe has a 50-year lease with demand for Hoover power generation is sea- Calpine, an independent power company, for sonal, with the low-demand period in the winter both the site and the water that the plant uses. months, and is a direct function of river flow The average annual use during 2001-2005 was and downstream water demands. The power estimated at about 3,700 AFA of Fort Mojave plant generators operate in conjunction with Indian Colorado River entitlement water (BIA, the Davis and Parker power plants to provide 1998). maximum power generation with efficient use of water resources. The plant has a net genera- The 600-megawatt Griffith power plant, also tion capacity of more than 4,700,000 megawatt a merchant plant, is located about 15 miles hours (MWh) (USBOR, 2006b). Davis Dam southwest of Kingman. It began commercial was authorized under provisions of the Recla- operation in January 2002 and was sold in May, Bagdad Mine, Bill Williams Basin. Mining is the largest industrial water user in the planning area. Section 4.0 Overview 54 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 2006 to LS Power Equity Partners. An estimated 1,200 acre-feet of groundwater is used at the plant each year. Because of the relative remoteness of the area and its proximity to regional power grids, the Upper Colorado River Planning Area has become an attractive location for new power plants including solar and wind. As of May 2009 there were plans for four solar plants in the planning area. The two largest are a 340megawatt plant northwest of Kingman and a 200-megawatt facility south of Kingman. Two smaller facilities have been proposed in the South Point power plant, Lake Mohave Basin. Yucca area and in the Detrital Valley Basin. (Associated Press, 2009) 4.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area LS Power has proposed construction of a 175megawatt gas-fired peaking plant adjacent to Water resource issues have been identified in the Griffith plant. The source of water would be the Upper Colorado River Planning Area by a portion of the groundwater already allocated community watershed groups, through the to the Griffith plant through the Mohave distribution of surveys, and from other sources. County Water Authority. A 720-megawatt plant Planning and conservation efforts, watershed proposed in the Big Sandy Basin near Wikieup groups and studies and results from water was turned down by the Arizona Corporation provider surveys are discussed in this section. Commission (ACC) in November, 2001 primarily due to concerns about environmental Planning and Conservation impacts. It was the first plant to be denied a certificate by the ACC (ACC, 2001). Mohave County was the fastest growing county in Arizona between the 1990 and 2000 Census There are two “industrial” golf courses in the and proposed developments in the northwestern planning area, both located in the Lake Mohave part of the planning area are causing concerns Basin. Industrial courses receive at least about the availability of water supplies to meet some water from facility wells and not from a future needs. Mohave County has indicated it will municipal water provider. The Desert Lakes oppose developments without a demonstration Golf Club and El Rio Country Club (opened of adequate water supply although it has not in 2005) are considered industrial facilities. adopted the provision, authorized through Industrial groundwater demand was 530 AFA legislation in 2007 (SB 1575), that would during the period 2001-2005. The Riverview require a demonstration of adequacy. General Golf Club was an industrial facility but now and comprehensive plans and the water supply uses municipal effluent as shown in Table 4.0- plans mentioned in Section 4.0.5 help planning 12. area jurisdictions and water systems better prepare for the challenges associated with rapid A dairy operated in the Sacramento Valley from growth. 1947 to 2005. During that time, the dairy facility used about 76 acre-feet of groundwater a year. 55 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Lake Havasu City has had a water conservation plan for a number of years credited with reducing per capita water use. Components include an increasing block rate water rate structure, low water use landscape requirements for certain lot sizes, no-turf policy for commercial, industrial and multi-family property and effluent reuse (Lake Havasu City, 2006). The City of Bullhead City also has a water conservation program and has entered into subcontract agreements with the three water companies that serve water within the City to implement water conservation practices. Practices include turf restrictions, an incentive program to use reclaimed water and leak detection and repair. There is an incentive program to retrofit existing homes and commercial buildings with low-flow plumbing fixtures (USBOR, 2006c). The City also offers a Landscape Rebate Program to convert grass to low water use plants. Primary issues identified by the two groups are summarized as follows: Growth: • Large master-planned communities planned in Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley and Sacramento Valley basins as a result of completion (2010) of the bypass bridge across the Colorado River • Unregulated lot splits Water Supplies and Demand: • Limited groundwater data • Limited groundwater and Colorado River water supplies Legal: • Concerns regarding proposed development that may use Colorado River water Water Quality: • Concerns related to mining activities • Concerns regarding hexavalent chromium The Hualapai Tribe has adopted several ordinances to protect water resources including a Water Resource Ordinance to ensure water quality, a Wetlands Protection and Preservation Ordinance, and a Drought Contingency Plan that establishes drought declaration criteria and identifies response actions (Hualapai Tribe, 2007). Watershed Groups and Studies There are two groups in the planning area that have been formed to address a variety of water resource issues, the Northwest Arizona Water Council and the Mohave County Water Authority (MCWA). MCWA was organized pursuant to A.R.S.§ 45-2201 primarily for the purpose of acquiring the city of Kingman’s unused 18,500 acre-feet entitlement and making it available to other authority members for municipal and industrial water uses (see Section 4.0.6). A complete description of participants, activities and issues is found in Appendix D. Lake Havasu City. Section 4.0 Overview 56 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Funding: • Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure, and studies Drought: • Impacts on private water companies and water haulers • Vulnerability of surface and groundwater supplies Other: • Potential for subsidence due to rapid growth In addition, the large number of exempt wells and the lack of control or regulation of exempt wells have been identified as a concern in Mohave County. Related to this are the large number of “Legacy Lots”, formed many years ago in the Sacramento Valley basin that lack service from a water company and are served by private wells or hauled water. Hoover Dam bypass bridge under construction. There is concern in the planning area about large master-planned communities planned as a result of completion (2010) of the bypass bridge. ramento Valley Basin (Conway and Ivanich, 2008). In addition the USGS released a report in 2007 on groundwater occurrence, movement In response to concerns by local governments, and water level changes in all three basins (Anwater providers and citizens groups about the ning and others, 2007). impacts of groundwater development, the Department, in collaboration with the USGS and The Natural Resources Conservation Service with funding assistance from Mohave County, (NRCS) has produced a rapid watershed assessbegan conducting hydrogeologic investigations ment (RWA) for the Detrital Wash Watershed. in 2005 to improve the understanding of water An RWA is a concise report containing informaresources in three basins within the planning tion on natural resource conditions and concerns area; the Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley and at the 8-digit HUC level. They are intended to Sacramento Valley basins. These investigations provide sufficient information and analysis to will assess existing data collection networks generate an appraisal of the conservation needs and examine the current state of knowledge of of the watershed as well as serve other uses. the groundwater system; improve understand- (Reports are available online at http://www. ing of geologic units and their relationship to az.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/rwa.html). groundwater storage and movement; improve knowledge of groundwater budget factors in- Arizona NEMO (Non-point Education for cluding recharge and storage; evaluate ground- Municipal Officials) has produced a watershed water quality; establish a hydrologic monitoring based plan for the Bill Williams Watershed network for on-going assessment of the aquifer; that characterizes and classifies watershed and inform the hydrologic community and area features. The goal of NEMO is to educate residents about hydrologic conditions (USGS, land use decision makers to make choices and 2006). To date, several reports have been take actions that will lessen nonpoint source completed including preliminary estimates of pollution and protect natural resources. (Plans groundwater in storage for the Detrital Valley are available online at http://www.srnr.arizona. Basin (Mason and others, 2007) and the Sac- edu/nemo/). 57 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 As mentioned previously, all community water systems in Arizona are required to submit a water system plan as part of the State’s Drought Preparedness Plan. The system water plan includes a water supply plan, water conservation plan, and drought preparedness plan. Water providers are required to develop the plan to ensure they reduce their vulnerability to drought and prepare to respond to potential water shortage conditions. As part of implementation of the State Drought Plan, Local Drought Impact Groups (LDIGs) are being formed, as necessary, at the county level and a Mohave County group has been established. LDIGs are voluntary groups that will coordinate drought public awareness, provide impact assessment information to local and state leaders and implement and initiate local drought mitigation and response actions. These groups are coordinated by local representatives of Arizona Cooperative Extension and County Emergency Management and supported by ADWR’s Statewide Drought program. Information on LDIGs may be found at the department’s website. Issue Surveys The Department conducted a rural water resources survey in 2003 to compile information for the public and help identify the needs of growing communities. This survey was also intended to gather information on drought impacts for incorporation into the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, adopted in 2004. Questionnaires were sent to almost 600 water providers, jurisdictions, counties and tribes. The Department completed a report of the findings from the survey in 2004 (ADWR, 2004). There were 18 water provider and jurisdiction respondents in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area, and 11 numerically ranked issues. Respondents were asked to rank 18 issues. Insufficient future water supplies was the primary concern of most respondents as shown in Table 4.0-15. Infrastructure issues, which include aging infrastructure and inadequate capital to pay for infrastructure improvements, were ranked among the top five issues by many respondents. Table 4.0-15 Water resource issues ranked by survey respondents in the Upper Colorado River 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 Percent of 2003 respondents Percent of 2004 respondents that ranked issue as one of the reporting issue was a moderate top 5 (of 18) or major concern 27% 30% 9 26 18 13 64 35 45 39 Inadequate capital to pay for 36 44 infrastructure improvements Drought related water supply 18 39 problems Source: ADWR, 2004 Note: 2003 respondents consist of 10 water providers and 1 jurisdiction. 2004 respondents included 23 water providers Section 4.0 Overview 58 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 The Department conducted a second, more concise survey of water providers in 2004. This was done to supplement the information gathered in the previous year in support of developing the Arizona Water Atlas, and to reach a wider audience by directly contacting each water provider. Through this effort, 30 water providers in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area, with a total of approximately 69,000 service connections, were willing to participate and provide information on water supply, demand, infrastructure and to rank a list of seven issues. roads, counties and cities, towns and places in the groundwater basin. Sections 4.1 through 4.9 present data and maps on water resource characteristics of the fourteen groundwater basins in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. A description of the data sources and methods used to derive this information is found in Appendix A of Volume 1 of the Atlas. This section briefly describes general information that applies to all of the basins and the purpose of the information. This information is organized in the order in which the characteristics are discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.9. Surface Water Conditions Depending on physical and legal availability, surface water may be an important water supply in some basins. Stream gage, flood gage, reservoir, stockpond and runoff contour data provide information on physical availability of this supply. Seasonal flow information is relevant to seasonal supply availability. Annual flow volumes provide an indication of potential volumetric availability. Land Ownership The distribution and type of land ownership in a basin has implications for land and water use. Large amounts of private land typically translate into opportunities for land development and associated water demand, whereas public lands are typically maintained for a specific purpose or multi-use with little associated water use. State owned land may be sold or traded, and is often leased for grazing and farming. The State Enabling Act of 1910 and the Act that Water providers were asked to rank issues from 0 established the Territory of Arizona in 1863 set to 3 with 0 = no concern, 1 = minor concern, 2 = aside sections 2, 16, 32 and 36 in each township moderate concern and 3 = major concern. Of the to be held in trust by the state for specified 30 water providers that responded to this survey, purposes, which are identified for each basin 23 ranked issues. Although responses to the 2003 (ASLD, 2006). questionnaire are not directly comparable to the 2004 survey due to differences in the form and Climate wording of the surveys, responses indicate that Climate data including temperature, rainfall, concerns regarding inadequate supplies to meet evaporation rates and snowfall are critical future demands and infrastructure problems components of water resource planning and rank high among all respondents. management. Averages and year to year variability, seasonality of precipitation and long4.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Re- term trends are all important factors in demand source Characteristics and supply planning. Criteria for including stream gage stations in the basin table are that there is at least one year Geographic Features of record, and annual streamflow statistics are Geographic feature maps are included to provide included only if there are at least three years of general orientation to principal land features, record. There are different types of stations and 59 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 those that only serve repeater functions were well yields including well design, pump size not included. and condition and the age of the well. Reported well yields are only a general indicator of Flood gage information is presented to direct aquifer productivity and specific information is the reader to areas where flooding has been available from well measurements conducted as or may be a problem. Large reservoir storage part of basin investigations. information includes data on the amount of surface water stored in large reservoirs, its Natural recharge is typically the least well uses and ownership. The number and capacity known component of a water budget. Many of small reservoirs is also provided as well as of the estimates in the Atlas are derived from the number of stockponds in each basin. The studies of larger geographic areas and all number of stockponds is a general indicator of deserve further study. Similarly, estimates small-scale surface water capture and livestock of storage are based on rough estimates and demand. Runoff contours reflect the average considerably more studies are needed in most annual runoff that can be expected in tributary basins. Components of storage include aquifer streams over a particular area. depth and specific yield. Perennial and Intermittent Streams and Major Springs A map of perennial and intermittent streams is provided for each basin. For some basins, more than one source of information was used. Stream designations may not reflect current conditions in some cases. Spring data was compiled from a number of sources in an effort to develop as comprehensive a list as possible. Spring data is important to many researchers and to the environmental community due to their importance in maintaining habitat, even from small discharges. Water level data is from measured wells, usually collected during the period when the wells were not actively being pumped or only minimally pumped. Depth to water measurements are shown on mapped wells if there was a measurement taken during 2003-2004. The basin hydrographs show water-level trends for selected wells over the 30-year period from January 1975 to January 2005. Not all basins have a sufficient number of representative hydrographs. The flow directions that are shown generally reflect long-term, regional aquifer flow in the basin and are not meant to depict temporary or Groundwater Conditions local-scale conditions. However, flow directions Several indicators of groundwater conditions in some basins indicate how localized pumping are presented for the basin. Aquifer type can be has altered regional flow patterns. a general indicator of aquifer storage potential, accessibility of the supply, aquifer productivity, Water Quality water quality and aquifer flux. Well yield infor- Water quality conditions impact the availability mation for large diameter wells is provided and of water supplies. Water quality data was is generally measured when the well is drilled compiled from a variety of sources as described and reported on completion reports. It was as- in Volume 1, Appendix A. The data indicate sumed that large diameter wells were drilled areas where water quality exceedences have to produce a maximum amount of water and, previously occurred, however additional areas of therefore, their reported pump capacities are in- concern may currently exist where water quality dicative of the aquifer’s potential to yield wa- samples have not been collected or sample ter to a well. However, many factors can affect results were not reviewed by the Department Section 4.0 Overview 60 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 (e.g. samples collected in conjunction with the ADEQ Aquifer Protection Permit programs). It is important to note also that the exceedences presented may or may not reflect current aquifer or surface water conditions. Briefly, developers of subdivisions outside of AMAs are required to obtain a determination of whether there is sufficient water of adequate quality available for 100 years. If the supply is determined to be inadequate, lots may still be sold, but the condition of the water supply must Cultural Water Demand be disclosed in promotional materials and in Cultural water demand is an important compo- sales documents. nent of a water budget. However, without mandatory metering and reporting of water uses, In addition to these subdivision determinations accurate demand data is difficult to acquire. for which a water adequacy report is issued, Municipal demand includes water company and water providers may apply for adequacy domestic (self-supplied) demand estimates. Ba- designations for their entire service area. If a sin demand information is from several sources subdivision is to be served water from one of in order to prepare as accurate an estimate as these water providers, then a separate adequacy possible. Annual demand estimates have been determination is not required. (See Section averaged over a specific time period. This pro- 4.0-5) vides general trend information without focusing on potentially inaccurate annual demand es- Developers of large, master-planned communitimates due to incomplete data. ties outside of AMAs may apply for an Analysis Locations of major cultural water uses are of Adequate Water Supply (AAWS). This type primarily from a 2004 USGS land cover study of application is generally used to prove that wausing older satellite imagery that may not ter will be physically available for the masterrepresent recent changes. The cultural demand planned community. AAWS are issued based maps provide only general information about on the development plan or plat. If an AAWS the location of water users. is issued for groundwater, it reserves a specific volume of water for 10 years (for purposes of Effluent generation data was compiled from further adequacy reviews) only for the specific several sources to provide an estimate of how property that is the subject of the AAWS. much of this renewable resource might be available for use. However, effluent reuse is often difficult both logistically and economically since a potential user may be far from the wastewater treatment plant. Water Adequacy Determinations Information on water adequacy and inadequacy determinations for subdivisions, with the reason for the inadequacy determination provides information on the number and status of subdivision lots. Listing the reason for the inadequacy identifies which subdivisions have a demonstrated physical or legal lack of water or may have elected not to provide the necessary information to the Department. 61 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 REFERENCES 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. Anning, D.W., M. Truini, M. Flynn and W. Remick, 2007, Ground-Water Occurrence and Movement, 2006, and Water-Level Changes in the Detrital, Hualapai, and Sacramento Valley Basins, Mohave County, Arizona, Prepared in cooperation with the Arizona \ Department of Water Resources. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5182 Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Fort Mojave Tribal Utilities Authority Annual Report. _____, 2001, “Big Sandy Doesn’t Fly” ACC press release, November 26, 2001. Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC), 2007, July 1, 2006 Population Estimates for Arizona’s Counties, Incorporated Places and Balance of County. _____, 2006, 2006-2055 Population Projections: Accessed March 2009 at http://www. azcommerce.com/EconInfo/Demographics/Population+Projections.htm Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2006a, Active DOD, Superfund, WQARF, and LUST contamination sites in Arizona: GIS cover, received February 2006. _____, 2006b, Brownfield Tracking System: Accessed June 2006 at www.azdeq.gov/ databases/ brownsearch.html. _____, 2005, Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Meadview Basin: A 2000-2003 Baseline Study-January 2005 _____, 2002, The Status of Water Quality in Arizona - 2002: Volume I. Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. ______, 1999, Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Sacramento Valley Basin: An ADEQ 1999 Baseline Study. Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2008a, Instream flow applications, 08/2008 _____, 2008b, Databases of Assured and adequate water supply determination: ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply. _____, 2008c, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. Section 4.0 Overview 62 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 _____, 2008d, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Aeas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2007, Cultural Water Demand in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area: Unpublished analysis by Office of Resource Assessment Planning _____, 2005, Agricultural surface water use estimates: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2004, Rural Water Resources Study-Rural Water Resources 2003 Questionnaire Report. _____, 1998 Water Service Organizations in Arizona. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I Inventory and Analysis. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2008, Arizona Heritage Data Management System, accessed in 2008 at: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2006, Land Ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html Arizona State Land Department, 2006, Historical overview-Land Grant and Designation of Beneficiaries: Accessed February 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/history.htm. Associated Press, 2009, “Mohave County getting 4th solar-power plant,” Arizona Daily Star, May 14, 2009. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2008, Arizona Wilderness Areas: Accessed September 2008 at www.blm.gov/az/wildarea.htm Brown, D.E. ed., 1982, Biotic Communities of the Southwest-United States and Mexico, Special Issue of Desert Plants, Volume 4. Numbers 1-4, Published by the University of Arizona for the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum. Browne and Lowe, 1980, Biotic Communities of the Southwest: GIS cover. Cady, C.C., 1981, Map Showing Ground-water Conditions in the Big Sandy Area, Yavapai and Mohave Counties, Arizona - -1980. ADWR Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 5 Calpine, 2001, “Calpines’s South Point Energy Center Enters Full Operations”, press release June 2001: Accessed January 2007 at www.Calpine.com 63 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Cart, J., 2007, “The Grand Canyon’s precarious perch”, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 14, 2007. City of Kingman, 2007, City of Kingman System Water Plan _____, 2003, City of Kingman General Plan 2020, Chapter 7: Water Resources Element. Conway, B. and Ivanich, P., 2008, Preliminary Estimate of Groundwater in Storage for the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, Mohave County, Arizona; ADWR Open-File Report Number 10 Environmental Law Institute, 2002, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50 State Study, 2001 Update. Fenneman, N.M. and D.W. Johnson, 1946, Physiographic divisions of the conterminous U. S.: GIS cover. Hualapai Tribe, 2007, Hualapai Department of Natural Resources: Accessed January 2007 at www.hualapai.org Intertribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), 2003, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe: Accessed January 2007 at www.itcaonline.com Lake Havasu City, 2006, Water System Plan Draft Lake Havasu City, Arizona Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2006, System Water Plan-Phelps Dodge Bagdad, Inc. Utilities Department, Phelps Dodge Corporation Mason, D.A., P.A. Ivanich, B.D. Conway, J.A. Kurtz and M.T. Winn, 2007, Preliminary Estimate of Ground Water in Storage for the Detrital Valley Ground-water Basin, Mohave County, Arizona. Open-File Report Number 9. Mercator Minerals, LTD., 2005, Mercator announces plans to maximize copper production at its Mineral Park Mine in Arizona: Accessed January 2007 at http://www.mercatominerals. com Myers, S.M., 1987, Map Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Peach Springs Basin, Mohave, Coconino, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona - -1987; ADWR Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 15 National Atlas of the United States, 2005, Federal Lands: GIS cover accessed in 2008 at http:// nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html NEMO (Non-point Education for Municipal Officials), 2005, NEMO Watershed Based Plan for the Bill Williams Watershed. Section 4.0 Overview 64 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 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 51:933-938 Phelps Dodge Corporation, 2007, About Us, History and More: Accessed January 2007 at www. phelpsdodge.com Reynolds, S.J., 1988, Geologic Map of Arizona: Arizona Geologic Survey Map 26. Reuters, 2009, Mercator Minerals Ships First Molybdenum Concentrates From the Mineral Park Mine, March 9, 2009: Accessed April, 2009 at http://www.reuters.com Seaber, P.R., F.P. Kapinos and G.L. Knapp, 1987, Hydrologic Unit Maps; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, 63 pp. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 1998, Southpoint Power Plant Project Environmental Impact Statement, BIA EIS 98-25; Final dated November 1998. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR), 2008, Rule-making Associated with Regulating the Use of Lower Colorado River Water Without an Entitlement: Accessed April, 2009 at http:// www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/unlawfuluse.html _____, 2007a, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated operations for Lakes Powell and Mead. _____, 2007b, Lower Colorado River Water Delivery Contracts Entitlements Listing: Accessed January 2007 at www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/contracts/entitlements.html _____, 2007c, Annual Operating Plan for Colorado River Reservoirs, 2008. _____, 2006b, Hoover Dam Power Plant: Accessed February 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov _____, 2006c, City of Bullhead City Water Conservation Plan, Bullhead City, Arizona /power/data/sites/hoover/hoover.html _____, 2005, Davis Dam Power Plant: Accessed February 2007 at http://www.usbr.gov /power/data/sites/davis/davis.html U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, on-line data files: Accessed January 2006 at www.census.gov U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI), 2007, Record of Decision Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead Final Environmental Impact Statement 65 Section 4.0 Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 _____, 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/ endangered species/lists/default.cfm. _____, 2002, Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge: Accessed December 2006 at www. fws.gov/southwest/refuges/arizona/billwill.html. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 2000-2006: Data file received November 2007. _____, 2006, Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Detrital, Hualapai and Sacramento Valleys of Northwestern Arizona: A Project of the Rural Watershed Initiative (Fact Sheet 20063008). _____, 2005, 1:2,000,000-Scale Hydrologic Unit Boundaries: GIS Cover, accessed in 2007 at http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html?openChapters=chpwater#chpwater Valley Pioneers Water Company (VPWC), 2007, Valley Pioneers Water Company System Water Plan 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, 462 pp. Section 4.0 Overview 66 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 67 Section 4.0 Overview Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 68 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.1.1 Geography of the Big Sandy Basin The Big Sandy Basin, located in the east central part of the planning area, is the second largest basin at 1,988 square miles. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 4.1-1. The basin is characterized by a large valley and mid-elevation mountain ranges and plateaus. Vegetation types include Arizona upland Sonoran desertscrub, Plains and Great Basin and semidesert grasslands, interior chaparral, Rocky Mountain and madrean montane forest and Great Basin conifer woodland (see Figure 4.0-9). Riparian vegetation is found along some streams and includes cottonwood/willow, mesquite and tamarisk along the Big Sandy River and mesquite, cottonwood/willow and mixed broadleaf along sections of Trout Creek. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 4.1-1 are: o Big Sandy River running north to south through Cane Springs and Wikieup o Hackberry Wash south of Valentine o Trout Creek, a major tributary to the Big Sandy River, flowing east to west in the middle of the basin o The Aquarius Mountains east of the Big Sandy River o The Cottonwood Mountains south of Valentine o The Hualapai Mountains along the western boundary of the basin, which contains the highest point in the basin and planning area, Hualapai Peak at 8,417 feet. o The lowest point in the basin, about 1,650 feet, is south of Wikieup where the Big Sandy River exits the basin 69 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 70 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.1.2 Land Ownership in the Big Sandy Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Big Sandy Basin is shown in Figure 4.1-2. A principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large amount of private and federal lands interspersed with state trust lands creating a checkerboard pattern. For a discussion of how this land pattern was created see section 4.0.9. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 4.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. Private • 40.6% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land is interspersed with state trust, national forest and BLM lands. • There are a number of larger parcels of private land along the northeastern, northwestern and southeastern basin boundaries. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, ranching and farming. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 29.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Kingman Field Office of the BLM. • All BLM lands are located in the western portion of the basin. • Primary land uses are grazing and recreation. State Trust Land • 28.5% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools and seven other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • The majority of the state trust land occurs in a checkerboard pattern interspersed with private and federal land. Larger contiguous portions of state trust land are found in the northern portion of the basin. • Primary land use is grazing. National Forest • 0.9% of the land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • All forest lands in the basin are part of the Prescott National Forest. • All forest lands are intermingled with private land. • Land uses include grazing, timber production and recreation. Indian Reservation • 0.2% of the land is under ownership of the Hualapai Tribe. • Tribal lands are located in a small strip along Highway 93 north of Wikieup and around Valentine. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and grazing. 71 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.1% of the land is owned and managed by Mohave County as the Hualapai Mountain Park, located in T20N, R15W on the western basin boundary. • Primary land use is recreation. Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 72 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 73 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.1.3 Climate of the Big Sandy Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations are complied in Table 4.1-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 4.1-3. Figure 4.1-3 also shows precipitation data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Big Sandy Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 4.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 4.1-1A • There are two NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July at both stations and ranges between 86.4°F at Wikieup to 80.5°F at Truxton Canyon. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January and ranges between 48.4°F at Wikieup to 40.9°F at Truxton Canyon. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the winter (January - March) at the Wikieup station, while the Truxton Canyon station reports comparable precipitation in the summer (July-September) and winter. For the period of record, the highest annual rainfall is 11.56 inches at Truxton Canyon and the lowest is 9.88 inches at Wikieup. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 4.1-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 22 inches at the southeastern-most tip of the basin (T18N, R7W) in the Juniper Mountains and as low as eight inches in the areas south of Wikieup and north of Valentine. Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 74 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.1-1 Climate Data for the Big Sandy Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Truxton Canyon 3,820 1948-1980 1 80.5/Jul 40.9/Jan 3.87 1.34 Wikieup 2,010 1971-2000 86.4/Jul 48.4/Jan 4.34 0.69 Station Name Average Temperature Range (in F) Max/Month Min/Month Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 3.86 2.48 11.56 2.75 2.10 9.88 Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Avg. Annual Evap Record Used for (in inches) Averages None C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan Feb March April May June None 75 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 76 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Big Sandy Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 4.1-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 4.1-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 4.1-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 4.1-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 4.1-2. • Data from two stations on two watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 4.1-4. One station has been discontinued and the other is a real-time station. • The average seasonal flow is highest in the summer (July-September) and lowest in the spring (April-June) and the fall (October-December). • Maximum annual flow in the basin was 8,326 acre-feet in 1976 at the Cottonwood Wash station and minimum annual flow was 22 acre-feet in 2002 at the Truxton Wash station. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 4.1-3. • As of October 2005 there were four stations in the basin, all in Mohave County. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 4.1-4. • The basin contains one large reservoir with a maximum capacity of 2,284 acre-feet which is used for fire protection or as a stock or farm pond. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in 10 small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 426 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 4.1-4. • Average annual runoff is one inch per year, or 53.5 acre-feet per square mile, in the in the south-central portion of the basin near Cow Creek decreasing to 0.1 inches, or 5.35 acrefeet per square mile, to the north and west. 77 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.1-2 Streamflow Data for the Big Sandy Basin Drainage Area (in mi2) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Truxton Wash near Valentine 380 3,770 Cottonwood Wash No. 1 near Kingman 143 4,545 Station Number USGS Station Name 9404343 9424200 Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Years of Annual Flow Record Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 3/1993-current (real time) 26 8 61 5 22 (2002) 543 875 2,527 (1995) 9 2/1964-9/1978 (discontinued) 37 7 44 12 601 (1975) 2,867 3,026 8,326 (1976) 13 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 Table 4.1-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Big Sandy Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 1570 Hualapai Mountain Weather Station NA Mohave County FCD 1580 Cedar Hills Precipitation NA Mohave County FCD 7640 Greenwood Village Precipitation NA Mohave County FCD 7650 Wikieup Weather Station NA Mohave County FCD Source: ADWR 2005b Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Information is not available to ADWR at this time Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 78 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.1-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Big Sandy Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Lake Mary (Oro Ranch Dam) Private 2,284 P State USE JURISDICTION Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)2 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 3 Total maximum storage: 492 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)2 Total number: 7 Total surface area: 92 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 426 (from water right filings) Notes: P=fire protection, stock or farm pond 2 Capacity data not available to ADWR 1 79 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 80 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Big Sandy Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 4.1-5. The locations of major springs as well as perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 4.1-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • There are five perennial streams located in the basin, Cottonwood Creek, Willow Creek, Fort Rock Creek, Trout Creek and the Big Sandy River. Numerous intermittent streams are located throughout the basin with a relatively large emanating from the western basin boundary. There are six major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge is 1,600 gpm at an unnamed spring near the Big Sandy River south of Cane Springs. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 4.1-5B. There are 11 minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. All of the measurements were taken during or prior to 1982. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 165 to 179, depending on the database reference. 81 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.1-5 Springs in the Big Sandy Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Discharge Location Latitude Longitude (in gpm)1 345407 1133724 1,600 Map Key Name 1 Unnamed2 2 2 344002 1133513 400 8/20/1980 2 352325 1133920 400 10/1/1943 2 352505 1133830 330 During or prior to 1943 344144 1133423 200 During or prior to 1982 352159 1133713 10 During or prior to 1964 3 4 5 6 Unnamed Valentine Unnamed Cofer Hot Unnamed 2 Date Discharge Measured 8/21/1980 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Unnamed2 Unnamed Discharge Location Latitude Longitude (in gpm)1 352350 1134039 5 Date Discharge Measured 1/1965 352340 1134034 5 1/1965 Unnamed 352420 1133930 3 1/1965 Unnamed 352013 1134342 3 1/1965 Unnamed 352354 1133814 3 1/1965 Unnamed 352232 1134101 3 1/1965 Unnamed 352230 1134159 3 1/1965 Unnamed 352301 1133740 2 1/1965 Unnamed 352827 1134217 2 During or prior to 1965 Cane 345524 1133950 1 6/1/1980 Unnamed 352311 1133955 1 2/1965 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 165 to 179 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 1 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 82 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 83 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Big Sandy Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 4.1-6. Figure 4.1-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 4.1-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 4.1-6. Figure 4.1-8 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 4.1-6 and Figure 4.1-6. • Major aquifers in the basin include recent stream alluvium, basin fill and sedimentary rock (R Aquifer). • This basin contains two sub-basins, Wikieup and Fort Rock. • Flow direction is generally from the north to the south. Well Yields • Refer to Table 4.1-6 and Figure 4.1-8. • As shown on Figure 4.1-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to greater than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 87 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 300 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 4.1-6. • The estimated natural recharge for this basin is 22,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 4.1-6. • Storage estimates range from 9.5 million acre-feet (maf) to 21 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 4.1-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 18 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for four of these wells are shown in Figure 4.1-7. • The deepest recorded water level in the basin is 488 feet near the northeastern basin boundary and the shallowest is 15 feet south of Wikieup. Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 84 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.1-6 Groundwater Data for the Big Sandy Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 1,988 Name and/or Geologic Units Recent Stream Alluvium Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Sedimentary Rock (R Aquifer) 6.6 (1 well measured) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Range 1-2,250 Median 300 (87 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 30-1,000 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0-500 Anning and Duet (1994) 22,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 9,500,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990) 10,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 21,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 18 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2008 (104 wells measured) Notes: Predevelopment Estimate 1 85 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 86 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Figure 4.1-7 Big Sandy Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 50 A WELL DEPTH: 150 ft USE: UNUSED recent stream alluvium B-23-13 19DCB 100 150 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 1975 450 500 350 400 0 B 1985 WELL DEPTH : 1104 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 C 2005 R-aquifer B-22-08 15CCB 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-21-13 24BCD WELL DEPTH: 404 ft USE: STOCK 1975 D 1995 1995 1985 2005 recent stream alluvium B-16-13 36CCC WELL DEPTH: 15 ft USE: DOMESTIC 50 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 87 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 88 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.1.7 Water Quality of the Big Sandy Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 4.1-7A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 4.1-9 shows the location of exceedences keyed to Table 4.17A. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 4.1-7A. • Sixty-four sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • Frequently equaled or exceeded parameters include radionuclides, fluoride and lead • Other parameters commonly equaled or exceeded in the sites measured in this basin were arsenic, antimony, beryllium and cadmium. 89 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.1-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Big Sandy Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard2 24 North 24 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 22 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 16.5 North 16.5 North 16.5 North 16.5 North 16.5 North 16.5 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 14 West 13 West 13 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 11 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 13 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 15 West 12 West 13 West 13 West 14 West 15 West 15 West 9 West 11 West 11 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 14 West 14 West 14 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 15 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 5 5 19 20 29 35 34 30 15 24 29 29 29 29 18 13 28 32 34 35 25 1 17 19 35 9 8 16 10 14 23 9 3 27 2 25 25 30 11 25 31 2 14 22 23 26 31 22 22 27 27 34 25 3 3 9 10 10 22 25 27 27 36 36 Rad Rad As As, Pb As Pb As F F As, F F, Pb As, F As, F As Rad Rad Rad Rad Rad Rad Rad Sb, As, F, Rad Rad Be, Cd, F Rad Rad Rad Rad F Rad F Cd As As F Rad As F F As As, Rad As, Pb As, Pb F Pb Pb As Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb As Pb Pb Rad F Pb As As, F As As F As, F Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Spring Well Spring Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Designated Use Standard Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 2 Section 4.1 Most water quality samples collected between 1980 and 2004. Sb = Antimony As = Arsenic Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium F= Fluoride Pb = Lead Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Big Sandy Basin 90 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 91 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.1.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Big Sandy Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 4.1-8. There are no wastewater treatment plants in this basin. Figure 4.1-10 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 4.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 4.1-8 and Figure 4.1-10. • Population in this basin is relatively small but has almost tripled since 1980, increasing from 434 in 1980 to 1,142 in 2000. • All water use in this basin is groundwater. Groundwater demand has increased, with an average of 2,500 AFA in 1971-1975 to an average of approximately 15,900 AFA in 20012005. • Αgricultural demand is minimal, with less than 300 AFA from 1991-2005. Agricultural demand centers are small acreages located south of Cane Springs and south of Wikieup along Highway 93. • Municipal groundwater demand is also minimal in this basin, with less than 300 AFA on average. Municipal demand centers are located in the vicinity of Wikieup and at Cane Springs along Highway 93. • There is significant industrial groundwater demand in this basin. 15,600 AFA on average during 2001-2005 was pumped and transported via pipeline to the Bagdad Mine in the Bill Williams Basin. • As of 2005 there were 1,240 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 222 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 92 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.1-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Big Sandy Basin1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Number of Registered Estimated Water Supply Wells Drilled and Projected Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm 2 420 434 445 456 467 479 490 501 512 523 534 546 605 665 725 784 844 903 963 1,023 1,082 1,142 1,198 1,254 1,311 1,367 1,423 1,704 2,166 2,541 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Municipal Industrial 2 Surface-Water Diversions Agricultural Municipal Industrial 2,500 NR 7,000 NR Agricultural Data Source 2 155 ADWR (1994a) 80 5 10,000 NR 76 22 14,400 NR 112 9 <300 16,200 3 <300 NR 3 NR 3 NR 246 16 <300 16,800 <300 306 15 <300 15,600 <300 1,240 222 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) Notes: NR = Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs, or effluent. 2 Groundwater withdrawn in the Big Sandy Basin is delivered to the Bill Williams Basin for industrial use at the Bagdad Mine. 3 Agricultural water use in this basin is based on ADWR registered wells used for agricultural purposes. 93 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 94 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Big Sandy Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 4.1-9. Figure 4.1-11 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • All lots receiving an adequacy determination are in Mohave County. Four water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through December 2008. Data on the number of lots with an adequate determination was not available to the Department. Three determinations of inadequacy with a total of 608 lots have been made; all located in the northern portion of the basin. All inadequacy determinations were because the applicant chose not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination. 95 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.1-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Big Sandy Basin1 Location Map Key 1 2 3 4 Subdivision Name Greenwood Village # 1 County Mohave Mountain Shadow Estates Mohave Tract 3806 Orchards, The Tract Mohave 3800 Silverado Acre Estates Mohave Unit 1, Tract 3805 No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Township Range Section 22 North 12 West 29, 30, 31, 32 214.0 52-300043 Inadequate A1 08/23/95 Dry Lot Subdivision 20 North 14 West 8 54.0 52-400466 Inadequate A1 02/20/01 Subdivision wells 16 North 13 West 27 NA NA Adequate 08/31/92 Dry Lot Subdivision 20 North 13 West 17 340.0 52-300264 Inadequate 02/13/97 Dry Lot Subdivision A1 Source: ADWR 2008a Notes: 1 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. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA= Data not currently available to ADWR Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 96 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 97 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Big Sandy Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2004a, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) ______, 2004b, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. (Cultural Water Demand Map) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply determinations: Database, ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply. ______, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2007, Cultural Water Demands in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. ______, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. ______, 2005c, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2005d, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005e, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005f, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005g, Wells55: Database. ______, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. ______, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. ______, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. ______, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index. html. Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 98 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 ______, 2005c, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 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 Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) O 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. U U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/ webpages/nid.cfm (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu / swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. 99 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Supplemental Reading Andersen, M., 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Cady, C.V., 1981, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Big Sandy Area, Yavapai and Mohave Counties, Arizona: ADWR Hydrologic Map Series No. 5. Fielding, G., 2001, A groundwater reconnaissance survey of the Sacramento Valley, Big Sandy Valley, Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley and the Meadview watershed: University of Arizona, 7 p. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County general plan: Mohave County draft report, 204 p. Hirschboeck, K.K., 2004, Using tree rings to determine the long-term record of synchronous extreme stream flow episodes in the Salt-Verde and Upper Colorado River basins: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson, Arizona. Klawon, J.E., 2000, Hydrology and geomorphology of the Santa Maria and Big Sandy Rivers and Burro Creek in western Arizona: AZGS Open File Report 00-02. Manera, P., 2000, Water Resources of the Southern Portion of the Big Sandy Valley, Wikieup, Mohave County, Arizona, Submitted by Caithness Big Sandy, LLC. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406C, 87 p. Towne, D.C., 2006, Ambient groundwater quality of the Big Sandy Basin: A 2003-2004 baseline study, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Open File Report 06-09, 66p. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Mohave County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. URS, 2001, Groundwater Technical Report Prepared for Big Sandy Energy Project, URS Job No. 68-00044533.00. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2001, Big Sandy Energy Project Environmental Impact Statement, April 2001. Webb, R.H., S.A. Leake, and R.M. Turner, 2007, The Ribbon of Green: Change in Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States, University of Arizona Press. Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin 100 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 101 Section 4.1 Big Sandy Basin Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 102 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.2.1 Geography of the Bill Williams Basin The Bill Williams Basin is the largest basin in the planning area at 3,350 square miles and occupies the entire southern portion of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 4.2-1. The basin is characterized by hilly terrain in much of the basin and by several major river drainages. There is a range of vegetation types including Arizona upland and Lower Colorado River Sonoran desertscrub, Mohave desertscrub, semi-desert grassland, interior chaparral, Great Basin conifer woodland and montane conifer forest. (see Figure 4.0-9) Riparian vegetation is found along streams including cottonwood/willow, mesquite and tamarisk along the Bill Williams, Big Sandy and Santa Maria Rivers and mesquite, cottonwood/willow and mixed broadleaf along sections of Burro Creek • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 4.2-1 are: o Alamo Lake east of Swansea o A short segment of the Colorado River at the California border, with the lowest point in the basin, approximately 470 feet. o The Bill Williams River flowing from east to west along the La Paz County/Mohave County boundary and its major tributary, the Santa Maria River o Burro Creek in the north central part of the basin o Kirkland Creek in the southeastern part of the basin o Buckskin Mountains in La Paz County o Poachie Range in the middle of the Basin o Black Mountains, including Tres Alamos Peak, west of highway 93 in Yavapai County o Bill Williams Mountains on the western boundary of the basin o The highest point in the basin is Weaver Peak at 6,514 feet northwest of Peeples Valley 103 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 104 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.2.2 Land Ownership in the Bill Williams Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Bill Williams Basin is shown in Figure 4.2-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large amounts of contiguous U.S. Bureau of Land Management and state trust lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 4.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 46.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Lake Havasu Field Office and the Kingman Field Office of the BLM. • The majority of the BLM lands are contiguous and located in the western portion of the basin. • The basin contains six BLM wilderness areas totaling 227,510 acres. The wilderness areas are: the 38,470-acre Rawhide Mountains Wilderness, the 16,400-acre Swansea Wilderness, the 129,800 acre Arrastra Mountain Wilderness located in Mohave, Yavapai, and La Paz counties north of Alamo Lake; the 8,300-acre Tres Alamos Wilderness, the 15,400-acre Aubrey Peak Wilderness and the 27,440-acre Upper Burro Creek Wilderness (see Figure 4.0-12). • Primary land uses are recreation and grazing. State Trust Land • 30.5% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools and five other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • The majority of the state land is contiguous and occurs in the eastern portion of the basin. Smaller portions of state land are also found interspersed with BLM land in the western portion of the basin. • This basin contains the largest percentage of state land in the planning area. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 14.8% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land is interspersed throughout state trust, national forest and BLM lands. • There are a number of larger parcels of private land in the southeastern portion of the basin around the towns of Skull Valley, Kirkland and Peeples Valley and along the northern basin boundary. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, ranching and farming. National Forest • 7.6% of the land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • All forest lands in the basin are part of the Prescott National Forest and are located along the northeastern basin boundary. Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 105 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 • Land uses include grazing, timber production and recreation. U.S. Military • 0.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control. The land is also managed by the Arizona State Parks for recreation. • All military lands are located around the boundary between La Paz County and Mohave County and include Alamo Lake. • Primary land uses are flood control and recreation. Wildlife Refuge • 0.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. • All lands are within the Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge. • Primary land uses are wildlife conservation and recreation. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation. • All lands are located in T11N, R17W adjacent to the Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge. • Primary land use is unknown. 106 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 107 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.2.3 Climate of the Bill Williams Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations are complied in Table 4.2-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 4.2-3. Figure 4.2-3 also shows precipitation data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Bill Williams Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 4.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 4.2-1A • There are four NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July and ranges between 78.3°F at Hillside 4 NNE and 92.5°F at Alamo Dam. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January or December and ranges between 41.3°F at Bagdad 8 NE and 50.6°F at Alamo Dam. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the winter (January - March), summer (July – September) or fall (October-December). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 15.84 inches per year at the Hillside 4 NNE station and the lowest is 8.59 inches per year at Alamo Dam. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 4.2-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 24 inches northeast of Skull Valley approaching Granite Mountain, elevation 7,626 and as low as four inches in the western portion of the basin along the Bill Williams River. • This basin contains the largest range of average annual rainfall in the planning area with 20 inches separating areas of highest and lowest precipitation. Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 108 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.2-1 Climate Data for the Bill Williams Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Max/Month Min/Month Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Alamo Dam 1,290 1971-2000 92.5/Jul 50.6/Dec 3.01 0.50 3.05 2.03 8.59 Bagdad 3,710 1971-2000 82.5/Jul 46.1/Jan 6.35 1.19 4.84 3.34 15.72 Bagdad 8 NE 4,240 1950-1975 1 78.5/Jul 41.3/Jan 4.41 1.43 4.04 5.27 15.14 Hillside 4 NNE 3,320 1971-2000 78.3/Jul 42.4/Dec, Jan 5.92 1.35 5.04 3.53 15.84 Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Avg. Annual Evap Record Used for (in inches) Averages None C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan Feb March April May June None 109 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 110 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Bill Williams Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 4.2-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 4.2-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 4.2-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 4.2-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 4.2-2. • Data from ten stations on seven watercourses are shown in the table and on Figure 4.2-4. Five stations have been discontinued, the remaining five are real-time stations. • The average seasonal flow for all stations is highest in the winter (January-March) and lowest in the fall (October-December). • Maximum annual flow in this basin was 701,711 acre-feet in 1993 at the Bill Williams station below Alamo Dam and minimum annual flow was 0 acre-feet in 1942 at the Date Creek station. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 4.2-3. • As of October 2005 there were four stations in the basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 4.2-4. • The basin contains two large reservoirs. The largest is Alamo Lake, with a maximum capacity of 1,409,000 acre-feet, although normal capacity is less than 500 acre-feet. Uses include flood control and recreation. Lake Havasu, created by Parker Dam in the Parker Basin, has a maximum capacity of 651,000 acre-feet. Storage for this reservoir is primarily in the Lake Havasu and Sacramento Basins. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in 19 small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 796 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 4.2-4. • Average annual runoff is one inch per year, or 53.3 acre-feet per square mile, in the north and center of the basin and decreases to 0.1 inches, or 5.33 acre-feet per square mile, in the southwestern portion of the basin. Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 111 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.2-2 Streamflow Data for the Bill Williams Basin Station Number USGS Station Name Drainage Area 2 (in mi ) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record 9424432 Francis Creek near Bagdad 134 3,260 9424447 Burro Creek at Old US 93 Bridge near Bagdad 611 9424450 Big Sandy River near Wikieup 9424470 Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Years of Annual Flow Record Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 12/1984-9/1993 (discontinued) 90 4 4 3 1,571 (1989) 6,918 7,145 13,176 (1992) 4 1,888 7/1980-current (real time) 80 3 7 11 3,410 (1989) 47,638 49,750 155,655 (1983) 12 2,742 1,400 3/1966-current (real time) 80 5 4 10 2,448 (2002) 27,011 58,901 421,461 (1993) 36 Kirkland Creek near Kirkland 109 3,900 4/1973-3/1983 (discontinued) 68 8 9 15 1,614 (1975) 6,451 7,961 20,489 (1980) 9 9424900 Santa Maria River near Bagdad 1,129 1,360 4/1966-current (real time) 74 6 5 15 0 (1996, 2002) 15,063 40,551 168,005 (1980) 32 9425000 Date Creek near Congress 127 NA 10/1939-9/1943 (discontinued) 60 38 2 0 0 (1942) 2 2,559 7,674 (1941) 3 9425500 Santa Maria River near Alamo 1,439 1,124 12/1939-4/1966 (discontinued) 48 18 17 18 1,637 (1956) 10,211 24,878 184,661 (1941) 26 9426000 Bill Williams below Alamo Dam 4,633 967 10/1939-current (real time) 54 16 16 14 1,275 (1975) 33,963 82,317 701,711 (1993) 63 9426500 Bill Williams River at Planet 5,054 556 10/1914-9/1946 (discontinued) 64 9 21 6 11,876 (1933) 68,506 115,312 399,012 (1941) 17 9426620 Bill Williams River near Parker 5,337 500 10/1988-current (real time) 78 14 5 3 645 (1990) 4,421 69,097 626,398 (1993) 14 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: NA = Not available to ADWR Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 112 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.2-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Bill Williams Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 5365 Wilhoit Precipitation 7/24/1981 Maricopa County FCD 7145 Wood Tank Precipitation 11/20/2002 Maricopa County FCD 7150 Joshua Tree Precipitation 3/5/2002 Maricopa County FCD 7460 Aubrey Peak Repeater Repeater/Precipitation NA Mohave County FCD Source: ADWR 2005b Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Information is not available to ADWR at this time Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 113 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.2-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Bill Williams Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Alamo Army Corps of Engineers 1,409,0002 C, R Federal None Havasu (Parker)3 Bureau of Reclamation 651,0004 H,I,S Federal USE JURISDICTION B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 3 Total maximum storage: 504 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)5 Total number: 16 Total surface area: 203 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 796 (from water right filings) Notes: C=flood control; R=recreation; H=hydroelectric power; I=irrigation; S=supply 2 Normal capacity < 500 acre-feet 3 Dam is located in Parker Basin but lake storage is in the Lake Havasu, Sacramento Valley and Bill Williams Basins 4 Includes 28,600 acre-feet of dead storage 5 Capacity data not available to ADWR 1 114 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 115 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Bill Williams Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 4.2-5. The locations of major springs as well as perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 4.2-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • There are numerous streams with perennial reaches located throughout the basin including sections of the Bill Williams River, Santa Maria River, Big Sandy River and Burro Creek. Numerous intermittent streams are located throughout the basin with the largest concentration in the northeastern portion of the basin. There are six major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge is 228 gpm at Genung spring. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 4.2-5B. There are 13 minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. All of the measurements were taken prior to 1983. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 249 to 303, depending on the database reference. Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 116 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.2-5 Springs in the Bill Williams Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Discharge 1 Longitude (in gpm) Map Key Name 1 Genung 341631 1124245 228 6/18/1946 2 Copper Basin 342545 1124017 200 11/6/1974 3 Kaiser Hot 343348 1132946 40 8/20/1980 4 Buckman Flat 343616 1123631 36 8/9/1979 5 Unnamed 343615 1123630 27 8/9/1979 343725 1134226 18 5/9/1979 6 Latitude Unnamed 2 Date Discharge Measured B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Latitude Discharge 1 Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Wood 343650 1124658 9 9/19/1979 Unnamed 343440 1124232 8 3/4/1982 Iron 343504 1123425 6 8/9/1979 Signal 342817 1133807 4 12/13/1979 Quail 341714 1130007 4 9/7/1979 Unnamed 341720 1132313 3 6/8/1979 Unnamed 342641 1124017 3 3/16/1979 Unnamed 341429 1125300 2 3/16/1979 Unnamed 342647 1124133 2 3/10/1981 Lawler 342405 1125758 1 10/18/1979 Bonita 343437 1134158 1 5/9/1979 Little Santa Cruez 343448 1134230 1 5/9/1979 Unnamed 342653 1124132 1 4/17/1973 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 249 to 303 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 1 117 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 118 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Bill Williams Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 4.2-6. Figure 4.2-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 4.2-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 4.2-6. Figure 4.2-8 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 4.2-6 and Figure 4.2-6. • Major aquifers in the basin include recent stream alluvium, basin fill and volcanic rock. • This basin contains five sub-basins, Clara Peak in the west, Alamo Reservoir in the center of the basin, Burro Creek in the northeast, Santa Maria in the central east and Skull Valley in the east. • In general the principal water-bearing aquifer is the basin fill, however, the recent stream alluvium is the main water-bearing aquifer in the Peeples Valley area, in the Skull Valley Sub-basin. • Flow direction varies. Well Yields • Refer to Table 4.2-6 and Figure 4.2-8. • As shown on Figure 4.2-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to greater than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 195 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 280 gpm. • Well yields vary throughout the basin with the majority of the highest well yields, greater than 2,000 gpm, occurring in the western portion of the basin along the Bill Williams River. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 4.2-6. • The estimate of natural recharge for this basin is 32,000 acre-feet per year. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 4.2-6. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 10 million acre-feet to 23 million acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 feet Water Level • Refer to Figure 4.2-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 24 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for seven of these wells are shown in Figure 4.2-7. • The deepest recorded water level in the basin is 642 feet in Yavapai County east of the La Paz County line and the shallowest is five feet north of Peeples Valley. This is the shallowest recorded water level in the planning area. Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 119 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.2-6 Groundwater Data for the Bill Williams Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 3,350 Name and/or Geologic Units Recent Stream Alluvium Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Volcanic Rock Range 1.3-440 Median 2 (3 wells measured) Range 5-5,000 Median 280 (195 wells reported) Well Yields, in gal/min: Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 10-4,000 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0-500 Anning and Duet(1994) 32,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 23,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990) 10,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 20,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Current Number of Index Wells: 24 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1979 (117 wells measured) Notes: Predevelopment Estimate 1 120 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 121 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Figure 4.2-7 Bill Williams Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 50 A WELL DEPTH: 302 ft USE:STOCK basin fill B-14-04 22BAD 100 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 1975 B 25 75 0 50 1975 C 1975 D 25 1985 1995 2005 recent stream alluvium B-13-09 17BCC WELL DEPTH: 473 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 325 ft USE: IRRIGATION 2005 basin fill B-11-04 18CCC 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 888 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill B-11-11 31BBB1 75 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 122 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Figure 4.2-7 (Cont) Bill Williams Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells E basin fill WELL DEPTH: 128 ft USE: UNUSED B-11-16 29AAA Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 75 75 125 1975 F 1985 1995 2005 recent stream alluvium B-11-16 32CDA WELL DEPTH: 100 ft USE: DOMESTIC 0 50 50 1975 G 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-09-09 04CBC WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 600 650 1975 1985 2005 1995 YEAR 123 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 124 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.2.7 Water Quality of the Bill Williams Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 4.2-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired stream reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 4.2-7B. Figure 4.2-9 shows the location of exceedences and impairment keyed to Table 4.2-7. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 4.2-7A. • Sixty sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • Frequently equaled or exceeded parameters include fluoride and arsenic. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded in the sites measured in this basin were cadmium, mercury, copper, lead, nitrates, total dissolved solids and radionuclides. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 4.2-7B. • Water quality standards were exceeded in two reaches of Boulder Creek, one reach of Burro Creek, Alamo Lake and Coors Lake. • The mercury drinking water standard was exceeded in every impaired stream or lake. Other parameters exceeded in Alamo Lake include ammonia and pH levels. Arsenic, copper and zinc were exceeded in Boulder Creek. • Boulder Creek and Alamo Lake are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. The final TMDL report has been completed for Boulder Creek and an implementation plan is underway. Modeling is complete for Alamo Lake and ADEQ is drafting the TMDL document. • Burro Creek and Coors Lake are not part of the TMDL program at this time. Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 125 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.2-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Bill Williams Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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 Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard2 17 North 17 North 16 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 15 North 14.5 North 14.5 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 12.5 North 12.5 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 12 North 11 North 11 North 11 West 11 West 5 West 6 West 8 West 10 West 11 West 14 West 8 West 8 West 4 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 9 West 9 West 10 West 12 West 13 West 15 West 3 West 4 West 5 West 5 West 6 West 6 West 6 West 7 West 7 West 7 West 8 West 10 West 11 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 3 West 3 West 3 West 4 West 6 West 9 West 9 West 9 West 13 West 4 West 4 West 13 25 32 25 27 26 21 20 29 29 30 8 16 31 25 25 25 27 23 23 34 13 16 32 30 13 13 18 9 22 25 2 16 16 18 21 21 35 16 14 3 3 17 32 33 18 6 33 5 22 26 8 7 15 As As As, Cd As, Cd NO3, Rad As As As, Rad As As As F F F F F F F As As, F, Rad F As NO3, Rad Rad As Pb, Rad F As, Cd Rad F Rad As, Cd As F Rad F F Rad As, Rad As F F F As NO3 As Rad As As F As As As NO3 Site Type Well Well Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Spring Well Spring Well Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Spring Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Spring Well Well Well 126 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.2-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Bill Williams Basin (Cont)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 55 56 57 58 59 60 Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section 11 North 11 North 11 North 11 North 10 North 10 North 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 13 West 14 West 14 15 15 15 11 14 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard2 As Cd, F, Pb, NO3, TDS Cd, F, Pb, NO3, TDS Cd, F, Hg F F Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Designated Use Standard3 Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 a Lake Alamo Lake NA 1,414 A&W, FC, FBC, AgL NH3, pH, Hg b Stream Boulder Creek (unnamed tributary to Wilder Creek) 14 NA A&W Hg c Stream Boulder Creek (Wilder Creek to Copper Creek) 3 NA A&W, FBC, AgL As, Cu, Hg, Zn d Stream Burro Creek (Boulder Creek to Black Canyon) 17 NA A&W Hg e Lake Coors Lake NA NA A&W Hg Source: ADEQ 2005c Notes: 1 2 3 Most water quality samples collected between 1979 and 2003. NH3 = Ammonia As = Arsenic Cd = Cadmium Cu = Copper F= Fluoride Pb = Lead pH = Measurement of acidity or alkalinity Hg = Mercury NO3 = Nitrate TDS = Total Dissolved Solids Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Zn = Zinc A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife AgL = Agricultural Livestock Watering FBC = Full Body Contact FC = Fish Consumption Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 127 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 128 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 129 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.2.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Bill Williams Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 4.2-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown on Table 4.2-9. Figure 4.210 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 4.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 4.2-8 and Figure 4.2-10. • Population in this basin has decreased from 5,532 in 1980 to 4,691 in 2000. • Groundwater use has decreased in this basin since 1971, with an average of 18,000 acrefeet per year from 1971-1975 and an average of approximately 5,150 acre-feet pumped per year from 2001-2005. • A small amount of surface water is diverted for municipal use in the Town of Bagdad, 500 acre-feet per year on average from 1991 to 2005. Some of this water demand may include industrial demand at the Bagdad Mine. • Municipal groundwater demand is minimal, 900 acre-feet per year on average from 2001 to 2005. • Principal municipal demand centers are located in the vicinity of Peeples Valley, Kirkland, Yarnell and Bagdad. • Although there is one large mine, the Bagdad Mine, and a number of small mines or quarries in the basin, industrial demand is minimal because the Bagdad Mine receives water from the Big Sandy Basin via pipeline. • The largest water demand sector in this basin is agricultural, located primarily in the eastern portion of the basin around Skull Valley, Kirkland and Peeples Valley. This demand has declined substantially from approximately 18,000 acre-feet per year on average in 1971 to 4,100 acre-feet per year on average from 2001-2005. T • As of 2005 there were 1,627 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 445 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 4.2-9. • There is one treatment facility in this basin, the Bagdad Sewer System, which serves approximately 1,500 people in the Town of Bagdad. Information on the volume of effluent generation was not available. • Treated effluent is used for industrial purposes. Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 130 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.2-8: Cultural Water Demand in the Bill Williams Basin 1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered Estimated Water Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage and Projected Surface-Water Diversions 2 Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial3 Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 9784 5,532 5,393 5,253 5,114 4,974 4,835 4,695 4,556 4,416 4,277 4,138 4,193 4,248 4,304 4,359 4,414 4,470 4,525 4,580 4,636 4,691 4,850 5,008 5,166 5,324 5,482 6,272 7,068 7,700 WELL TOTALS: 18,000 700 18,000 800 Data Source 2944 ADWR (1994a) ADWR (2007) 89 33 18,000 600 125 31 22,000 500 112 31 800 <300 15,600 500 NR NR 142 28 1,000 <300 4,200 500 NR NR 181 28 900 <300 4,100 500 NR NR 1,627 445 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) ADWR (2008c) Malcom Pirnie (2006) Notes: NR = Not reported 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 The 1994 ADWR Arizona Water Resources Assessment included surface water diversions for this basin for the Bill Williams National Wildlife Refuge. Surface water diversions in this basin are for the Town of Bagdad and based on available data from Phelps Dodge. Municipal water demand listed here may also be for industrial use at the mine. 3 Groundwater withdrawn in the Big Sandy Basin is delivered to the Bill Williams Basin for industrial use at the Bagdad Mine. These withdrawals are not included in this table. 131 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.2-9 Effluent Generation in the Bill Williams Basin Facility Name Ownership Bagdad Sewer System PDBI City/Location Population Served Served Bagdad 1,500 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) NA Disposal Method Watercourse Golf Discharged Evaporation Wildlife Irrigation Course/Turf to Another Pond Area Irrigation Facility Used for Industrial purposes Infiltration Basins Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record NA Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Notes; PBDI:Phelps Dodge Bagdad Inc. Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 132 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 133 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 134 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Bill Williams Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 4.2-10. Figure 4.2-11 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • All lots receiving an adequacy determination are in Yavapai County. Eight water adequacy determinations for more than 264 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. All lots received an adequate determination. Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 135 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.2-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Bill Williams Basin1 Location Map Key Subdivision Name County Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File 2 No. ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy 3 Determination Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Subdivision wells 1 Highland Pines Yavapai 14 North 3 West 33, 34 14 53-500204 Adequate 12/16/1974 2 Peeples Valley #2 Yavapai 11 North 5 West 22, 23 NA 53-501138 Adequate 12/3/1987 3 Pinon Estates #1 Yavapai 11 North 5 West 14, 15 49 53-501187 Adequate 7/16/1980 4 Pinon Estates #1 Yavapai 11 North 5 West 14, 15 49 53-501188 Adequate 3/21/1986 5 Pinon Estates #2 Yavapai 11 North 5 West 14, 15 59 53-501189 Adequate 3/10/1986 6 Rolling Hills Yavapai 13 North 5 West 25, 26, 35, 36 41 53-300123 Adequate 3/20/1996 7 Shawnee Hills Yavapai 11 North 5 West 23 17 53-300210 Adequate 10/24/1996 8 Springs Del Sol Condominiums La Paz 11 North 18 West 15 35 53-401879 Adequate 1/18/2006 Subdivision wells Peeples Valley Water Company Peeples Valley Water Company Peeples Valley Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Peeples Valley Water Company Springs Del Sol Domestic Water Improvement District Source: ADWR 2008a Notes: 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 1 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA = Data not currently available to ADWR 136 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 137 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Bill Williams Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005c, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map) ______, 2004a, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) ______, 2004b, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. (Cultural Water Demand Map) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2008c, Municipal surface water demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2007, Cultural Water Demands in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning ______, 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. ______, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. ______, 2005c, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2005d, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. ______, 2005e, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. ______, 2005f, Wells55: Database. ______, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. (Water Quality Map and Table) ______, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. ______, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. ______, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 138 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 ______, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. ______, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 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 Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. B 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. D Diroll, M., and D. Marsh, 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report. (Water Quality Map and Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. M Malcom Pirnie, Inc. 2006, System Water Plan Phelps Dodge Bagdad, Inc. Utilities Department, Phelps Dodge Corporation. O 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. S Sanger, H.W., and G.R. Littin, 1982, Maps showing ground water conditions in the Bill Williams area, Mohave, Yavapai and Yuma counties, Arizona-1980: USGS Open File Report 8287. U U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (USACE) 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/ webpages/nid.cfm (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) 139 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu / swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Reading Ajami, H., D.P. Guertin, L.R. Levick and K. Uhlman, 2005, NEMO Watershed Based Plan for the Bill Williams Watershed, University of Arizona. Andersen, M., 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2005, Alamo Lake Total Maximum Daily Load, ADEQ Fact Sheet 05-12. _____, 2004, The Boulder Creek TMDL Implementation Plan, ADEQ OFR 04-03. _____, 2004, Boulder Creek - Wilder Creek to Copper Creek Total Maximum Daily Load. Bureau of Reclamation, 2005, Planet Ranch: Potential Habitat Restoration Site, Preliminary Site Analysis and Conceptual Design. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Resources Management Office, Restoration Group. Dixon, E.C., L.H. Knight and M.E. Schaffer, 1992, Hydrology and ground water quality in the Mammoth Wash basin, Burro Creek watershed, Arizona: in Arizona Water 2000: Proceedings from the Commission on the Arizona Environment and Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1992, Sedona, Arizona, p. 305-315. Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin 140 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Enterline, M., 2003, Boulder Creek Watershed Inventory & Characterization: Part I of the Boulder Creek Implementation Plan, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County general plan: Mohave County draft report, 204 p. Harshman, C.A., 1993, The Hydrology and Riparian Restoration of the Bill Williams River Basin near Parker, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Hirschboeck, K.K., 2004, Using tree rings to determine the long-term record of synchronous extreme stream flow episodes in the Salt-Verde and Upper Colorado River basins: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson, Arizona. House, P.K., M.L. Wood and P.A. Pearthree, 1999, Hydrologic and geomorphic conditions of the Bill Williams River, Arizona: AZGS Open-File Report 99-4, 37 p. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Mohave County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Shafroth, P.B. and V.B. Beauchamp eds., 2006, Defining ecosystem flow requirements for the Bill Williams River, Arizona: USGS Open File Report 2006-1314 Shafroth, P.B., G.T. Auble, J.C. Stromberg and D.T. Patten, 1998, Establishment of woody riparian vegetation in relation to annual patterns of stream flow, Bill Williams River, Arizona: Symposium on Semiarid Riparian Ecosystems: Society of Wetland Scientists, June 1997 Bozeman, MT, in Wetlands vol. 18; 4, p. 577-590. US Bureau of Reclamation, 2004, Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 1996-2000. Webb, R.H., S.A. Leake, and R.M. Turner, 2007, The Ribbon of Green: Change in Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States, University of Arizona Press. Werner, W.E., 2002, Restoration of natural processes on the Bill Williams River: In Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. Wilson, R. and S. Owen-Joyce, 2002, Hydrologic Conditions in the Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge and Planet Valley, Arizona, 2000. Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4214, U.S. Geological Survey. Wilson, R., D.C. Wilson, A.B. Hautzinger and M.P. Brown, 2002, Hydrology and geology of the river aquifer along Bill Williams River in Planet Valley, Mohave and La Paz Counties: in Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. 141 Section 4.2 Bill Williams Basin Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 142 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.3.1 Geography of the Detrital Valley Basin The Detrital Valley Basin is small basin in the northwestern part of the planning area at 892 square miles. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 4.3-1. The basin is characterized by a wide north-south trending valley and mountains on the east and west basin margins. Lake Mead forms the northern boundary of the basin. Vegetation is almost exclusively Mohave desertscrub with small areas of semi-desert grassland, interior chaparral, Great Basin conifer woodland and montane conifer forest. (see Figure 4.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 4.3-1 are: o Detrital Wash running south to north through the basin and the lowest point in the basin, about 1,100 feet where the Wash drains into Lake Mead o White Hills on the east central basin boundary o Cerbat Mountains north of Grasshopper Junction o Black Mountains along the western basin boundary with Mt. Wilson, the highest point in the basin at 5,445 in the northwest part of the basin 143 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 144 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.3.2 Land Ownership in the Detrital Valley Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Detrital Valley Basin is shown in Figure 4.3-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large amount of U.S. Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 4.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 49.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Kingman Field Office of the BLM. • BLM lands in this basin are partially contiguous and partially found in a checkerboard pattern with private land and some state trust lands. • The basin contains two wilderness areas, a portion of the 30,760-acre Mt. Tipton Wilderness and most of the 23,900-acre Mt. Wilson Wilderness (see Figure 4.0-12). • Primary land uses are recreation and grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 24.8% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service (NPS) as the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. • Most NPS lands are located along the northern basin boundary. • Primary land use is recreation. Private • 18.9% of the land is private. • Most private land is interspersed in a checkerboard pattern throughout BLM and state trust lands. • Primary land uses are domestic and grazing. State Trust Land • 5.6% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • There are two larger contiguous parcels of state land adjacent to the Lake Mead National Recreation Area and a number of small areas of land interspersed with BLM and private lands throughout the basin. • Primary land use is grazing. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 1.6% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation • Primary land use is unknown. 145 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 146 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.3.3 Climate of the Detrital Valley Basin Climate data from a NOAA/NWS Co-op Network station are complied in Table 4.3-1 and the location is shown on Figure 4.3-3. Figure 4.3-3 also shows precipitation data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Detrital Valley Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 4.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 4.3-1A • There is one NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate station in the basin at Temple Bar. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July and is is 94.2°F and average minimum temperature occurs in January and is 47.2°F. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the winter (January – March). For the period of record used the annual rainfall is 4.15 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 4.3-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 12 inches in the southern portion of the basin in the Cerbat Mountains near Grasshopper Junction and as low as four inches in the northern portion of the basin. • This basin is one of three basins in the planning area with a range of eight inches between areas of highest and lowest average annual precipitation, the lowest in the planning area. 147 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.3-1 Climate Data for the Detrital Valley Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation (in Record Used for feet) Averages Temple Bar 1,280 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 94.2/Jul 47.2/Jan 2.01 0.32 1.12 0.70 4.15 1971-2000 Source: WRCC, 2005 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Avg. Annual Evap Elevation (in Record Used for feet) (in inches) Averages None C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages ) None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan Feb March April May June None Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 148 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 149 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Detrital Valley Basin There are no streamflow data for this basin. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 4.3-2. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 4.3-3. The location of flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 4.3-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 4.3-2. • As of October 2005 there were three stations in the basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 4.3-3. • The basin borders one large reservoir, Lake Mead, with a maximum capacity of 29,755,000 acre-feet. The dam that creates Lake Mead, Hoover Dam, is in the Lake Mohave Basin. • There are no small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 43 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 4.3-4. • Average annual runoff is 0.5 inches per year, or 26.65 acre-feet per square mile, in the center of the basin and decreases to 0.1 inches, or 5.33 acre-feet per square mile, on the edges of the basin. Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 150 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.3-2 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Detrital Valley Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 1630 Detrital Wash Precipitation/Stage 12/3/2001 Mohave County FCD 7430 Mt.Tipton Repeater/Precipitation NA Mohave County FCD 7470 Dolan Springs Weather Station NA Mohave County FCD Source: ADWR 2005b Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Not available Table 4.3-3 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Detrital Valley Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION None Mead (Hoover Dam)2 Bureau of Reclamation 29,755,0003 C,H,I,RR,S,R Federal USE JURISDICTION B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 43 (from water right filings) Notes: C=flood control; F=fish & wildlife pond; H=hydroelectric; I=irrigation; R=recreation; RR=river regulation; S=water supply 2 Dam is located in Lake Mohave Basin and lake storage is located in Lake Mohave, Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley and Meadview Basins. 3 Includes 2,378,000 acre-feet of dead storage. 1 151 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 152 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Detrital Valley Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 4.3-4. The locations of major springs are shown on Figure 4.3-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • There is one perennial stream, the Colorado River, located along the northern basin boundary. There is one major spring, Monkey Cove, with a measured discharge of 1,200 gallons per minute (gpm). This spring is no longer listed on the current U.S. Geological Survey topographical maps because it is normally submerged by Lake Mead. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 4.3-4B. There are four minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. The most recent measurements were taken during or prior to 1965. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 24 to 27, depending on the database reference. 153 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.3-4 Springs in the Detrital Valley Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key 1 Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 360223 1141949 1,200 11/23/1964 Date Discharge Measured Location Name 2 Monkey Cove Date Discharge Measured B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 Unnamed 353405 1141240 6 During or prior to 1965 Antelope 353601 1141144 6 During or prior to 1965 Unnamed 353310 1141405 3 During or prior to 1965 Unnamed 353200 1141430 3 During or prior to 1965 Name Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 24 to 27 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 1 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps because it normally submerged by Lake Mead Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 154 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 155 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Detrital Valley Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 4.3-5. Figure 4.3-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 4.3-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 4.3-6. Figure 4.3-8 shows well yields in two yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 4.3-5 and Figure 4.3-6. • Major aquifers in the basin include recent stream alluvium, basin fill and sedimentary rock. The principal water-bearing aquifer is the basin fill. • Flow direction is generally from the south to the north. Well Yields • Refer to Table 4.3-5 and Figure 4.3-8. • As shown on Figure 4.3-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to 500 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on six reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 31.5 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 4.3-5. • The estimate of natural recharge for this basin is 1,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 4.3-5. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 1.0 million acre-feet (maf) to seven maf to a depth of 1,200 feet Water Level • Refer to Figure 4.3-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 11 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for two index wells (A and C) and one other well are shown in Figure 4.3-7. • The Department measures water levels four times daily at one automated groundwater monitoring site in the west-central portion of the basin. • The deepest recorded water level in the basin is 597 feet west of Dolan Springs and the shallowest is 68 feet west of Temple Bar. Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 156 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.3-5 Groundwater Data for the Detrital Valley Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 892 Name and/or Geologic Units Recent Stream Alluvium Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Sedimentary Rock (Muddy Creek and Chemehueve Formations) Range 10-44 Median 31.5 (6 wells measured) Range 35-240 Median 35 (3 wells reported) Well Yields, in gpm: Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 30-100 ADWR (1990) Range 0-500 Anning and Duet (1994) 1,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1,480,000 to 3,940,0001 (to 1200 ft) Mason and others (2007) 1,000,000 ADWR (1994b) 1,000,0002 (to 1200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 7,000,000 (to 1200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 11 Date of Last Well Sweep: 2006 (82 wells measured) Notes: 1 Range based on assumed values for specific yield. 2 Predevelopment estimate 157 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 158 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Figure 4.3-7 Detrital Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 25 A WELL DEPTH: 185 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill B-30-20 06CAD UNSURV 75 1975 425 B 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 537 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill B-26-20 06ACB 475 1975 575 C 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 700 ft USE: STOCK 2005 basin fill B-25-20 15AAA 625 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 159 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 160 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.3.7 Water Quality of the Detrital Valley Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 4.3-6A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 4.3-9 shows the location of exceedences keyed to Table 4.3-6. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 4.3-6A. • Twenty-three sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • The most frequently equaled or exceeded parameters was arsenic. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded in the sites measured in this basin were radionuclides, nitrates, lead and total dissolved solids. 161 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.3-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the Detrital Valley Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section 31 North 31 North 30 North 30 North 30 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 25 North 25 North 25 North 24 North 24 North 24 North 24 North 24 North 24 North 23 North 23 North 19 West 19 West 20 West 22 West 22 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 19 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 18 West 18 West 21 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 20 West 32 32 6 13 13 20 23 26 12 13 24 25 16 17 35 20 30 30 30 31 32 6 11 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard2 As As, Rad As, NO3 Rad Rad As As, NO3 NO3 As As As As As, Rad As NO3 Rad Pb Pb Rad As Pb TDS As Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Area of Impaired Designated Use Parameter(s) Exceeding Stream Reach (in Lake (in acres) Standard Use Standard miles) None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 2 Water quality samples collected between 1975 and 2002. As = Arsenic Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium TDS = Total Dissolved Solids Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 162 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 163 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.3.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Detrital Valley Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 4.3-7. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 4.3-8. Figure 4.310 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 4.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 4.3-7 and Figure 4.3-10. • Population in this basin is small but has almost doubled since 1980, increasing from 757 in 1980 to 1,373 in 2000. Projections suggest a similar rate of growth through 2030, although large developments are planned in the basin (see Table 4.3-9). • Groundwater pumping is minimal in this basin. Current pumping is comparable to historic pumping with an annual average of less than 300 AFA for municipal use from 2001-2005. There are no recorded industrial or agricultural water demands in this basin. There is, however, a small mine or quarry north of Grasshopper Junction. • All of the surface water diversions are for municipal use at Temple Bar within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area and are less than 300 AFA from 1991-2005. • Most municipal and industrial demand is around Dolan Springs at this time. There are, however, a number of proposed residential developments in this basin east of Highway 93 and north of Pierce Ferry Road. • As of 2005 there were 168 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 50 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 4.3-8. • There is one wastewater treatment facility, the Temple Bar Wastewater Treatment Facility, located within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. • No other information on this facility was available. Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 164 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.3-7 Cultural Water Demand in the Detrital Valley Basin 1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Number of Registered Estimated Water Supply Wells Drilled and Projected Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm 712 757 776 795 815 834 853 872 891 911 930 949 991 1,034 1,076 1,119 1,161 1,204 1,246 1,289 1,331 1,373 1,527 1,680 1,834 1,988 2,142 2,910 3,628 4,212 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Municipal Industrial Surface-Water Diversions Agricultural Municipal Industrial <500 NR <500 NR Agricultural Data Source 102 ADWR (1994a) 11 7 <500 NR 10 1 <500 NR 9 11 <300 NR NR <300 NR NR 27 2 <300 NR NR <300 NR NR 40 19 <300 NR NR <300 NR NR 168 50 USGS (2007) Notes: NR = Not reported 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 165 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.3-8 Effluent Generation in the Detrital Valley Basin Disposal Method Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Temple Bar WWTF National Park Service Park Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet) Watercourse Golf Evaporation Irrigation Course/Turf/ Pond Landscape Wildlife Area Discharge to Another Facility Infiltration Basins Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record NA Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Waste Water Treatment Facility Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 166 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 167 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Detrital Valley Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 4.3-9A and B for water reports and analysis of adequate water supply. Figure 4.3-11 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • All subdivisions receiving an adequacy determination are in Mohave County. Twentynine water adequacy determinations for more than 6,090 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. No lots received an adequate water supply designation. The most common reason for an inadequacy determination was because the existing water supply is unreliable or physically unavailable. Two Analysis of Adequate Water Supply applications have been approved for this basin for a total of 50,953 lots. Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 168 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.3-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Detrital Valley Basin1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key  Subdivision Name (TXHVWULDQ(VWDWHVDW :KLWH+LOOV7UDFW County No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Township Range Section 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW    ,QDGHTXDWH $  :KLWH+LOOV:DWHU (TXHVWULDQ(VWDWHV &RRSHUDWLYH  )ODQQHU\ $OOHQ 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW    ,QDGHTXDWH A1,A2  Individual Wells  *DWHZD\$FUHV7UDFW2QH 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW    ,QDGHTXDWH A1  Dry Lot Subdivision 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW   ,QDGHTXDWH A1,A2  None Dry Lot Subdivision  *DWHZD\$FUHV7UDFWV      *DWHZD\$FUHV  0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW    ,QDGHTXDWH A2,A3   *DWHZD\$FUHV7UDFW 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW    ,QDGHTXDWH A2,A3  Dry Lot Subdivision  *DWHZD\$FUHV7UDFW 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW    ,QDGHTXDWH A1,A2,A3  Dry Lot Subdivision  *DWHZD\$FUHV7UDFW$ 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW   ,QDGHTXDWH A2,A3  Dry Lot Subdivision  *DWHZD\$FUHV 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW    ,QDGHTXDWH A2,A3  Dry Lot Subdivision  *DWHZD\$FUHV 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW  1$ 1$ ,QDGHTXDWH A2,A3  Dry Lot Subdivision  *DWHZD\$FUHV7UDFW 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW    ,QDGHTXDWH A2,A3  Dry Lot Subdivision  *DWHZD\$FUHV7UDFW$ 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW  1$  ,QDGHTXDWH A1,A2,A3  Dry Lot Subdivision  *DWHZD\$FUHV7UDFW 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW    ,QDGHTXDWH A2,A3  Dry Lot Subdivision  *DWHZD\$FUHV 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW  1$  ,QDGHTXDWH D  Dry Lot Subdivision 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW    ,QDGHTXDWH A1  Dry Lot Subdivision 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW    ,QDGHTXDWH A1,A2  Dry Lot Subdivision 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW    ,QDGHTXDWH A2  Dry Lot Subdivision 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW    ,QDGHTXDWH A1,B,C  White Hills Water Company 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW    ,QDGHTXDWH A1  Dry Lot Subdivision 0RKDYH 1RUWK :HVW    ,QDGHTXDWH A1  Dry Lot Subdivision      *ROGHQ+RUVHVKRH 5DQFKRV *ROGHQ+RUVHVKRH 5DQFKRV *ROGHQ+RUVHVKRH 5DQFKRV8QLWV  *ROGHQ+RUVHVKRH 5DQFKRV8QLW *ROGHQ+RUVHVKRH 5DQFKRV8QLWORWV   *ROGHQ+RUVHVKRH 5DQFKRV8QLW 169 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.3-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Detrital Valley Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key 21 21 Subdivision Name Golden Horseshoe Ranchos, Unit 1, Unit 3, Unit 4 and Unit 6 Golden Horseshoe Ranchos, Unit 1, Unit 3, Unit 4 and Unit 6 County No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Township Range Section Mohave 27 North 19 West 9, 17, 21 376 53-700285 Inadequate A1 6/19/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 27 North 20 West 9 376 53-700285 Inadequate A1 6/19/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision 22 Lake Mohave Ranchos Mohave 25 North 19 West 1, 11, 23, 27 NA 53-500885 Inadequate A2,A3 11/23/1977 Dry Lot Subdivision 23 Lake Mohave Ranchos A Mohave 25 North 18 West 7 NA 53-500884 Inadequate A2,A3 11/23/1977 Dry Lot Subdivision Lake Mohave Ranchos B&C Lake Mohave Ranchos Unit 16 Sunny Lakes Ranchos Unit 1 Mohave 26 North 20 West 35 642 53-500888 Inadequate A2,A3 11/23/1977 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 25 North 18 West 7 9 53-401802 Inadequate A1 7/14/2005 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 28 North 20 West 13 546 53-402260 Inadequate A2 8/25/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision 27 Sunset Vista Mohave 25 North 19 West 4 10 53-401293 Inadequate A1,A2 5/7/2004 NA 30 Triangle Air Park Mohave 27 North 21 West 24 35 53-501581 Inadequate A1,A2,A3 1/24/1984 Dry Lot Subdivision 31 Western Horizon Estates #2 Mohave 24 North 19 West 27 80 53-501670 Inadequate A1,A2,A3 7/13/1992 Dry Lot Subdivision No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 25,000 for the entire subdivision 43-401774 4/11/2006 Double Diamond Utilities 24 25 26 B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Location Map Key 28 Section 4.3 Subdivision Name The Ranch At White Hills County Township Range Section 24 North 25 North 20 West 19 West 25 North 20 West 25 North 21 West 13, 33, 35 6, 8, 18, 30 3, 5, 7, 9, 11-15, 17, 19, 21, 23 35 27 North 19 West Mohave 1, 3, 9, 11, 13, 15, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35 27 North 20 West 27 North 21 West 1, 9, 13, 25, 31, 35 13, 25 28 North 19 West 9, 15, 17, 19, 21, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35 28 North 29 North 20 West 19 West 23, 25, 35 21, 29, 33 Detrital Valley Basin 170 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.3-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Detrital Valley Basin (Cont)1 B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Location Map Key Subdivision Name County 29 The Villages at White Hills Mohave Township Range Section 27 North 20 West 16, 20, 21, 23, 30 27 North 21 West 25 No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 25,953 43-401674 7/18/2007 Undetermined Source: ADWR 2008 Notes: 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. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA = Data not currently available to ADWR 1 171 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 172 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Detrital Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W., M. Truini, M.E. Flynn, and W.H. Remick, 2007, Ground-Water Occurrence and Movement, 2006, and Water-Level Changes in the Detrital, Hualapai, and Sacramento Valley Basins, Mohave County, Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigation Report 20075182. Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2004a, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) ______, 2004b, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2007, Cultural Water Demands in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2006, Preliminary Estimate of Groundwater in Storage for the Detrital Valley Groundwater Basin, Mohave County, Arizona. Open-File Report Num 9, Arizona Department of Water Resources. ______, 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. ______, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. ______, 2005c, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005d, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2005e, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005f, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005g, Wells55: Database. ______, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. ______, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. ______, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. 173 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. ______, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index. html. ______, 2005c, Water features: GIS cover, accessed July 2005 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 Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. B Bentley, C.B., 1979, Geohydrologic Reconnaissance of Lake Mead NRA- Hoover Dam to Mt. Davis, Arizona: USGS 79-690. (Water Quality Map and Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Table) M Mason, D.A. et al, 2007, Preliminary Estimate of Ground Water in Storage for the Detrital Valley Ground-water Basin, Mohave County, Arizona: Arizona Department of Water Resources Open-File Report No.9. O 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. T Towne, D., 2003, Detrital Valley ambient groundwater quality report, Detrital Valley basin, a 2002 baseline study: ADEQ Open file report 2003-03. (Water Quality Map and Table) U U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 2006, Database: Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS). United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 174 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu / swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Wille, J. N., 1992, Groundwater chemistry and the potential migration of contaminants in the Hualapai basin, northern Arizona. (Water Quality Map and Table) Supplemental Reading Andersen, M., 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Dillenburg, R.A., 1987, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Detrital Wash Basin, Mohave County, Arizona: ADWR Hydrologic Map Series No. 14. Dettiger, M., J. Harrill and D. Schmidt, 1995, Distribution of carbonite rock aquifers and the potential for their development, southern Nevada and adjacent parts of California , Arizona and Utah: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4146, 100 p. Enzel, Y., L.L. Ely, P.K. House, V.R. Baker, and R.H. Webb, 1993, Paleoflood evidence for a natural upper bound to flood magnitudes in the Colorado River Basin: Water Resources Research, vol. 29, no. 7, p. 2287-2297. Fielding, G., 2001, A groundwater reconnaissance survey of the Sacramento Valley, Big Sandy Valley, Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley and the Meadview watershed: University of Arizona, 7 p. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County general plan: Mohave County draft report, 204 p. 175 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Hirschboeck, K.K., 2004, Using tree rings to determine the long-term record of synchronous extreme stream flow episodes in the Salt-Verde and upper Colorado River basins: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson, Arizona. Laney, R.L., and J.T. Bales, 1996, Geohydrologic reconnaissance of Lake Mead National Recreation Area – Las Vegas Wash to Virgin River, Nevada: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4033, 44 p. Laney, R.L., 1979, Geohydrologic reconnaissance of the Lake Mead NRA – Temple Bar to Grand Wash Cliffs, Arizona: USGS Open File Report 79-688, 72 p. Northwest Arizona Watershed Council, 2005, Detrital Valley groundwater basin watershed management plan. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins in Arizona, and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 90 p. RNM, Stanley Consultants Inc. and Cooper Research, 2005, Rhodes Homes-The Village at White Hills area plan, unpublished report 31 p. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Mohave County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Towne, D.C., 2003, Ambient groundwater quality of the Detrital Valley Basin U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2004, Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 1996-2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service, University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center, 2007, Detrital Wash Watershed - Arizona: Rapid Watershed Assessment. _____, 2002, Grand Canyon National Park water supply appraisal study, Coconino, Mohave and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: Grand Canyon National Park report. U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, Hydrogeologic investigations of the middle San Pedro, Detrital and Willcox basins, Arizona: USGS draft report. Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin 176 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 177 Section 4.3 Detrital Valley Basin Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 178 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.4.1 Geography of the Hualapai Valley Basin The Hualapai Valley Basin is a medium-size basin in the north central part of the planning area at 1,212 square miles. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 4.4-1. The basin is characterized by a wide north-south trending valley, mountains along the west basin margins and cliffs and plateau on the eastern basin boundary. Vegetation types include Mohave desertscrub, semi-desert grassland, interior chaparral, conifer woodlands and conifer forest. (see Figure 4.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 4.4-1 are: o Principal community of New Kingman-Butler, the small community of Hackberry and the national park service facilities at South Cove. o Hualapai Valley running through the center of the basin o Red Lake, a dry lake in the center of the basin o Truxton Wash running from the southeast near Hackberry to Red Lake o The Cerbat Mountains on the southwestern basin boundary with the highest point in the basin, Cherum Peak at 6,978 feet o Mt. Tipton on the western basin boundary in the Cerbat Mountains o The lowest point in the basin is at Lake Mead at approximately 1,100 feet o The Grand Wash Cliffs located along the eastern basin boundary o The White Hills located along the northwest basin boundary 179 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 180 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.4.2 Land Ownership in the Hualapai Valley Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Hualapai Valley Basin is shown in Figure 4.4-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the checkerboard land ownership pattern. For a discussion of how this land pattern was created see section 4.0.9. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 4.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. Private • 43.4% of the land is private. • Many of the private lands in the basin are interspersed in a checkerboard pattern with BLM and state trust lands. There are also a number of larger parcels of contiguous private lands around New Kingman-Butler and north of Highway 66. • This basin contains the largest percentage of private land in the planning area. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and ranching. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 39.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Kingman Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • BLM lands in this basin are partially contiguous and partially found in a checkerboard pattern with private land and some state and tribal lands. • Primary land uses are recreation and grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 9.0% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service (NPS) as the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. • All NPS lands are located along the northern basin boundary. • Primary land use is recreation. State Trust Land • 7.5% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Most state lands are in the southern portion of the basin and are interspersed with private lands. • Primary land use is grazing. Indian Reservation • 1.0% of the land is under ownership of the Hualapai Tribe • Most of the Indian land is in T27N, R15W and is interspersed with BLM lands. • Primary land use is grazing. 181 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 182 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.4.3 Climate of the Hualapai Valley Basin The Hualapai Valley Basin does not contain any NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. The precipitation figures shown in Figure 4.4-3 are from the Spatial Climatic Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 4.0.3. A description of this and other climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. SCAS Precipitation Data • Average annual precipitation is as high as 14 inches at the southernmost tip of the basin in the Hualapai Mountains and as low as four inches in the northern portion of the basin along the boundary with Nevada. 183 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 184 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Hualapai Valley Basin Streamflow was not measured in this basin. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 4.4-1. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 4.4-2. The location of flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 4.4-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 4.4-1. • As of October 2005 there were six stations in the basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 4.4-2. • The basin borders one large reservoir, Lake Mead, with a maximum capacity of 29,755,000 acre-feet. The dam that creates Lake Mead, Hoover Dam, is in the Lake Mohave Basin. • Other large reservoirs in the basin include Red Lake with a maximum surface area of 13,412 acres. Red Lake is a dry lake and its use is unknown. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in two small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 72 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 4.4-4. • Average annual runoff is 0.5 inches per year, or 26.65 acre-feet per square mile, in the southwest corner of the basin around New Kingman-Butler and decreases to 0.1 inches, or 5.33 acre-feet per square mile, in the center of the basin. Table 4.4-1 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Hualapai Valley Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 1600 Mohave Wash Precipitation/Stage 12/4/2001 Mohave County FCD 1670 Kingman ADOT Weather Station 12/3/2001 Mohave County FCD 7400 Devlin Wash Precipitation/Stage NA Mohave County FCD 7440 Archibald Wash Precipitation/Stage NA Mohave County FCD 7510 Diagonal Wash Precipitation/Stage NA Mohave County FCD 7660 Bull Mountain Precipitation NA Mohave County FCD Source: ADWR 2005b Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Not available 185 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.4-2 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Hualapai Valley Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION None Mead (Hoover Dam)2 Bureau of Reclamation 29,755,0003 C,H,I,RR,S,R Federal B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)4 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Red5 Bureau of Land Management/Private 13,412 U Landowner Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 1 Total maximum storage: 145 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)4 Total number: 1 Total surface area: 12 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 72 (from water right filings) Notes: C=flood control; H=hydroelectric; I=irrigation; R=recreation; RR=river regulation; S=water supply; U=Unknown 2 Dam is located in Lake Mohave Basin and lake storage is located in Lake Mohave, Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley and Meadview Basins. 3 Includes 2,378,000 acre-feet of dead storage. 4 Capacity data not available to ADWR 5 Dry lake 1 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 186 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 187 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Hualapai Valley Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 4.4-3. The locations of major springs as well as perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 4.4-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • There is one perennial stream, the Colorado River, located along the northern basin boundary. There are three major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge rate is 25 gpm for an unnamed spring in the northern portion of the basin. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 4.4-3B. There are 19 minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. Only four springs have been measured since 1980. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 70 to 72, depending on the database reference. Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 188 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.4-3 Springs in the Hualapai Valley Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 Unnamed 360031 1140902 25 2/9/1976 2 Clay (middle) 354346 1135202 18 6/10/1993 3 Unnamed 352512 1140726 10 During or prior to 1964 Map Key Name 1 Date Discharge Measured B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured Unnamed 351100 1135120 7 1/1940 Unnamed 352429 1134301 6 During or prior to 1950 Unnamed 360042 1140949 5 6/1973 Unnamed 352058 1134348 3 1/1965 Clay #1 354352 1135203 3 9/23/1980 Upper Stone Corral 352728 1134253 3 9/23/1980 Unnamed 350756 1135151 3 2/1965 Unnamed 351534 1140412 3 2/1965 Unnamed 352744 1134239 32 During or prior to 1965 Unnamed 355920 1141525 2 1/5/1975 Unnamed 352225 1134940 2 5/1965 Unnamed 352133 1140357 2 During or prior to 1965 Unnamed 350743 1135318 2 2/1965 Unnamed 350838 1135359 1 2/1965 Unnamed 352255 1140823 1 1/1965 Unnamed 352121 1140626 1 During or prior to 1965 Unnamed 353044 1134321 1 During or prior to 1965 Unnamed 353152 1140826 1 During or prior to 1964 Cedar 354638 1135808 1 9/23/1980 Name Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 70 to 72 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Discharge measurements vary. Shown is greatest measured discharge; most recent measurement < 1 gpm 1 189 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 190 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.4.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Hualapai Valley Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 4.4-4. Figure 4.4-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 4.4-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 4.4-6. Figure 4.4-8 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 4.4-4 and Figure 4.4-6. • The major aquifers include basin fill, sedimentary rock and volcanic rock. • Flow direction is from the south to the north in most of the basin and east to west near New Kingman-Butler. Well Yields • Refer to Table 4.4-4 and Figure 4.4-8. • As shown on Figure 4.4-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to greater than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 33 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 900 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 4.4-4. • Natural recharge estimates range from 2,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) to 3,000 AFA. • Recharge to the aquifers comes principally from streambed infiltration. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 4.4-4. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 3.0 million acre-feet to 5.3 million acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 feet. • The USGS (1971) estimates that the basin has between 10.5 and 21 million acre-feet in storage to a depth of 1,500 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 4.4-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 16 index wells in this basin, hydrographs for six of these wells are shown on Figure 4.4-7. • The Department measures water levels four times daily at one automated groundwater monitoring site in the southern portion of the basin. • The deepest recorded water level in the basin is 924 feet east of New Kingman-Butler and the shallowest is 257 feet east of Stockton Hill Road in the center of the basin. 191 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.4-4 Groundwater Data for the Hualapai Valley Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 1,212 Name and/or Geologic Units Basin Fill Major Aquifer(s): Sedimentary Rock (Muddy Creek and Chemehueve Formations) Volcanic Rock Well Yields, in gal/min: Range 20-2,128 Median 966.5 (10 wells measured) Range 5-6,000 Median 900 (33 reported) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 30-1,500 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 3,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 2,000 - 2,500 Remick (1981) (HMS 4) 5,000,000 - 5,300,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990 and 1994b) 5,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 3,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) 10,500,00 - 21,000,000 (to 1,500 ft) Gillespie and Bentley (1971) Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 16 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2006 (101 wells measured) Notes: 1 Predevelopment Estimate Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 192 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 193 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Figure 4.4-7 Hualapai Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells A 625 WELL DEPTH: 800 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill B-28-17 31CCC 675 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 1975 550 B 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 700 ft USE: DOMESTIC 2005 basin fill B-26-18 03AAA1 600 1975 225 C 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 800 ft USE: STOCK 2005 basin fill B-26-17 35AAA 275 1975 425 D 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 700 ft USE: IRRIGATION 2005 basin fill B-24-16 01DDD1 475 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 194 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Figure 4.4-7 (Con’t) Hualapai Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 525 E 575 1975 500 F basin fill B-24-14 28CAD WELL DEPTH: 700 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 2005 1995 WELL DEPTH: 1000 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill B-22-16 28BAD 550 600 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 195 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 196 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.4.7 Water Quality of the Hualapai Valley Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 4.4-5A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 4.4-9 shows the location of exceedences keyed to Table 4.45A. All community water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and treat water supplies to meet drinking water standards. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 4.4-5A. • Thirty-one sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • Frequently equaled or exceeded parameters include fluoride and radionuclides • Other parameters commonly equaled or exceeded in the sites measured in this basin were arsenic, lead and nitrates. 197 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.4-5 Water Quality Exceedences in the Hualapai Valley Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Spring Well Well Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section 30 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 27 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 25 North 24 North 24 North 24 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 21 North 20 North 17 West 16 West 16 West 17 West 15 West 14 West 16 West 17 West 17 West 14 West 14 West 16 West 17 West 14 West 15 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 14 West 15 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 15 West 7 34 34 24 17 30 29 19 35 9 19 1 33 27 4 7 19 29 9 11 26 35 19 13 27 28 33 33 34 24 6 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard2 F Rad Rad F F F F NO3 Be Sb, As, Rad F As Rad Rad F NO3 NO3 NO3 As, Rad As, Rad As F Rad As Cr, Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb Rad Rad Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Area of Impaired Designated Use Stream Reach (in Lake (in acres) Standard miles) Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 2 Water quality samples collected between 1976 and 2000. Sb = Antimony As = Arsenic Be = Beryllium Cr = Chromium F = Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 198 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 199 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.4.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Hualapai Valley Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 4.4-6. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 4.4-7. Figure 4.410 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 4.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 4.4-6 and Figure 4.4-10. • Population in this basin has tripled since 1980, increasing from 11,361 in 1980 to 37,544 in 2000. • There are no recorded surface water diversions in this basin. Groundwater use has increased in this basin since 1971, with an average of 3,850 AFA from 1971-1975 to an average of 9,050 AFA from 2001-2005. The majority of this demand, 8,900 AFA, is for municipal use. The City of Kingman, in the Sacramento Valley Basin, obtains most of its water from well fields in this basin. • Most of the municipal and industrial demand is in the vicinity of New Kingman-Butler with a smaller portion of municipal demand along Pierce Ferry Road. • Industrial groundwater demand is minimal in this basin, less than 300 AFA from 19912005. All industrial groundwater demand is for mining. • There are three small mines or quarries in the basin, two north of Pierce Ferry Road and one on the basin boundary north of New Kingman-Butler. • As of 2005 there were 918 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 91 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 4.4-7. • There are two wastewater treatment facilities in this basin, Desert Fountain Wastewater Treatment Plant, which serves a subdivision in the New Kingman-Butler area and Kingman – Hilltop, which serves the City of Kingman and New Kingman-Butler. • Information on population served and effluent generation was only available for the Kingman – Hilltop facility. This facility serves over 16,000 people and generates almost 1,800 acre-feet of effluent per year. • The Kingman – Hilltop facility discharges to an evaporation pond and a wildlife area. Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 200 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.4-6 Cultural Water Demand in the Hualapai Valley Basin1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered Estimated Water Supply Wells Drilled and Projected Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal2 Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 1503 11,361 12,221 13,081 13,941 14,800 15,660 16,520 17,380 18,240 19,100 19,960 21,718 23,476 25,235 26,993 28,752 30,510 32,269 34,027 35,786 37,544 38,143 38,742 39,341 39,940 40,539 43,533 55,261 64,789 WELL TOTALS: 3,850 NR 4,850 NR Data Source 3 45 ADWR (1994a) 53 5 4,850 NR 49 15 4,850 NR 121 6 5,500 <300 NR NR 191 6 7,300 <300 NR NR 354 14 8,900 <300 NR NR 918 91 USGS (2007) Notes: NR = Not reported 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 The City of Kingman in the Sacramento Valley Basin obtains most of its water from well fields in this basin. 3 Includes all wells through 1980. 201 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.4-7 Effluent Generation in the Hualapai Valley Basin Disposal Method Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Desert Fountain WWTP NA New KingmanButler Kingman Hilltop City of Kingman Kingman Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Watercourse Golf Evaporation Irrigation Course/Turf/ Pond Landscape Wildlife Area Discharged to Infiltration Another Basin Facility Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record Adv. Tr. 1 3,000 2004 NA 16,010 1,792 X X Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 202 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 203 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Hualapai Valley Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 4.4-8A and B for water reports and analysis of adequate water supply. Figure 4.4-11 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • All subdivisions receiving an adequacy determination are in Mohave County. Fifty water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through December 2008. Of the 19,387 lots in 49 subdivisions for which lot information is available 10,969 lots, or 57%, were determined to be adequate. The most common reason for an inadequacy determination was because the applicant decided not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data were insufficient to make a determination. Six analysis of Adequate Water Supply applications, for a total of 259,966 lots, have been approved for this basin. Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 204 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.4-8 Adequacy Determinations in the Hualapai Valley Basin1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Subdivision Name County Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 1 Amatista Acres, Sunward Ho! Rn Mohave 23 North 16 West 29 17 53-500264 Inadequate A1 9/19/1991 Dry Lot Subdivision 2 Arizona West Tract 1112 Mohave 23 North 15 West 11 256 53-500295 Inadequate A1 9/17/1987 Truxton Canyon Water Company A2 3 Cedar Ridge Estates Mohave 22 North 17 West 11, 14 38 53-300512 Inadequate 4 Cerbat Ranches Unit 1 Mohave 22 North 17 West 12 125 53-500434 Adequate 5 Esmeralda Acres/Sunward Ho! Mohave 23 North 16 West 31 19 53-500619 Inadequate 6 Fountain Hills Estates Mohave 22 North 17 West 13 66 53-300087 Mohave 22 North 15 West 5, 17 200 53-500728 Greater Kingman Industrial Park Greater Kingman Industrial Park B 7 8 Dry Lot Subdivision Cerbat Water Company, Inc. 9/19/1991 Dry Lot Subdivision Adequate 9/26/1996 Cerbat Water Company, Inc. Adequate 7/27/1973 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 22 North 15 West 5, 17 19 53-300156 Inadequate A2 6/14/1996 Dry Lot Subdivision 23 North 16 West 7 9 53-400741 Inadequate A1, A2 7/2/2002 Dry Lot Subdivision 22 North 16 West 12, 13 41 53-400832 Inadequate A1, A2 10/17/2002 Dry Lot Subdivision 28 North 17 West 9 48 53-300558 Inadequate A2 10/29/1998 Dry Lot Subdivision 28 North 17 West 9 141 53-402005 Inadequate A1 1/26/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision 28 North 17 West 9 80 53-500019 Inadequate A1 6/11/2007 Hillview Ranches 11 Hualapai Vista Estates, Tract 3811 Mohave 12 Joshua Park Unit #1 Mohave 13 Joshua Park Unit 1 Mohave 14 Joshua Park Unit No. 1 Mohave Lake Juniper Mohave 22 North 17 West 11,14 16 53-400872 16 Lake Juniper Estates Mohave 22 North 17 West 11, 14 197 53-500876 Adequate 17 Lake Mead Rancheros Mohave 25 North 15 West 3 259 53-500036 25 South 15 East 21 324 53-500061 25 North 15 West 19 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Lake Mead Rancheros Lake Mead Rancheros #112 Lake Mead Rancheros, Unit 1 Lake Mead Rancheros, Units 3, 8, 14, 16 Lake Mead Ranchos Unit 2 Lake Mead Ranchos Unit 3 Lake Mead Ranchos Unit 4 Lake Mead Ranchos Unit 5 Lake Mead Ranchos, Unit 6 Lake Mead Ranchos Unit 7 Lake Mead Ranchos Unit 7 Lake Mead Rancheros Unit 10 205 A1 Mohave 10 15 9/4/1998 11/14/1980 Mohave Inadequate Dry Lot Subdivision Lake Juniper HOA & Mohave County Lake Juniper Water Company A1,A2 1/31/2003 Inadequate A1 11/30/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision Inadequate A1 3/12/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision 2/22/1991 Mohave 25 North 15 West 27, 29, 31 1,606 53-500880 Inadequate A1, A2 2/13/1986 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 25 North 15 West 13 121 53-700390 Inadequate A1 8/9/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 25 North 15 West 5, 9, 17, 27 332 53-700401 Inadequate A1 10/3/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 28 North 18 West 13 95 53-700458 Inadequate A1 12/31/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 28 North 18 West 11 592 53-300328 Inadequate A1 7/23/1997 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 28 North 18 West 1 491 53-500020 Inadequate A1 3/14/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 29 North 18 West 25 541 53-400713 Inadequate A1, A2 5/21/2002 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 29 North 18 West 27 402 53-402006 Inadequate A1 1/26/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 29 North 18 West 23 567 53-400714 Inadequate A1,A2 5/21/2002 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 29 North 18 West 23 569 53-402007 Inadequate A1 1/26/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 25 North 15 West 31 39 53-700278 Inadequate A1 4/18/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.4-8 Adequacy Determinations in the Hualapai Valley Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Subdivision Name County Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Dry Lot Subdivision 30 Lake Mohave Ranchos D Mohave 26 North 18 West 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 NA 53-500886 Inadequate A2,A3 11/23/1977 31 Lake Mohave Ranchos, Unit 6 Mohave 26 North 19 West 25 6 53-401294 Inadequate D 4/26/2004 NA 32 Mead-O-Rama Mohave 29 North 18 West 35 421 53-401651 Adequate 3/4/2005 Dry Lot Subdivision 33 Mead-O-Rama #2 Mohave 29 North 19 West 27 221 53-500942 Inadequate A2,A3 8/31/1984 Dry Lot Subdivision 34 Mead-O-Rama #3 Mohave 29 North 18 West 35 141 53-500943 Inadequate A2,A3 8/31/1984 Dry Lot Subdivision 35 Mead-O-Rama #4 Mohave 29 North 17 West 31 441 53-500944 Inadequate A2,A3 8/31/1984 Dry Lot Subdivision 39 Pinion Pines Estates #2 Mohave 20 North 15 West 6 21 53-501174 Inadequate A2,A3 3/1/1977 Dry Lot Subdivision 40 Quail Valley Estates Mohave 22 North 17 West 12 32 53-501241 Adequate 11/24/1981 Cerbat Water Company, Inc. Realsite Arizona Ranchettes Units 1,3,4,6,7,8, and 9 25 North 16 West 1, 11, 23, 25, 35 41 Mohave 252 53-700403 Inadequate 10/18/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision 26 North 15 West 19, 31 43 44 45 Red Wing Canyon Estates Mohave Shadow Mountain Acres Unit Two & Three Sunny Highlands Estates, Tract 1132, Phase 1-20 Lots A1 23 North 17 West 23 30 53-501292 Inadequate A1 5/4/1989 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 24 North 14 West 27, 35 93 53-400424 Inadequate A1,A2 11/29/2000 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 23 North 14 West 3 20 53-700505 Inadequate A1 4/14/2008 Dry Lot Subdivision 9 22 53-300075 Inadequate A1,A2 11/12/1995 Dry Lot Subdivision 46 Sunnyvale Acres, Sunward Ho! Ranches #2 Mohave 23 North 16 West 47 Sunrise Mountain Estates Mohave 23 North 16 West 33 35 53-501511 Inadequate A1,A2,A3 1/14/1992 Dry Lot Subdivision 48 Sunward Ho! Ranches Mohave 23 North 16 West 19, 30, 31, 33 430 53-300439 Inadequate A1 4/3/1998 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 23 North 16 West 30 35 53-501527 Inadequate A1 9/19/1991 Dry Lot Subdivision A1 9/19/1991 Dry Lot Subdivision 49 51 52 53 54 55 56 Sunward Ho! Ranches Turquesa Acres Toro Acres, Sunward Ho! #2 Mohave 23 North 16 West 18, 19 31 53-501567 Inadequate Valle Vista Mohave 23 North 15 West 34 1,200 53-501596 Adequate 6/7/1973 Valle Vista #1A,3A Mohave 23 North 15 West 10, 15 8,728 53-501597 Adequate 3/19/1975 Mohave 24 North 16 West 34 10 53-400514 Inadequate A1 7/10/2001 Mohave 23 North 15 West 3 7 53-500096 Inadequate A1 1/24/2007 Truxton Canyon Water Company Mohave 22 North 16 West 5 7 53-400065 Inadequate A1 5/11/1999 Dry Lot Subdivision Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No. Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 24 North 15 West 19, 30, 31 13,993 43-402284 8/17/2007 Undetermined 24 North 16 West 3, 5, 9 19,328 43-402288 8/17/2007 Undetermined 25 North 16 West 4 Valle Vista Unit 3- Tract 1204 Valle Vista Unit 2 Tract 1200, Lots 860, 861, 999, 1078,1709, 1631, and 1907 Zafiro Acres-Sunward Ho Ranches Truxton Canyon Water Company Truxton Canyon Water Company Truxton Canyon Water Company B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Location Map Key Subdivision Name County 9 Hafley Ranch Mohave 36 Section 4.4 Nugent Ranch Mohave Hualapai Valley Basin 206 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.4-8 Adequacy Determinations in the Hualapai Valley Basin (Cont)1 B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Location Map Key Subdivision Name County 37 Peacock Highlands Mohave 38 42 50 Peacock Vistas Red Lake The Mardian Ranch Mohave Mohave Mohave Township Range Section 22 North 14 West 19, 21, 29-31 22 North 15 West 1, 19, 21, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35 23 North 14 West 7 23 North 15 West 1, 11, 13, 14 17 West 26 North 17 West 26 North 18 West 26 North 16 West 27 North 16 West 31 27 North 17 West 1, 3, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 29, 31, 35 28 North 17 West 18 West 28 North 18 West 28 North 17 West 27 North 19 West ADWR File No. Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 39,397 43-402287 8/17/2007 Undetermined 9,012 43-402286 8/18/2007 Undetermined 43-402285 11/2/2007 Undetermined 43-402028 1/8/2007 Undetermined 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 15, 1719, 21, 28-31 3, 5, 7, 9, 13-17, 19, 21, 23-27, 29, 31, 33, 35 25 North 27 North No. of Lots 13, 23, 25, 35 5, 7, 17-20, 28- 31 155,236 23, 25, 27, 35 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 29, 31, 33, 35 13, 23, 25, 31, 33, 35 7, 19, 21, 29, 31, 33 23,000 1, 13, 25, 35 Source: ADWR 2008a Notes: 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. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA= Data not currently available to ADWR 1 207 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 208 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Hualapai Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W., M. Truini, M.E. Flynn, and W.H. Remick, 2007, Ground-Water Occurrence and Movement, 2006, and Water-Level Changes in the Detrital, Hualapai, and Sacramento Valley Basins, Mohave County, Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigation Report 20075182. Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2007, Cultural Water Demands in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. ______, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. ______, 2005c, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005d, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2005e, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005f, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005g, Wells55: Database. ______, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. ______, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. ______, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990. ______, 1981, Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. 209 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 ______, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 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 Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. E Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. (Effluent Generation Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) Gillespie, J. B. and C.B. Bentley, 1971, Geohydrology of the Hualapai and Sacramento Valleys, Mohave County, Arizona: USGS Water Supply Paper 1899-H, 37 p. O 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. R Remick, W.H., 1981, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Hualapai Basin Area, Mohave, Coconino, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: ADWR Hydrologic Map Series No. 4. U U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/ nid.cfm (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 2006, Database: Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS). United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 210 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu / swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Wille, J. N., 1992, Groundwater chemistry and the potential migration of contaminants in the Hualapai basin, northern Arizona. (Water Quality Map and Table) Supplemental Reading Andersen, M., 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Anning, D.W., M. Truini, M.E. Flynn, and W.H. Remick, 2007, Ground-Water Occurrence and Movement, 2006, and Water-Level Changes in the Detrital, Hualapai, and Sacramento Valley Basins, Mohave County, Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigation Report 20075182. Bentley, C.B., 1979, Geohydrologic Reconnaissance of Lake Mead NRA- Hoover Dam to Mt. Davis, Arizona: USGS 79-690. City of Kingman, 2006, 2007 City of Kingman System Water Plan. Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Dettiger, M., J. Harrill, J., and D. Schmidt, 1995, Distribution of carbonite rock aquifers and the potential for their development, southern Nevada and adjacent parts of California , Arizona and Utah: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 914146, 100 p. Enzel, Y., L.L. Ely, P.K. House, V.R. Baker, and R.H. Webb, 1993, Paleoflood evidence for a natural upper bound to flood magnitudes in the Colorado River Basin: Water Resources Research, vol. 29, no. 7, p. 2287-2297. Fielding, G., 2001, A groundwater reconnaissance survey of the Sacramento Valley, Big Sandy Valley, Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley and the Meadview watershed: University of Arizona, 7 p. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County general plan: Mohave County draft report, 204 p. 211 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Jacobs, K.L., and L.S. Stitzer, 2006, Water supply and management in rural Arizona, in Arizona Water Policy: Management Innovations in an Urbanizing Arid Region, Resources for the Future Press. Rangeland Consulting Service and others, 2004, Area plan – the Ranch at White Hills, a master plan community, unpublished report, 96 p. RNM, Stanley Consultants Inc. and Cooper Research, 2005, Rhodes Homes- Peacock Vistas area plan, unpublished report, 28 p. _____, 2005, Rhodes homes-Retreat at Temple Bar area plan, unpublished report, 30 p. _____, 2005, Rhodes Homes- Peacock Highlands area plan, unpublished report 34 p. Rösner, U., 1995, Water quality investigations in the historic mining district of Chloride and adjacent areas in the Cerbat Mountains, Mohave County Arizona. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Mohave County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Towne, D.C. and L. Rowe, 2007, Ambient groundwater quality of the Hualapai Valley Basin : a 2000 baseline study: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Open-file report 2007-05. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 2004, Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 1996-2000. Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin 212 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 213 Section 4.4 Hualapai Valley Basin Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin 214 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.5.1 Geography of the Lake Havasu Basin The Lake Havasu Basin, located in the southwestern part of the planning area, is the second smallest basin at 252 square miles. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 4.5-1. The basin is characterized by a valley adjacent to the Colorado River and Lake Havasu, which form the western boundary of the basin, and by lower elevation mountains along the north and eastern basin boundary. Vegetation types include lower Colorado River and Arizona upland Sonoran desertscrub and Mohave desertscrub. (see Figure 4.0-9) Riparian vegetation includes tamarisk and marsh along sections of the Colorado River. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 4.5-1 are: o Chemehuevi Valley running parallel to the Colorado River and Lake Havasu o Standard Wash running north to south in the eastern part of the basin o Bill Williams Mountains on the southeastern basin boundary o Mohave Mountains along the northeastern basin boundary with the highest point in the basin, Crossman Peak at 5,100 feet o The lowest point in the basin at approximately 470 feet at the Colorado River 215 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin 216 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.5.2 Land Ownership in the Lake Havasu Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Lake Havasu Basin is shown in Figure 4.5-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large percentage of U.S. Bureau of Land Management lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 4.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 59.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Lake Havasu Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • BLM lands in this basin are primarily contiguous and located throughout the basin. • This basin contains the largest percentage of BLM lands in the planning area. • Primary land uses are recreation and grazing. Private • 15.3% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land is contiguous and located around Lake Havasu City. • Primary land uses are domestic and commercial. State Trust Land • 14.7% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools and the Miner’s Hospital under the State Trust Land system. • Most state lands are surrounding Lake Havasu City. One portion of state land is located on an island created by the Bridgewater Channel in T13N, R20W. • Primary land uses are recreation and grazing. Wildlife Refuge • 8.7% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. • All wildlife refuge lands are part of the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge located in the northwestern portion of the basin. • Primary land uses are wildlife conservation and recreation. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 1.6% of the land is under ownership of Arizona State Parks. • The portion of Arizona State Park land in T13N, R20W is Windsor Beach State Park and the larger portion of land along the southwestern basin boundary is Cattail Cove State Park. • Primary land use is recreation. 217 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin 218 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.5.3 Climate of the Lake Havasu Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations are complied in Table 4.5-1 and the location is shown on Figure 4.5-3. Figure 4.5-3 also shows precipitation data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Lake Havasu Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 4.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 4.5-1A • There are two NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July and ranges between 96.6°F at Lake Havasu and 98.5°F at Lake Havasu City. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January or December and ranges between 52.9°F at Lake Havasu and 54.5°F at Lake Havasu City. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the winter (January – March). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 4.82 inches at Lake Havasu and lowest is 2.90 inches at Lake Havasu City. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 4.5-3 • Additional precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as high as 12 inches in the Mohave Mountains along the eastern basin boundary and as low as four inches along the boundary with California. • This basin is one of three basins in the planning area with a range of eight inches between areas of highest and lowest average annual precipitation, the lowest in the planning area. 219 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.5-1 Climate Data for the Lake Havasu Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation (in Record Used for feet) Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Max/Month 1 Lake Havasu 480 1967-1991 Lake Havasu City 500 1991-2004 1 Min/Month Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 96.6/Jul 52.9/Jan 1.65 0.39 1.59 1.19 4.82 98.5/Jul 54.5/Dec 1.45 0.16 0.68 0.60 2.90 Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation (in Avg. Annual Evap Record Used for feet) (in inches) Averages None C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages ) None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan Feb March April May June None Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin 220 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 221 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Lake Havasu Basin This basin does not contain streamflow data. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 4.5-2. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 4.5-3. The location of large reservoirs and flood ALERT gages are shown on Figure 4.5-4. There are no runoff data available for this basin. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 4.5-2. • As of October 2005 there were four stations in the basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 4.5-3. • The basin contains one large reservoir, Havasu, with a maximum capacity of 651,000 acrefeet. Lake Havasu, created by Parker Dam, is operated for hydroelectric power generation, irrigation and water supply. • There are no other reservoirs or stockponds in this basin. Table 4.5-2 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Lake Havasu Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 7490 Desert Hills Precipitation/Stage NA Mohave County FCD NA Mohave County FCD 7530 Ram Peak Repeater Repeater/Precipitation 7550 Horizon 6 Precipitation/Stage NA Mohave County FCD 7630 Lake Havasu City Weather Station NA Mohave County FCD Source: ADWR 2005b Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Not available Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin 222 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.5-3 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Lake Havasu Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION None Havasu (Parker Dam)2 Bureau of Reclamation 651,0003 H,I,S Federal USE JURISDICTION Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 (from water right filings) Notes: H=hydroelectric; I=irrigation; S=water supply 2 Dam is located in Parker Basin but lake storage is in the Lake Havasu, Sacramento Valley and Bill Williams Basins 3 Includes 28,600 acre-feet of dead storage 1 223 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin 224 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Lake Havasu Basin The total number of springs in the basin is shown on Table 4.5-4. There are no major or minor springs in this basin. The locations of perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 4.5-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • There is one perennial stream, the Colorado River, located along the western basin boundary. There are no intermittent streams. There are three springs with discharges less than one gpm identified by the USGS in this basin. Table 4.5-4 Springs in the Lake Havasu Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Location Name Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Name Latitude Discharge Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 3 225 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin 226 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Lake Havasu Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 4.5-5. Figure 4.5-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 4.5-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 4.5-6. Figure 4.5-8 shows well yields in three yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 4.5-5 and Figure 4.5-6. • The major aquifer in this basin is basin fill. • Flow direction is from north to south in this basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 4.5-5 and Figure 4.5-8. • As shown on Figure 4.5-8 well yields in this basin range from 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to more than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 17 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 1,500 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 4.5-5. • The estimate of natural recharge for this basin is 35,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 4.5-5. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 1.0 million acre-feet (maf) to 2.0 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 4.5-6. The water level is shown for one well measured in 2003-2004 with a depth of 74 feet. • The Department annually measures one index well in this basin. A hydrograph of this well is shown in Figure 4.5-7. 227 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.5-5 Groundwater Data for the Lake Havasu Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 252 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Well Yields, in gal/min Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Range 310-3,600 Median 1,500 (17 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 30-500 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 35,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 2,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 1 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1998-99 (30 wells measured) Notes: Predevelopment Estimate 1 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin 228 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 229 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Figure 4.5-7 Lake Havasu Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 25 A 75 1975 Section 4.5 WELL DEPTH: 550 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY conglomerate B-13-20 04ABB1 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Lake Havasu Basin 230 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 231 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.5.7 Water Quality of the Lake Havasu Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 4.5-6A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 4.5-9 shows the location of exceedences keyed to Table 4.5-6A. All community water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and treat water supplies to meet drinking water standards. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 4.5-6A. • Twenty sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • The most frequently equaled or exceeded parameter was nitrates. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded in the sites measured in this basin were arsenic, chromium and organics. Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin 232 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.5-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the Lake Havasu Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard2 14 North 14 North 14 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 20 West 21 21 21 3 3 3 9 10 10 10 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 22 As NO3 NO3 NO3 Cr Cr, Organics NO3 Organics Organics Organics As As NO3 As NO3 Organics NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Area of Impaired Designated Stream Reach (in Lake (in acres) Use Standard miles) Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 2 Water quality samples collected between 1976 and 2000. As = Arsenic Cr = Chromium NO3 = Nitrate Organics = One or more of several volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and pesticides 233 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin 234 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.5.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Lake Havasu Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 4.5-7. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 4.5-8. Figure 4.510 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 4.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 4.5-7 and Figure 4.5-10. • Population in this basin has more than doubled since 1980, increasing from 17,487 in 1980 to 44,591 in 2000. • Groundwater use has increased in this basin since 1971, with an average of 6,000 AFA from 1971-1975 to an average of 16,650 AFA from 2001-2005. The majority of this demand was for municipal use. • The cultural water demand table for this basin reflects the amount of water pumped from wells and diverted from streams for use. Some of these water uses may be accounted as Colorado River water based on an entitlement system established by Decree by the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. California et.al. Further information on Colorado River entitlements in this planning area is provided in Section 4.0.6. • All surface water diversions, less than 300 AFA from 1991-2005, are for municipal use at two state parks in the vicinity of Lake Havasu City. • The only demand center in this basin is high intensity municipal and industrial located in the vicinity of Lake Havasu City. • Industrial groundwater demand is minimal in this basin. Less than 300 AFA were used in 2001-2005 for a small mine or quarry. • As of 2005 there were 99 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 45 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 4.5-8. • There are five wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Over 30,000 people are served by these facilities. Only three facilities have information on treatment volumes, Island Plant Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), Mulberry WWTP and Sweetwater. Together these plants generate over 3,360 acre-feet of effluent per year. 235 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.5-7 Cultural Water Demand in the Lake Havasu Basin 1 Number of Registered Estimated Water Supply Wells Drilled and Projected Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 332 17,487 18,376 19,265 20,154 21,043 21,932 22,821 23,710 24,599 25,488 26,377 28,198 30,019 31,841 33,662 35,484 37,305 39,127 40,948 42,770 44,591 46,911 49,231 51,551 53,871 56,192 67,792 89,215 106,614 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet)3 Well Pumpage Municipal Industrial Surface-Water Diversions Agricultural Municipal Industrial 6,000 NR4 14,000 NR Agricultural Data Source 192 ADWR (1994a) 9 8 16,000 NR 15 3 12,000 NR 21 8 13,700 <300 NR <300 NR NR 7 3 15,400 <300 NR <300 NR NR 14 4 16,500 <300 NR <300 NR NR 99 45 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) ADWR (2008c) Notes: NR = Not reported 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Includes pumpage and diversion of Colorado River Contract Water. 4 The 1994 ADWR Arizona Water Resources Assessment included surface water diversions for this basin for the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge. Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin 236 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.5-8 Effluent Generation in the Lake Havasu Basin Disposal Method Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) NA Havasu Falls RV Park Private Lake Havasu City Island Plant WWTP Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City 11,000 1,120 Mulberry WWTP Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City 11,000 North Regional WWTF Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City 11,000 Sun Lake Village Private Lake Havasu City Total Evaporation Pond Irrigation Golf Course/Turf/ Landscape Wildlife Area Discharged to Another Facility Infiltration Basins X Current Treatment Level Population Not Served NA Primary/Secondary Adv. Trt.I & Nutrient Removal 7000 2008 1,120 London Bridge Adv. Trt.I & Nutrient Removal 7000 2008 1,120 Refuge Secondary 7000 2008 X X Recreational fields Year of Record Havasu Island NA 33,000 Watercourse X1 Primary NA 3,360 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant WWTF: Waste Water Treatment Facility Adv. Tr 1: Advanced treatment level I SD: Sanitiation District 1 Injection Wells 237 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin 238 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Havasu Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 4.5-9A. Designated water provider information is shown in Table 4.5-9B with date of application, date the designation was issued and projected or annual estimated demand. Figure 4.5-11 shows the locations of subdivisions and designated providers keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • All subdivisions receiving an adequacy determination are in Mohave County. Fourteen water adequacy determinations for more than 1,697 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. One determination of inadequacy has been made north of Lake Havasu City because the applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failure to demonstrate their legal authority to serve the subdivision. There are two designated water providers, Havasu Heights Water Improvement District and Lake Havasu City. The total projected or annual estimated demand for Havasu Heights WID is 140 acre-feet. Lake Havasu City does not have a projected or annual estimated demand in their designation. 239 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.5-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Havasu Basin 1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Subdivision Name Aztec Junction Tract 3019 Canterbury Estates Tract 3702-A Canterbury Estates Tract 3702B Havasu RV Resort Havasu RV Resort Phase II Havasu RV Resort Phase III Inn at Tamarisk 8 9 10 11 12 13 North Pointe Sunlake Village Tract 3700A Sunlake Village Tract 3700B Sunlake Village Tract 3700C Sunlake Village Tract 3700D Tamarisk Resort & Country Club 14 The Refuge County Mohave Township Range Section 12 North 18 West 10 No. of Lots ADWR File 2 No. ADWR Adequacy Determination NA 53-500304 Adequate Reason(s) for Inadequacy 3 Determination Date of Determination 6/13/1988 Mohave 14 North 20 West 21 63 53-400683 Adequate 3/26/2002 Mohave 14 North 20 West 21 45 53-400798 Adequate 10/28/2002 Mohave 14 North 20 West 15 169 53-401108 Adequate 11/12/2003 Mohave 14 North 20 West 15 96 53-401889 Adequate 10/18/2005 Mohave 14 North 20 West 15 133 53-700449 Adequate 12/28/2007 Mohave 14 North 21 West 21 212 53-500815 Adequate 1/5/1984 Mohave 14 North 20 West 17 455 53-401582 Adequate 12/28/2004 Mohave 14 North 20 West 21 35 53-300024 Adequate 8/8/1995 Mohave 14 North 20 West 21 40 53-300407 Adequate 3/9/1998 Mohave 14 North 20 West 21 52 53-400081 Adequate 8/24/1999 Mohave 14 North 20 West 21 35 53-400206 Adequate 12/3/1999 Mohave 14 North 20 West 20 NA 53-501535 Inadequate Mohave 14 North 20 West 20 362 53-400660 B Adequate Water Provider at the Time of Application Valley Pioneer Water Co. Arizona-American Water Co. Havasu Arizona-American Water Co. Havasu Arizona-American Water Co. Havasu Arizona-American Water Co. Havasu Arizona-American Water Co. Havasu Havasu Water Company Arizona-American Water Co. Havasu Arizona-American Water Co. Havasu Arizona-American Water Co. Havasu Arizona-American Water Co. Havasu Arizona-American Water Co. Havasu 1/5/1984 Havasu Water Company 2/5/2002 Arizona-American Water Co. Havasu B. Designated Adequate Water Supply Map Key Water Provider Name County Designation No. Projected or Annual Estimated Demand (af/yr) Date Application Received Date Application Issued Year of Projected or Annual Demand a Havasu Heights Domestic Water Improvement District Mohave 40-700420.0001 140 6/26/2007 5/8/2008 2017 b Lake Havasu City Mohave 40-900008.0000 No amount designated NA 6/18/1973 No data, hydrologic study needed Source: ADWR 2008a Notes: 1 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. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA= not currently available to ADWR Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin 240 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 241 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Lake Havasu Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), 2005, Annual reports, Private Sewer companies, 1990 to 2005: ACC Utilities Division. (Effluent Generation Table) Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2004a, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) ______, 2004b, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2008c, Municipal surface water demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2007, Cultural Water Demands in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2006, CAP diversions: Database, ADWR Office of Colorado River Management. ______, 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. ______, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. ______, 2005c, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2005d, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005e, Wells55: Database. ______, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. ______, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. ______, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin 242 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. ______, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 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 Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. E Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. (Effluent Generation Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. O 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. U U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 2006, Database: Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS). United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu / swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed 243 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi- win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. ______, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Reading Andersen, M., 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Benemelis, P., 2003, Lower Colorado River Multi Species Program: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Bentley, C.B., 1979, Geohydrologic Reconnaissance of Lake Mead NRA- Hoover Dam to Mt. Davis, Arizona: USGS 79-690. Lake Havasu City, 2006, Water System Plan Draft, Lake Havasu City, Arizona, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, August 2006. _____, 2006, 2005 Water Conservation Plan, Lake Havasu City, Arizona. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County general plan: Mohave County draft report, 204 p. Hart, R., 1999, Water quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS national stream accounting network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, White Mountains, Arizona. MacNish, R.D., 1992, Scientific challenges in managing the Colorado River: in Interdisciplinary Approaches to Hydrology and Hydrogeology: American Institute of Hydrology, October 1992, p.323-337. Owen-Joyce, S.J. and S.L. Kimsey, 1996, An accounting system for water and consumptive use along the Colorado River, Hoover Dam to Mexico: USGS Water Supply Paper 2407, 94 p. Radtke, D.B., 1990, Environmental contaminants in the lower Colorado River Valley, Arizona, California and Nevada: in Water Quality and Quantity Issues into the 1990’s-Adaptations to Current Realities: Phoenix Arizona: Proceedings from the 2nd annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 1990, Casa Grande, Arizona, part R, p.1-21. Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin 244 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 87 p. Sanger, H.W. and G.R. Littin, 1982, Maps showing ground water conditions in the Bill Williams area, Mohave, Yavapai and Yuma counties, Arizona-1980: USGS Open File Report 8287. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Mohave County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. US Bureau of Reclamation, 2004, Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 1996-2000. Webb, R.H., S.A. Leake and R.M. Turner, 2007, The Ribbon of Green: Change in Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States, University of Arizona Press. Westenburg, C.L., D.P. Harper and G.A. DeMeo, 2006 Evapotranspiration by phreatophytes along the lower Colorado River at Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigation Report 2006-5043. 245 Section 4.5 Lake Havasu Basin Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 246 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.6.1 Geography of the Lake Mohave Basin The Lake Mohave Basin is a small and long basin located in the northwestern portion of the planning area at 980 square miles. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 4.6-1. The basin is characterized by a broad valley along the Colorado River in the southern part of the basin and by mountains in the northern part of the basin. The Colorado River, Lake Mohave and Lake Mead define the western and northern basin boundary. Vegetation is primarily Mohave desertscrub with a small area of lower Colorado River Sonoran desertscrub (see Figure 4.0-9) and tamarisk and marsh vegetation along sections of the Colorado River. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 4.6-1 are: o Mohave Valley in the southern part of the basin running parallel to the Colorado River o Silver Creek Wash running east to west from Oatman to Bullhead City o The Black Mountains that define the eastern basin boundary with the highest point in the basin, Mount Perkins at 5,456 feet northeast of Cottonwood East at the basin boundary o The lowest point in the basin is approximately 500 feet near Golden Shores at the Colorado River 247 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 248 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.6.2 Land Ownership in the Lake Mohave Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Lake Mohave Basin is shown in Figure 4.6-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the largest variety of land ownership of any basin in the planning area. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 4.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 44.5% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Kingman Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • BLM lands in this basin are primarily contiguous and located in the eastern portion of the basin. • The basin contains a portion of two wilderness areas, the 112,400-acre Warm Springs Wilderness and the 27,660-acre Mt. Nutt Wilderness (see Figure 4.0-12). • Primary land uses are recreation and grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 33.9% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service (NPS) as the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. • The NPS lands are located in the northern and west central portions of the basin. • Primary land use is recreation Private • 11.9% of the land is private. • The majority of the private land is located in the vicinity of Bullhead City and Mohave Valley. Private land around Mohave Valley occurs in a checkerboard pattern with tribal lands. • Primary land uses are domestic, commercial and farming. Indian Reservation • 3.8% of the land is under ownership of the Fort Mojave Tribe. • Tribal lands are found in the southern portion of the basin and the majority of the lands are interspersed with private lands. • Primary land uses are domestic and farming. State Trust Land • 3.3% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools and the Miner’s Hospital under the State Trust Land system. • State lands are scattered throughout the southern portion of the basin. • Primary land use is grazing. Wildlife Refuge • 1.9% of land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 249 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 • • All wildlife refuge lands are part of the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge located along the southwestern basin boundary. Primary land uses are wildlife conservation and recreation. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.7% of the land is under ownership of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. • The portion of “other” land in T21N, R19W is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The other small parcel of land in T17N, R21W is managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department as the Colorado River Nature Center. • Primary land use is recreation. Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 250 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 251 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.6.3 Climate of the Lake Mohave Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan and AZMET stations are complied in Table 4.6-1 and the location is shown on Figure 4.6-3. Figure 4.6-3 also shows precipitation data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Lake Mohave Basin does not contain SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 4.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 4.6-1A • There are three NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July at all stations and is approximately 95°F. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January or December and ranges between 51.4°F at Willow Beach and 54.3°F at Bullhead City. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the winter (January – March). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 5.84 inches at Bullhead City and the lowest is 4.63 inches at Davis Dam #2. Evaporation Pan • Refer to Table 4.6-1B • There is one site at Davis Dam #2 at 660 feet with an annual evaporation rate of 154.32 inches. • This is the only evaporation pan station in the planning area. AZMET • Refer to Table 4.6-1C • There are two AZMET stations in the basin at Mohave and Mohave #2. • Average annual evaporation at the Mohave site, located at 495 feet, is 80.93 inches. • Average annual evaporation at the Mohave #2 site, located at 432 feet, is 81.61 inches. • These are the only AZMET stations in the planning area. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 4.6-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 12 inches in the Black Mountains near Oatman, and four inches or less in a number of areas along the boundary with Nevada. This is the lowest average annual precipitation in the planning area. Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 252 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-1 Climate Data for the Lake Mohave Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation (in Record Used for feet) Averages Bullhead City Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 95.6/Jul 54.3/Dec 2.87 0.26 1.41 1.30 5.84 540 1971-2000 Davis Dam #2 660 1 1958-1977 95.2/Jul 52.2/Jan 1.49 0.44 1.30 1.41 4.63 Willow Beach 760 1971-2000 95.8/Jul 51.4/Jan 2.31 0.56 1.55 1.21 5.63 Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Davis Dam #2 Period of Elevation (in Avg. Annual Evap Record Used for feet) (in inches) Averages 660 1958 - 1977 154.32 Station Name Elevation (feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages ) Mohave 495 1999 - current 80.93 (9) Mohave #2 492 2003 - current 81.61 (5) Source: WRCC, 2005 C. AZMET: Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2007 D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan Feb March April May June None 253 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 254 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.6.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Lake Mohave Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 4.6-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown on Table 4.6-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 4.6-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 4.6-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 4.6-2. • Data from two real-time stations located on the Colorado River are shown in the table and on Figure 4.6-4. • Seasonal flow is regulated by releases from the dams and therefore is similar in all seasons. • Maximum annual flow for both stations occurred in 1984; 21,350,096 acre-feet at the Colorado River below Hoover Dam station and 21,596,249 acre-feet at the Colorado River below Davis Dam station. Minimum annual flow was 5,919,516 acre-feet at the station below Hoover Dam in 1934 and 7,406,290 acre-feet in 1982 at the station below Davis Dam. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 4.6-3. • As of October 2005 there were eight stations in the basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 4.6-4. • The basin contains five large reservoirs. The largest is Lake Mead with a maximum capacity of 29,755,000 acre-feet. • There are two small reservoirs in the basin. • There are three registered stockponds in the basin. Runoff Contours • Refer to Figure 4.6-4 • Runoff is 0.1 inches per year, or 5.33 acre-feet per square mile, along the eastern basin boundary. 255 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-2 Streamflow Data for the Lake Mohave Basin Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Station Number USGS Station Name Drainage Area 2 (in mi ) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record 9421500 Colorado River below Hoover Dam1 171,700 675 9423000 Colorado River 1 below Davis Dam 173,300 490 Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Years of Annual Flow Record Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 4/1934 to current (real time) 24 29 26 21 5,919,516 (1934) 9,183,655 10,109,870 21,350,096 (1984) 70 5/1905 to current (real time) 21 32 29 18 7,406,290 (1982) 8,499,496 10,102,448 21,596,249 (1984) 44 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: Station is located in NV Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 1 Table 4.6-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Lake Mohave Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 1560 Gold Road Crest Repeater Repeater/Precipitation 12/4/2001 Mohave County FCD 1590 Boundary Cone Precipitation/Stage 12/6/2001 Mohave County FCD 1610 Silver Creek Wash Precipitation/Stage 12/5/2001 Mohave County FCD 1620 Montana Wash Precipitation/Stage 12/5/2001 Mohave County FCD 1640 El Rodeo Channel Precipitation/Stage 12/6/2001 Mohave County FCD 1680 Mohave Valley Weather Station NA Mohave County FCD 7420 Golden Shores Precipitation NA Mohave County FCD 7610 Bullhead City Weather Station NA Mohave County FCD Source: ADWR 2005b Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Not available Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 256 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Lake Mohave Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1| Mead (Hoover Dam)2 Bureau of Reclamation 29,755,0003 C,H,I,RR,S,R Federal 2 Mohave (Davis Dam) Bureau of Reclamation 1,818,3004 H,S,R Federal B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)5 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE1 JURISDICTION 3 Topock Marsh Bureau of Reclamation 4,000 R Federal 4 Lost Lake US Fish & Wildlife Service 568 F,R Federal 5 Beal Lake US Fish & Wildlife Service 300 F,R Federal Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)5 Total number: 2 Total surface area: 30 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 3 (from water right filings) Notes: C=flood control; F=fish & wildlife pond; H=hydroelectric; I=irrigation; R=recreation; RR=river regulation; S=water supply 2 Dam is located in Lake Mohave Basin and lake storage is located in Lake Mohave, Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley and Meadview Basins. 3 Includes 2,378,000 acre-feet of dead storage. 4 Includes 8,530 acre-feet of dead storage. 5 Capacity data not available to ADWR 1 257 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 258 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.6.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Lake Mohave Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 4.6-5. The locations of major springs as well as perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 4.6-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • There is one perennial stream, the Colorado River, located along the western basin boundary. There are ten major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge rate is 400 gpm at Arizona Hot Springs. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 4.6-5B. There are two minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. All of the measurements, except for Arizona Hot Springs, were made during or prior to 1983. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 27 to 29, depending on the database reference. 259 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-5 Springs in the Lake Mohave Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 Arizona Hot Springs 355738 1144332 400 11/1/2004 2 Unnamed 360008 1144420 100 During or prior to 1971 3 Unnamed 355956 1144410 100 During or prior to 1971 4 Hot - Ringbolt Rapids 355739 1144326 48 During or prior to 1983 355942 1144415 40 During or prior to 1983 355542 1144220 32 During or prior to 1983 360022 1144431 32 During or prior to 1983 355942 1144420 32 During or prior to 1983 360015 1144420 30 During or prior to 1971 360001 1144424 20 10/23/1970 Date Discharge Measured Map Key Name 1 5 6 7 8 Palm Tree- Cold Arizona Seep 2 2 Arizona Hot Spot 9 Palm Tree Hot Unnamed 10 Unnamed 2 Date Discharge Measured B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 355925 1144421 5 During or prior to 1979 351649 1142906 1 NA Name Unnamed Box 3 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 27 to 29 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 3 Location approximated by ADWR NA=Not available 1 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 260 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 261 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.6.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Lake Mohave Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 4.6-6. Figure 4.6-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 4.6-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 4.6-6. Figure 4.6-8 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 4.6-6 and Figure 4.6-6. • The major aquifer in this basin is recent stream alluvium. • Flow direction is from north to south in this basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 4.6-6 and Figure 4.6-8. • As shown on Figure 4.6-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to greater than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 96 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 1,000 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 4.6-6. • The estimate of natural recharge for this basin is 183,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Recharge comes principally from infiltration of Colorado River water. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 4.6-6. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 1.2 maf to 8.0 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet Water Level • Refer to Figure 4.6-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures three index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for two of these wells are shown in Figure 4.6-7. • Of the three water depths shown, the deepest is 427 feet south of Bullhead City and the shallowest is 337 feet north of Mohave Valley. Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 262 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-6 Groundwater Data for the Lake Mohave Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 980 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium 3,205 (1 well measured) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Range 15-5,000 Median 1,000 (96 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 30-1,000 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 183,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1,200,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) 8,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 6,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 3 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: NA Notes: NA = Not Available 1 Predevelopment Estimate 263 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 264 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Figure 4.6-7 Lake Mohave Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells A 300 WELL DEPTH: 490 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill B-21-21 21CBB 350 400 1975 300 B 1985 1995 basin fill B-18-21 05CAB3 WELL DEPTH: 435 ft USE: DOMESTIC 350 1975 2005 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 265 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 266 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.6.7 Water Quality of the Lake Mohave Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 4.6-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired stream reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 4.6-7B. Figure 4.6-9 shows the location of exceedences and impairment keyed to Table 4.6-7. All community water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and treat water supplies to meet drinking water standards. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 4.6-7A. • Sixty-five measured sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter most frequently equaled or exceeded in the sites measured was arsenic. Other parameters equaled or exceeded included cadmium, fluoride, lead, nitrate, mercury and total dissolved solids. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 4.2-7B. • Water quality standards for selenium were equaled or exceeded in one 40-mile reach of the Colorado River between Hoover Dam and Lake Mohave. • The Colorado River between Hoover Dam and Lake Mohave is not part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program at this time. 267 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Lake Mohave Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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 Spring Spring Spring Spring Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Section 4.6 Township Range Section 30 North 30 North 30 North 30 North 29 North 29 North 27 North 27 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 19 North 18 North 23 West 23 West 23 West 23 West 22 West 23 West 21 West 22 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 21 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 23 West 20 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 20 West 10 10 15 26 29 12 29 1 21 27 27 29 29 31 1 1 12 14 16 16 19 19 19 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 29 32 32 35 35 35 24 26 1 14 26 34 35 36 7 Lake Mohave Basin Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard2 F Hg Hg, TDS Hg As Hg, TDS As, TDS As As, F, NO3 As As As, Pb As, F As, Pb As NO3 Cd As Pb Pb NO3 TDS As, NO3 As As As As, Hg As As F As As As As, F F As, F As, F As, NO3 As As As, Hg As, NO3 As, NO3, Hg As As As As As TDS NO3 F Pb, NO3 268 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Lake Mohave Basin (Cont) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 19 West 21 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 22 West 25 27 35 35 36 4 17 3 4 10 11 13 14 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard2 As As As As As As As Pb As As, Pb TDS As Pb Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name a Stream Colorado River (Hoover Dam to Lake Mohave) Length of Impaired Area of Impaired Stream Reach (in Lake (in acres) miles) 40 NA Designated Use Standard3 Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 A&W Se Source: ADEQ 2005d Notes: NA = Not applicable Water quality samples collected between 1970 and 2004. 2 As = Arsenic Cd = Cadmium F = Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate Hg = Mercury TDS = Total Dissolved Solids Se = Selenium 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife 1 269 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 270 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.6.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Lake Mohave Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 4.6-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 4.6-9. Figure 4.610 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 4.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 4.6-8 and Figure 4.6-10. • Population in this basin has increased substantially since 1980, increasing from 13,653 in 1980 to 51,549 in 2000. • Groundwater use has increased in this basin since 1971, with an average of 17,500 AFA from 1971-1975 and an average of 54,000 AFA from 2001-2005. • The cultural water demand table for this basin reflects the amount of water pumped from wells and diverted from streams for use. Some of these water uses may be accounted as Colorado River water based on an entitlement system established by Decree by the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. California et.al. Further information on Colorado River entitlements in this planning area is provided in Section 4.0.6. • Surface water diversions in this basin were relatively minimal in the 1970s, with a significant increase in surface water diversions in 1980-1985. Current surface water diversions are 69,000 AFA on average during 2001-2005. • The majority of surface water use from 1990-2005 was for agricultural irrigation on the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation in the vicinity of Mohave Valley. • Municipal and industrial demand is found along Highway 95 north of Mohave Valley and in the vicinity of Bullhead City. Although the USGS National Gap Analysis Program GIS cover used for Figure 4.6-10 does not show high intensity municipal and industrial use in the vicinity of Bullhead City, this use exists in this area. • Municipal groundwater demand has grown from 12,700 AFA in 1991 to 18,800 AFA in 2001-2005. • Industrial groundwater demand is minimal in this basin, at an average of 600 AFA during 2001-2005. Industrial groundwater demand is for three small mines or quarries and two golf courses in the vicinity of Bullhead City. One golf course, El Rio Country Club, opened in 2005 therefore only one year of water use for is included in the average. • In 2001-2005 an average of 3,700 acre-feet of surface water per year was used for industrial demand. All industrial surface water demand comes from the South Point power plant on the Fort Mojave Reservation. • As of 2005 there were 1,887 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 353 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. 271 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 4.6-9. • There are fifteen wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for only six facilities and information on effluent generation was available for nine facilities. These facilities serve over 15,800 people and generate over 3,100 acre-feet of effluent per year. Table 4.6-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Lake Mohave Basin1 Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet)2 Number of Registered Estimated Water Supply Wells Drilled and Projected Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Data Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural Source Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 3 725 13,653 15,353 17,053 18,752 20,452 22,152 23,852 25,551 27,251 28,951 30,651 32,740 34,830 36,920 39,010 41,100 43,190 45,280 47,369 49,459 51,549 52,920 54,291 55,662 57,033 58,404 65,259 79,878 91,747 WELL TOTALS: 17,500 2,600 22,000 14,400 2013 ADWR (2007) 331 34 27,300 46,600 281 37 29,500 53,600 187 31 12,700 500 36,700 500 NR 56,600 159 32 16,000 500 35,600 700 NR 68,100 203 18 18,800 600 30,400 400 3,700 64,900 1,887 353 USGS (2007) BIA (1998) ADWR (2008b) ADWR (2008c) Notes: NR = Not reported. 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes pumpage and diversion of Colorado River Contract Water. 3 Includes all wells through 1980. Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 272 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-9 Effluent Generation in the Lake Mohave Basin Disposal Method Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Watercourse Evaporation Pond Irrigation Golf Course/Turf/ Landscape Adobe Highlands Apt. WWTF Private Bullhead City NA Bullhead Biltmore Private Bullhead City NA Citizens Utilities Private Bullhead City Davis Dam Evaporation Ponds Bureau of Reclamation Dam Fort Mohave Treatment Wetland Ft. Mohave Indian Ft. Mohave Indian Tribe Reservation NA NA 400 Katherine's Landing WWTF National Park Service Park Riverbend NA Bullhead City Section 10 Bullhead City Bullhead City 12,000 1,792 Section 18 WWTF Bullhead City Bullhead City 2,000 392 Sierra AZ American Water Bullhead City NA 467 Sun Ridge NA Bullhead City 500 78 Private Bullhead City 665 92 NA Bullhead City 280 37 AZ American Water Ft. Mohave NA 220 15,845 3,126 Wishing Well WWTP Total Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record 2003 NA 45 Dam Tierra Grande Infiltration Basins X Bureau of Reclamation 1 Discharged to Another Facility NA 3.3 Hoover Dam WWTF Sunrise Vista Utilities Wildlife Area X Secondary NA 2000 NA NA NA X NA Rotary Park/ Chaparral X X Laughlin Ranch Adv.Tr.II 10,000 2004 Adv. Tr. II 18,500 2004 NA Riverview X X X Desert Lakes 2004 Adv. Tr. 1 NA 2000 Secondary NA 2007 Adv. Tr. 1 3,720 2000 Secondary NA 2007 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Notes: Year of record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Waste Water Treatment Facility WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant Ad. Tr. 1: Advanced treatment level 1 Adv. Tr. II: Advanced Treatment level II 1 Scheduled to close in May 2005 273 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 274 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.6.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Mohave Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 4.6-10A and B for water reports and analysis of adequate water supply. Designated water provider information is shown in Table 4.6-10C with date of application, date the designation was issued and projected or annual estimated demand. Figure 4.6-11 shows the locations of subdivisions and designated providers keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • All subdivisions receiving an adequacy determination are in Mohave County. Two hundred and sixty-five water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through December 2008. Of the 32,802 lots in 262 subdivisions for which lot information is available, 32,530 lots or 99% were determined to be adequate. The three determinations of inadequacy were based on: the applicant’s failure to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failure to demonstrate their legal authority to serve the subdivision; the applicant did not submit the necessary information and/or available hydrologic data were insufficient to make a determination; and water quality. Five Analyses of Adequate Water Supply applications have been approved for this basin, for a total of 663 lots. There is one designated water provider, Bullhead City, with a projected or annual estimated demand of 23,691 acre-feet. 275 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Mohave Basin1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Subdivision Name County Township Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination 1 Agua View Tract 1051 Mohave 17 North 22 West 23 56 53-500254 Adequate 2/28/1994 2 American Business Park Mohave 19 North 22 West 35 NA 53-500265 Adequate 10/19/1988 Mohave 19 North 22 West 35 NA 53-500266 Adequate 10/19/1992 Mohave 20 North 21 West 5 63 53-300215 Adequate 11/18/1996 3 4 American Business Park Tct 4075 Arroyo Park at Desert Foothills Mohave 17 North 22 West 15 NA 53-500322 Adequate Mohave 17 North 22 West 15 4 53-500325 Adequate 3/4/1992 Mohave 17 North 22 West 15 8 53-500326 Adequate 2/27/1992 Fort Mohave Tribal Utilties Mohave 19 North 22 West 25 NA 53-500329 Adequate 5/2/1983 5 Arroyo Vista Estates Mohave 19 North 22 West 12 NA 53-500301 Adequate 1/6/1988 Arroyo Vista Estates 4077E Uni Mohave 19 North 22 West 12 36 53-400526 Adequate 6/29/2001 7 Aztec Village Tract 4144A Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 7 53-500305 Adequate 4/20/1993 Mohave 17 North 22 West 15 NA 53-500319 Adequate 12/11/1984 Mohave 17 North 22 West 15 NA 53-500320 Adequate 1/7/1988 Mohave 17 North 22 West 15 NA 53-500321 Adequate 11/15/1988 11/21/1985 9 10 11 14 15 16 Bermuda Dunes Tract 4039A Bermuda Dunes Tract 4039C Bermuda Dunes Tract 4039D Bermuda Dunes Tract 4059B Bermuda Meadows (A) Bermuda Meadows (B) Beverly Hills Estates Tract 402 Water Provider at the Time of Application Fort Mohave Tribal Utilties Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Fort Mohave Tribal Utilties 6 8 Dry Lot Subdivision 20 North 22 West 17 4 53-500346 Adequate Mohave 19 North 22 West 25 55 53-401809 Adequate 8/4/2005 20 Brett Canyon Estates, Tract 419 Buena Vista #4 Mohave 20 North 22 West 16 NA 53-500365 Adequate 11/12/1975 Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Oasis Utililty Company 21 Bullhead Airpark Phase 1 Mohave 21 North 21 West 31,32 7 53-300153 Adequate 7/23/1996 North Mohave Valley Corp. 22 Bullhead Plaza Mohave 20 North 22 West 18 NA 53-500369 Adequate 5/17/1982 23 Camp Mohave Heights Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 NA 53-500385 Adequate 10/23/1989 24 Casa Blanca Mohave 20 North 23 West 13 13 53-500401 Adequate 4/9/1991 25 Casa Grande Condominiums Mohave 21 North 21 West 21 19 53-500406 Adequate 6/26/1992 North Mohave Valley Corp. Casa de Rio Villas Condos Mohave 20 North 22 West 17 60 53-500403 Adequate 9/28/1983 Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave 17 18 19 26 Black Mountain Park Mohave 20 North 22 West 23 Bluewater Shores Mohave 988 53-500342 Adequate 5/1/1990 3/13/1990 Oasis Utililty Company Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave 27 Central Village A Mohave 20 North 22 West 19 46 53-500432 Adequate 3/21/1978 Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave 28 Chaparral Country Club Tract 50 Mohave 20 North 22 West 29 30 53-500437 Adequate 11/22/1994 Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave 29 Chaparral Terrace Mohave 20 North 22 West 29 319 53-500444 Adequate 10/11/1985 Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Mohave 20 North 22 West 29 NA 53-500446 Adequate 10/25/1988 30 31 Section 4.6 Range Chaparral Villas Condominiums Chaparral del Rio Condominiums Mohave 20 North 22 West 29 90 53-500438 Adequate 7/28/1989 32 Clearwater Hills #1 Mohave 19 North 22 West 11 120 53-500470 Adequate 10/15/1980 33 Clearwater Hills #2 Mohave 19 North 22 West 11 75 53-500471 Adequate 6/13/1985 Lake Mohave Basin Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. 276 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Mohave Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Subdivision Name County Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination 34 Clearwater Hills #2,3 Mohave 19 North 22 West 11 81 53-500472 Adequate 4/12/1982 35 Colorado River Estates Colorado Riverfront Terrace Courtney Greens Tract 4054 Courtney Greens #2 Tract 4054B Mohave 20 North 22 West 25,26 128 53-500486 Adequate 4/2/1990 Mohave 19 North 39 Courtney Park East 4147A Mohave 19 North 40 Courtney Park East Tract 4147-B Mohave 19 North Courtney Place Tract 4070 Mohave 36 37 38 41 42 43 Courtney Place Townhomes 4071A Covina Gardens Condominiums Mohave 17 North 22 West 23 61 53-500488 Adequate 6/22/1989 Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 42 53-500531 Adequate 12/16/1986 22 West 23 30 53-500532 Adequate 8/20/1990 22 West 23 6 53-500533 Adequate 7/22/1993 22 West 23 64 53-500534 Adequate 6/23/1997 19 North 22 West 23 5 53-500535 Adequate 10/24/1990 Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 18 53-500536 Adequate 9/24/1992 Mohave 20 North 22 West 29 12 53-500538 Adequate 12/8/1982 Water Provider at the Time of Application Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave 44 Coyote Run Tract 4176-B Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 104 53-700238 Adequate 2/21/2007 Arizona American Water Co. 45 Coyote Run Tract, 4176-A Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 42 53-401144 Adequate 2/18/2004 Arizona American Water Co. 46 Del Rio Estates Mohave 20 North 22 West 32 7 53-400542 Adequate 8/6/2001 Delta City #5 Mohave 17 North 21 West 7 2,173 53-500548 Adequate 9/13/1973 47 48 49 Desert Canyon at SunRidge Desert Foothills Estates #5011 Mohave 21 North 21 West 21 141 53-401837 Adequate 2/2/2006 Mohave 20 North 21 West 5 3,353 53-500559 Adequate 4/18/1995 Mohave 20 North 22 West 13 103 53-500562 Adequate 5/20/1981 50 Desert Glen 51 Desert Horizons, Tract 4161 Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 44 53-400113 Adequate 9/21/1999 52 Desert Isle Mohave 20 North 22 West 13 15 53-500566 Adequate 11/15/1990 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Desert Lakes Estates Tract 4152 Desert Lakes Estates Tract 4152 Desert Lakes Estates Tract 4152 Desert Lakes Estates Tract 4159 Desert Lakes Estates, Tract 415 Desert Lakes Golf Course & Estates Desert Lakes Golf Course & Estates #F Desert Lakes Golf Course & Estates Tract 4163 Mohave 19 North 22 West 36 31 53-300025 Adequate 6/5/1996 Mohave 19 North 22 West 36 40 53-400220 Adequate 1/5/2000 Mohave 19 North 22 West 36 42 53-400987 Adequate 10/22/2003 4/27/2001 Mohave 19 North 22 West 35 6 53-400475 Adequate Mohave 19 North 22 West 36 159 53-401687 Adequate 9/27/2005 Mohave 19 North 22 West 36 233 53-500569 Adequate 5/14/1990 Mohave 19 North 22 West 35 38 53-300326 Adequate 10/29/1997 Mohave 19 North 22 West 35 32 53-400697 Adequate 5/7/2002 Desert Ridge Tract 4032A Mohave 19 North 22 West 11 83 53-500575 Adequate 2/23/1984 62 Dos Vientos Tr. 4199 Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 15 53-401676 Adequate 4/11/2005 63 East Shore Villas #1 Tract 5070 Mohave 20 North 22 West 9,16 51 53-400175 Adequate 11/22/1999 61 277 Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Bermuda Water Company, Inc. North Mohave Valley Corp. Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Arizona American Water Co. Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Mohave Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key 64 Edgewood Condominiums Tr 4021 County Township Range Section Mohave 20 North 22 West 13 No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 36 53-500599 Adequate Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination 8/18/1981 65 El Camino Estates Mohave 19 North 22 West 1 763 53-500601 Adequate 12/7/1989 66 El Camino Village #1 Mohave 19 North 22 West 1 251 53-500602 Adequate 12/26/1991 72 El Rio Country Cllub, Tract 417 El Rio Country Club, Tract 4177 Emerald River Estates T4093 Emerald River Estates Tract 409 Everglades Estates Tract 4214A Evergreen Addition 73 Evergreen Addition #3 74 67 68 69 70 71 75 76 77 78 79 80 Mohave 18 North 22 West 11 143 53-401778 Adequate 9/1/2005 Mohave 18 North 22 West 11 161 53-401466 Adequate 5/4/2005 Mohave 19 North 22 West 25 45 53-500612 Adequate 8/21/1990 Mohave 19 North 22 West 25 62 53-400002 Adequate 8/24/1999 Mohave 19 North 22 West 36 65 53-700575 Adequate 10/23/2008 Mohave 18 North 22 West 27 38 53-500623 Adequate 7/3/1979 Mohave 18 North 22 West 27 77 53-500625 Adequate 10/19/1987 Fairway Estates #1-4148A Mohave 19 North 22 West 35 49 53-500630 Adequate 10/22/1992 Fairway Estates #2 Mohave 19 North 22 West 35 28 53-500631 Adequate 4/26/1993 Mohave 19 North 22 West 35 100 53-500632 Adequate 5/8/1991 7/12/1991 Fairway Estates Tract 4097A Fairway Estates Tract 4097B Fairway Estates Tract 4097C Fairway Estates Tract 4097D Fairway Estates Tract 4097 E Mohave 19 North 22 West 35 28 53-500633 Adequate Mohave 19 North 22 West 35 47 53-401366 Adequate 9/9/2004 Mohave 19 North 22 West 35 48 53-401201 Adequate 2/13/2004 Mohave 19 North 22 West 35 41 53-400538 Adequate 3/4/2002 Mohave 20 North 21 West 31 1,750 NA Adequate 11/2/1988 81 Fox Creek Estates 82 Fort Mojave Business Park, Trac Mohave 19 North 22 West 25 28 53-700474 Adequate 1/25/2008 83 Golden Shores Tract 4051 Mohave 16 North 21 West 11 32 53-500720 Adequate 5/19/1989 Mohave 18 North 22 West 3 49 43-401259 Adequate 5/11/2004 Mohave 20 North 21 West 5 211 53-500792 Adequate 4/18/1995 11/14/1986 84 85 Section 4.6 Subdivision Name Granmar Estates, Tract 4181 Highlands at Desert Foothills Water Provider at the Time of Application Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Willow Valley Water Co. Willow Valley Water Co. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Golden Shores Water Co. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave 86 Holiday Hills Mohave 20 North 21 West 29 658 53-500796 Adequate 87 Holiday Shores Mohave 20 North 22 West 18 458 53-500797 Adequate 6/11/1973 Oasis Utililty Company 88 Holiday Shores #4 Mohave 20 North 22 West 18 458 53-500798 Adequate 11/23/1973 Oasis Utililty Company 89 Holiday Shores #5 Mohave 20 North 22 West 18 120 53-500799 Adequate 9/2/1975 Oasis Utililty Company 90 Holiday Shores #6 Mohave 20 North 22 West 18 405 53-500800 Adequate 11/13/1975 Oasis Utililty Company Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. 91 Joy Lane Plaza Mohave 19 North 22 West 26 13 53-500829 Adequate 3/27/1991 92 La Mesa Acres Tract 4038 Mohave 19 North 22 West 13 51 53-500857 Adequate 4/29/1983 93 La Paloma Condominiums Mohave 21 North 21 West 21 194 53-500858 Adequate 12/8/1992 North Mohave Valley Corp. 94 Lagoon Estates #6 Mohave 17 North 22 West 1 160 53-500869 Adequate 7/20/1976 95 Lagoon, The Mohave 20 North 22 West 9 72 53-500870 Adequate 2/16/1982 Lagoon Estates Water Co. Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Lake Mohave Basin 278 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Mohave Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Subdivision Name County Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Willow Valley Water Co. 97 Lake Cimarron Estates, Unit II, Mohave 18 North 22 West 23 35 53-401661 Adequate 3/11/2005 98 Lake Mohave Highlands Mohave 21 North 21 West 29 93 53-500881 Adequate 8/15/1973 Mohave 21 North 21 West 29 10 53-500882 Adequate 12/4/1974 Mohave 21 North 21 West 29 124 NA Adequate 2/28/1975 Mohave 21 North 21 West 29 7 53-500883 Adequate 3/1/1976 Mohave 20 North 22 West 18 44 53-500890 Adequate 5/5/1981 Mohave 19 North 22 West 35 279 53-500892 Adequate 5/2/1990 8/28/1973 99 100 101 102 103 Lake Mohave Highlands #2 Lake Mohave Highlands #3 Lake Mohave Highlands #4 Lakeside Estates Lakeview Village Tract 4097 Lake Mohave Highlands Water Company Lake Mohave Highlands Water Company Lake Mohave Highlands Water Company Lake Mohave Highlands Water Company Oasis Utililty Company Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. 104 Las Estancias Tract 1199 Mohave 19 North 22 West 26 151 53-500894 Adequate 105 Las Palmas, Tract 4222 (fkaTrac Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 14 53-401739 Adequate 12/3/2007 Arizona American Water Co. 106 Linda Vista Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 42 53-400839 Adequate 11/19/2002 Arizona American Water Co. 107 Linda Vista Tract 4178 Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 42 53-400899 Adequate 2/19/2003 Arizona American Water Co. 108 Lone Star Commercial Park Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 9 53-500914 Adequate 8/20/1990 Bermuda Water Company, Inc. 109 Los Altos, Tract 4184 Mohave 19 North 22 West 25 21 53-401370 Adequate 8/22/2005 Arizona American Water Co. 110 Los Lagos Mohave 18 North 22 West 1 457 53-500919 Adequate 10/16/1990 Bermuda Water Company, Inc. 111 Los Pueblos @Desert FoothillsTr Mohave 20 North 21 West 5 71 53-400235 Adequate 1/31/2000 Arizona American Water Co. 112 Mesa Vista, Tract 4169 Mohave 19 North 22 West 24 131 53-400618 Adequate 3/4/2002 Miracle View Condominiums Mohave Landing Tract 4213 A, Ph Mohave Mesa Estates Tract 4013 Mohave 20 North 22 West 26 32 53-500986 Adequate 8/28/1985 Mohave 18 North 22 West 23 46 53-700571 Adequate 12/10/2008 113 114 115 116 Mohave Sun Valley Airport 120 Mohave Sunrise Tract 1084B Mohave Sunrise Tract 4085 Mohave Valley Business Park Monte Vista Estates 121 Moon Ridge 117 118 119 Mohave 19 North 22 West 27 14 53-500999 Adequate 4/27/1982 Mohave 18 North 22 West 25 170 53-501000 Adequate 2/12/1985 Mohave 19 North 22 West 11 99 53-501001 Adequate 5/18/1989 Mohave 19 North 22 West 11 NA 53-501002 Adequate 6/22/1989 Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 31 53-501004 Adequate 5/2/1986 Mohave 18 North 22 West 23 22 53-501007 Adequate 12/2/1981 Mohave 19 North 22 West 25 99 53-501011 Adequate 7/25/1991 12/10/2001 122 Moon River Resort, Inc. Mohave 18 North 22 West 3 89 53-400579 Adequate 123 Moon Valley Tract 4120 Mohave 19 North 22 West 25 16 53-501012 Adequate 124 Mountain View Ranches Mountainside Village Ranch Mohave 18 North 21 West 5 34 53-501032 Inadequate 126 9/5/1991 A1 4/15/1981 Mohave 18 North 21 West 6 315 53-402049 Adequate 4/8/2008 127 Mystic Canyon, Tract 4197 Mohave 18 North 21 West 7 266 53-401832 Adequate 8/15/2005 128 Mystic Canyon, Tract 4197Mohave A 18 North 21 West 7 119 53-500021 Adequate 10/20/2006 279 Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Dry Lot Subdivision Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Mohave Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 ADWR Adequacy Determination 14 56 53-501093 Adequate 8/2/1990 22 West 14 25 53-400003 Adequate 8/24/1999 22 West 11 50 53-501094 Adequate 12/8/1982 22 West 17 33 53-501095 Adequate 6/19/1991 22 West 32 420 53-501096 Adequate 5/27/1980 Rio Utility Co. 22 West 32 68 53-501097 Adequate 7/2/1992 Rio Utility Co. 35 15 53-300097 Adequate 3/20/1996 Arizona American 7/18/2000 Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Section Mohave 19 North 22 West Mohave 19 North Mohave 19 North Palma Quartz Mohave 20 North Palo Verde Place Tract 4006 Palo Verde Place Tract 4006-E Palo Verde Plaza, Tract 5025 Mohave 20 North Mohave 20 North Mohave 20 North 22 West Palo Verde Shores 140 141 Pebble Lake #3 142 Pegasus Ranch 139 ADWR File No.2 Range Palm Estates #2 Tract 4104 Palm Estates #2, Tract 4104B Palm Villa Ranchos Tract 1226 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 No. of Lots County Township Park at Mesquite Creek, The Patriot Estates Subdivision Pebble Lake #2 137 Date of Determination Mohave 20 North 22 West 29 28 53-400330 Adequate Mohave 18 North 22 West 12 226 53-501107 Inadequate Mohave 19 North 22 West 36 119 53-500031 Adequate 11/30/2006 Mohave 19 North 22 West 34 30 53-501131 Adequate 8/25/1978 Mohave 19 North 21 West 34 143 53-501132 Adequate 5/8/1980 Mohave 21 North 21 West 29 100 53-501139 Adequate 10/22/1992 B 1/16/1992 Water Provider at the Time of Application Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Fort Mohave Triba Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Pebble Lake Water Co. Pebble Lake Water Co. Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave 143 Pegasus Ranch Tract 4019-A Mohave 21 North 21 West 29 26 53-501140 Adequate 8/22/1983 144 Pegasus Ranch Estates Tract 508 Mohave 21 North 21 West 29 20 53-400638 Adequate 1/15/2002 Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave 145 Pegasus Ranch Tract 5030 Mohave 21 North 21 West 29 14 53-300355 Adequate 10/29/1997 Arizona American Water Co. 146 Perry Acres #2 Tract 4026 Mohave 18 North 22 West 13 157 53-501142 Adequate 5/21/1982 Mohave Valley Water Co 147 Mohave 18 North 22 West 13 96 53-501143 Adequate 10/7/1980 Mohave 19 North 22 West 25 17 53-501155 Adequate 9/5/1991 149 Perry Acres Tract 4007 Pine River Estates Tract 4128 Pueblo Grove Mohave 18 North 22 West 35 14 53-501227 Adequate 9/18/1981 Mohave Valley Water Co Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision 150 Punto de Vista #5 Mohave 21 North 21 West 27 233 53-501229 Adequate 6/25/1980 151 Rancho Colorado Mohave 20 North 21 West 13 1,886 53-501253 Adequate 7/28/1988 148 Section 4.6 Subdivision Name 152 Rancho Colorado B Mohave 20 North 22 West 13 15 53-501254 Adequate 7/28/1988 153 Rancho Grande Tract 4083 Mohave 19 North 22 West 14 NA 53-501259 Adequate 1/5/1990 154 Rio Camino Tract 4123 Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 34 53-501300 Adequate 2/14/1991 155 Rio Hacienda Mohave 19 North 22 West 14 102 53-501301 Adequate 8/1/1975 156 Rio Lado Villas Condominiums Mohave 20 North 23 West 13 25 53-501302 Adequate 7/3/1986 157 Rio Las Palmas Mohave 20 North 22 West 1 48 53-501303 Adequate 2/10/1982 158 Rio Lindo Condominiums Mohave 20 North 23 West 13 32 53-501304 Adequate 4/25/1984 159 Rio Lomas #4 Mohave 19 North 22 West 11 104 53-501306 Adequate 1/28/1974 160 Rio Vista Condominiums Mohave 20 North 22 West 9 22 53-501322 Adequate 5/5/1981 Lake Mohave Basin Thumb Butte Water Co. Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave 280 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Mohave Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Subdivision Name County Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 161 Rio Vista Estates Mohave 18 North 22 West 27 36 53-501324 Adequate 4/12/1988 Willow Valley Water Co. 162 River Retreat River Road City Tract 1022 Mohave 20 North 23 West 13 127 53-501325 Adequate 12/11/1974 Fort Mohave Tribal Utilties Mohave 17 North 22 West 11 141 53-501326 Adequate 2/1/1991 Fort Mohave Tribal Utilties 164 River View Mall Mohave 20 North 22 West 23 8 53-501327 Adequate 11/17/1988 Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave 165 River View Ranches Rivershore Villas Condominiums Mohave 19 North 22 West 13 197 53-501328 Adequate 1/23/1980 Mohave 20 North 22 West 9 165 53-501329 Adequate 3/26/1981 163 166 167 Riverview Bluffs #2A Mohave 20 North 22 West 13 54 53-501331 Adequate 8/28/1989 168 Riverview Bluffs Condominiums Mohave 20 North 22 West 13 63 53-501332 Adequate 2/6/1985 169 Riviera Commercial Park Mohave 20 North 22 West 19 12 53-501333 Inadequate 170 Riviere D' Azur Villas Mohave 20 North 22 West 16 243 53-501334 Adequate 5/1/1990 Mohave 20 North 22 West 16 58 53-501335 Adequate 10/19/1983 Mohave 20 North 22 West 16 51 53-501336 Adequate 2/3/1984 Mohave 20 North 22 West 16 60 53-501337 Adequate 8/21/1984 Mohave 20 North 22 West 24 697 53-501338 Adequate 2/3/1984 171 172 173 174 Roadhaven Marina Condominiums Roadhaven Marina Condos #2 Roadhaven Marina Condos #3 Roadhaven Resort of Bullhead Ct C 2/28/1984 175 Rodeo Park Tract 4145-A Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 24 53-400296 Adequate 3/14/2001 176 Rodeo Park Tract 4145-B Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 31 53-400755 Adequate 7/30/2002 177 Rodeo Park Tract 4145-C Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 60 53-401117 Adequate 11/3/2003 178 Sage Hill, Tract 4179-A Mohave 19 North 22 West 25 46 53-401219 Adequate 2/23/2004 Mohave 19 North 22 West 25 53 53-401506 Adequate 11/24/2004 Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 34 53-400515 Adequate 7/17/2001 179 180 181 Sage Hill, Tract 4179-B, Phase Santa Evinita, Tract 4167A Santa Evinita, Tract 4167B Dry Lot Subdivision Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Oasis Utililty Company Oasis Utililty Company Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 40 53-400860 Adequate 3/17/2003 182 Sellan Estates, Tract 5024 Mohave 21 North 21 West 30 6 53-300051 Adequate 10/10/1995 183 Shores, The Mohave 20 North 23 West 13 17 53-501390 Adequate 6/28/1977 184 Silver Ridge Townhouse Condos Mohave 20 North 21 West 19 210 53-501410 Adequate 3/6/1991 185 Silver Sands Estates Mohave 19 North 22 West 26 159 53-501411 Adequate 6/19/1990 186 South Valley Park Tract 4068 Mohave 17 North 22 West 15 30 53-501442 Adequate 1/7/1988 188 Stoneridge Mohave 19 North 22 West 11 14 53-501459 Adequate 9/18/1990 189 Sun Desert Estates Mohave 19 North 22 West 25 49 53-501479 Adequate 9/5/1991 190 Sun Ridge Tract 4042F Mohave 21 North 21 West 30 59 53-501481 Adequate 2/8/1990 Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. North Mohave Valley Corp. 191 Sun Ridge 4042-J Mohave 21 North 21 West 21 36 53-400633 Adequate 1/18/2002 North Mohave Valley Corp. 281 North Mohave Valley Corp. Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Mohave Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Subdivision Name County Township Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 192 Sun Ridge Estates Tract 4024A Mohave 21 North 21 West 21 223 53-501482 Adequate 11/16/1983 North Mohave Valley Corp. 193 Sun Ridge Estates Tract 4024B Mohave 21 North 21 West 29 NA 53-501483 Adequate 8/1/1984 North Mohave Valley Corp. 194 Sun Ridge Estates Tract 4024C Mohave 21 North 21 West 21 376 53-501484 Adequate 10/25/1985 North Mohave Valley Corp. 195 Sun Ridge Estates Tract 4042D Mohave 21 North 21 West 30 175 53-501485 Adequate 4/11/1988 North Mohave Valley Corp. 196 Sun Ridge Estates Tract 4042E Mohave 21 North 21 West 29 215 53-501486 Adequate 1/19/1989 North Mohave Valley Corp. 197 Sun Ridge Estates Tract 4042F Mohave 21 North 21 West 29 59 53-501487 Adequate 8/2/1989 North Mohave Valley Corp. 198 Sun Valley Mohave 19 North 22 West 29 302 53-501488 Adequate 7/18/1983 199 Sun Valley Tract 4063B Mohave 19 North 22 West 36 98 53-501490 Adequate 10/30/1997 200 Sun Valley Tract 4017 Mohave 19 North 22 West 36 211 53-501491 Adequate 1/8/1982 201 Sun Valley Tract 4018A,B Mohave 19 North 22 West 36 302 53-501492 Adequate 7/14/1983 202 Sun Valley Tract 4064A Mohave 18 North 22 West 1 210 53-501493 Adequate 12/11/1991 Mohave 18 North 22 West 1 53 53-401785 Adequate 7/18/2005 Mohave 18 North 22 West 1 18 53-401784 Adequate 10/6/2005 Mohave 18 North 22 West 1 50 53-401954 Adequate 1/3/2006 Sunrise Estates Mohave 19 North 22 West 35 52 53-501507 Adequate 8/19/1986 207 Sunrise Estates #2 Mohave 19 North 22 West 35 49 53-501508 Adequate 11/14/1988 208 Sunrise Vistas Tract 4108A Mohave 19 North 21 West 18 146 53-501515 Adequate 9/16/1993 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 209 Sunrise Vistas Tract 4108B Mohave 19 North 21 West 18 86 NA Adequate 8/23/1994 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 210 Sunrise Vistas Tract 4108C Mohave 19 North 21 West 18 92 NA Adequate 11/8/1995 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 211 Sunrise Vistas Tract 4108D Mohave 19 North 21 West 18 40 53-300296 Adequate 6/3/1997 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 212 Sunrise Vistas Tract 4108E Cochise 19 North 21 West 18 57 53-400170 Adequate 11/22/1999 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 213 Sunrise Vistas Tract 4108F Cochise 19 North 21 West 18 28 53-400071 Adequate 5/21/1999 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 214 Sunrise Vistas Tract 4108G Cochise 19 North 21 West 18 27 53-400082 Adequate 8/30/1999 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 215 Sunrise Vistas Tract 4108 Mohave H 19 North 21 West 18 6 53-400553 Adequate 10/10/2001 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 216 Sunrise Vistas Tract 4108 Mohave I 19 North 21 West 18 31 53-400554 Adequate 10/10/2001 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 217 Sunrise VistasTract 4108J 19 North 21 West 18 22 53-400612 Adequate 11/26/2001 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 203 204 205 206 Section 4.6 Range Sun Valley Unit II, Tract 4185 Sun Valley Unit II, Tract 4185 Sun Valley Unit II, Tract 4185 Mohave Lake Mohave Basin Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. 282 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Mohave Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 18 22 53-400801 21 West 18 23 19 North 21 West 18 Sunrise Vistas, Tract 4108Mohave N 19 North 21 West 222 Sunrise Vista, Tract 4108O Mohave 19 North 223 Sunrise Vistas, Unit II Tract 4 Mohave 224 Sunset Palms, Tr. 4183-A Mohave Sunset Ranchos II, Tract 4156 Sunset Ranchos Unit 2 Mohave 19 North 22 West 13 22 Mohave 19 North 22 West 13 18 Map Key Subdivision Name Water Provider at the Time of Application Adequate 12/3/2002 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 53-400877 Adequate 5/12/2003 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 30 53-400999 Adequate 9/25/2003 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 18 30 53-400998 Adequate 9/25/2003 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 21 West 18 50 53-401347 Adequate 12/15/2004 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 19 North 21 West 17 10 53-500046 Adequate 4/24/2007 Sunrise Vistas Utilities Company 19 North 22 West 26 33 53-401760 Adequate 6/6/2005 53-300221 Adequate 10/23/1996 53-400445 Adequate 1/30/2001 Township Range Section Mohave 19 North 21 West 219 Sunrise Vistas, Tract 4108Mohave L 19 North 220 Sunrise Vistas, Tract 4108Mohave M 221 218 225 226 Sunrise Vistas - Tract 4108-K Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination County Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision 227 Sunset Ranchos, Tract 4046-B Mohave 19 North 22 West 13 NA 53-501520 Adequate 7/28/1987 Dry Lot Subdivision 228 Sunset Ranchos, Tract 4046-C Mohave 19 North 22 West 13 284 53-501521 Adequate 7/7/1992 Bermuda Water Company, Inc. 229 Sunset Ranchos, Tract 4046-A Mohave 19 North 22 West 13 NA 53-501522 Adequate 2/20/1986 Dry Lot Subdivision 230 Tangerine Terrace Tract 4142 231 232 233 Terraces at Desert Foothills Es The Borgata on Mountain View, T The Coves on The Colorado River Mohave 17 North 22 West 23 22 53-501537 Adequate 7/13/1992 Mohave 20 North 21 West 5 123 53-300214 Adequate 11/18/1996 Fort Mohave Tribal Utilties Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Mohave 19 North 22 West 14 107 53-402045 Adequate 6/22/2006 Mohave 17 North 22 West 23 99 53-401766 Adequate 3/13/2006 Mohave 18 North 22 West 23 35 53-401688 Adequate 11/3/2005 Willow Valley Water Co. Fort Mohave Tribal Utilties 234 The Estates at Cimarron Lake Tr 235 The Villas at Desert Horizons Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 33 53-401084 Adequate 1/12/2004 Bermuda Water Company, Inc. 236 Tierra Grande Tract 4023 A Mohave 20 North 21 West 19 130 53-501549 Adequate 7/18/1983 Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave 237 Tierra Grande Tract 4023B Mohave 20 North 21 West 24 202 53-501550 Adequate 8/3/1984 Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave 238 Tierra Grande Tract 4023C Mohave 20 North 21 West 19 78 53-501551 Adequate 11/16/1984 239 Tierra Grande Tract 4052 Mohave 20 North 21 West 19 22 53-501552 Adequate 8/28/1985 240 Tierra Verde Tract 1073-B Mohave 19 North 22 West 14 360 53-501557 Adequate 4/8/1974 241 Tierra del Rio Tract 4048 Mohave 19 North 22 West 25 348 53-501547 Adequate 8/2/1984 242 Tierre Plaza Mohave 19 North 22 West 14 35 53-501559 Adequate 6/17/1986 243 Tierre del Sol Topock Village Estates, Tract 4 Toprock Lake Rancheros Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 32 53-501558 Adequate 5/9/1983 Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 16 North 21 West 23 205 53-402046 Adequate 9/28/2006 Golden Shores Wat Mohave 17 North 21 West 17 8 53-501566 Adequate 5/1/1991 Dry Lot Subdivision 244 245 283 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Mohave Basin (Cont)1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key 246 247 249 250 251 252 Subdivision Name Twin Palms Estates, Tract 4189 Twin Palms Estates, Tract 4189A Valley Springs Estates Subdivision Valley View at Sunrise Hills, T Villa del Rio Tract 4016 A&B Villa del Sol Condominiums Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 144 43-401423 Adequate 8/5/2005 36 97 53-402255 Adequate 8/31/2006 36 132 53-700215 Adequate 1/31/2007 21 West 6 124 53-700269 Adequate 9/15/2008 20 North 22 West 29 13 53-501623 Adequate 1/22/1983 20 North 23 West 24 24 53-501624 Adequate 2/18/1982 18 North 22 West 3 347 53-700260 Adequate 3/6/2007 County Township Range Section Mohave 19 North 22 West 36 Mohave 19 North 22 West Mohave 19 North 22 West Mohave 18 North Mohave Mohave Mohave Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Rio Verde Utilties Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. 253 Village Estates Tr. 4198 254 Villas At Desert Horizons, Trac Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 48 53-400496 Adequate 7/17/2001 255 Villas at Desert Horizons Mohave 19 North 22 West 23 51 53-400180 Adequate 11/5/1999 256 Vineyard at Sun Ridge, Tract 50 Mohave 21 North 21 West 30 67 53-300213 Adequate 12/18/1996 North Mohave Valley Corp. 257 Vineyard at Sun Ridge Unit 3 Mohave 21 North 21 West 30 8 53-401351 Adequate 12/20/2004 North Mohave Valley Corp. Mohave 21 North 21 West 21 32 53-501647 Adequate 2/27/1990 North Mohave Valley Corp. Mohave 19 North 22 West 11 12 53-400052 Adequate 5/24/1999 Mohave 19 North 22 West 11 21 53-400053 Adequate 5/21/1999 258 259 260 261 Vista Grande Condominiums Vista del Rio # 3, Tract 5066 Vista del Rio # 4, Tract 5067 Vista del Rio #2, Tract 5061 Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Mohave 19 North 22 West 11 18 53-300411 Adequate 6/19/1998 262 Vista del Rio Tract 5043 Mohave 19 North 22 West 11 35 53-300139 Adequate 7/12/1996 263 Vista del Rio Condominiums Mohave 20 North 22 West 17 18 53-501644 Adequate 9/8/1981 Oasis Utililty Company 264 Willow Valley Estates Mohave 18 North 22 West 21 48 NA Adequate 9/18/1994 Willow Valley Water Co. 265 Willow Valley Estates 20, Tract Mohave 18 North 22 West 21 27 53-300085 Adequate 12/13/1996 Willow Valley Water Co. 266 Willow Valley Estates Tract 413 Mohave 18 North 22 West 21 29 53-400791 Adequate 9/25/2003 Willow Valley Water Co. 267 Willow Valley Mobile Homes Est Mohave 18 North 22 West 27 277 53-501689 Adequate 12/2/1981 Willow Valley Water Co. 268 Willows at Cimarron Lake #2 Tra Mohave 18 North 22 West 23 79 53-400142 Adequate 8/30/1999 Willow Valley Water Co. 269 Willows at Cimarron Lake, The Mohave 18 North 22 West 23 94 53-501690 Adequate 12/7/1990 Willow Valley Water Co. 2/23/1988 Citizens Utilities CompanyMohave 270 Winterhaven Estates Mohave 20 North 22 West 18 148 53-501699 Adequate B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Location Map Key 96 125 Section 4.6 Subdivision Name Lake Cimarron Estates Unit II, Mountainside Village Ranch Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No. Date of Determination Mohave 18 North 22 West 23 35 43-401439 3/22/2005 Mohave 18 North 21 West 6 320 43-401581 12/22/2004 County Lake Mohave Basin Water Provider at the Time of Application Willow Valley Water Company Bermuda Water Company, Inc. 284 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.6-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Lake Mohave Basin (Cont)1 B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Location Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No. Date of Determination Mohave 19 North 22 West 36 119 43-401619 2/4/2005 Stetson Ranch Mohave 19 North 22 West 25 57 43-401875 5/1/2006 Valley Springs Estates Subdivision Mohave 19 North 22 West 36 132 43-401861 2/1/2006 Map Key Subdivision Name County 138 Patriot Estates Subdivision 187 248 Water Provider at the Time of Application Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. Bermuda Water Company, Inc. C. Designated Adequate Water Supply Map Key Water Provider Name County Designation No. Projected or Annual Estimated Demand (af/yr) Date Application Received Date Application Issued Year of Projected or Annual Demand a City of Bullhead City Mohave 41-400649 23,691 2/25/2005 2/11/2008 2018 Source: ADWR 2008a Notes: 1 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. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavaible;for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA= not currently available to ADWR 285 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 286 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Lake Mohave Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005d, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map) ______, 2005e, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2004a, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) ______, 2004b, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2008c, Municipal surface water demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2007, Cultural Water Demands in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2006, CAP diversions: Database, ADWR Office of Colorado River Management. ______, 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. ______, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. ______, 2005c, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2005d, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005e, Wells55: Database. ______, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. (Water Quality Map and Table) ______, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. ______, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. ______, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990. Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 287 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Arizona Game and Fish Department (AFGFD), 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. ______, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 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: Pan evaporation data, accessed December 2008 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Pla Inventory of resource and uses. E Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. (Effluent Generation Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) M McKay, A. and D.E. Zimmerman, 1983, Hydrogeochemical investigations of thermal springs in the Black Canyon-Hoover Dam area, Nevada and Arizona: Water Resource Center Desert Research Institute, Univ. of Nevada System Reno-Las Vegas, Publication # 41092. (Water Quality Map and Table) O 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. T Towne, D. C., 2004, Ambient groundwater quality of Lake Mohave Basin: A 2003 baseline study: ADEQ Open File Report 01-04, 78 p. 288 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 U U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/ webpages/nid.cfm (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 1998, Southpoint Power Plant Project Environmental Impact Statement, BIA EIS 98-25; Final dated November 1998. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 2006, Database: Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS). _____, 2003, Lower Colorado River Accounting System (LCRAS) field borders November, 2003, GIS Cover. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata. usgs.gov/nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study-land cover descriptions: Accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi- win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. ______, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Reading Andersen, M., 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Arizona American Water, 2006, System Water Plan Mohave Service Area, Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2005, Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Lake Mohave Basin: A 2003 Baseline Study - October 2005, ADEQ Fact Sheet 05-21. Benemelis, P., 2003, Lower Colorado River Multi Species Program: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 289 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Bentley, C.B., 1979, Geohydrologic reconnaissance of the Lake Mead NRA – Mt. Davis to Davis Dam, Arizona: USGS Open-File Report 79-691, 34 p. Boyd, R.A. and E.T. Furlong, 2002, Human-health pharmaceutical compounds in Lake Mead, Nevada and Arizona, and Las Vegas Wash, Nevada, October 2000August 2001: USGS Open–File Report 02-385. City of Bullhead City, 2006, Drought/Water Shortage Contingency Plan, Bullhead City, Arizona _____, 2002, General Plan: Environmental Planning Element. Dettiger, M., J. Harrill, and D. Schmidt, 1995, Distribution of carbonite rock aquifers and the potential for their development, southern Nevada and adjacent parts of California , Arizona and Utah: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 914146, 100 p. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County general plan: Mohave County draft report, 204 p. Harris, R.C., 1998, Compilation of the geology and hydrology of the Black MountainsBullhead City area, Arizona: AZGS Open-File Report 98-28, 40 p. Hart, R., 1999, Water quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS national stream accounting network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, White Mountains, Arizona. Laney, R.L., 1979, Geohydrologic reconnaissance of the Lake Mead NRA – Hoover Dam to Temple Bar, Arizona: USGS Open-File Report 79-689, 42 p. MacNish, R.D., 1992, Scientific challenges in managing the Colorado River: in Interdisciplinary Approaches to Hydrology and Hydrogeology: American Institute of Hydrology, October 1992, p.323-337. Owen-Joyce, S.J., and S.L. Kimsey, 1996, An accounting system for water and consumptive use along the Colorado River, Hoover Dam to Mexico: USGS Water Supply Paper 2407, 94 p. Radtke, D.B., 1990, Environmental contaminants in the lower Colorado River Valley, Arizona, California and Nevada: in Water Quality and Quantity Issues into the 1990’s-Adaptations to Current Realities: Phoenix Arizona: Proceedings from the 2nd annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 1990, Casa Grande, Arizona, part R, p.1-21. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona and 290 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 87 p. Sanger, H.W., and G.R. Littin, 1982, Maps showing ground water conditions in the Bill Williams area, Mohave, Yavapai and Yuma counties, Arizona-1980: USGS Open File Report 82-87. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Mohave County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. U.S Bureau of Reclamation, 2006, City of Bullhead City Water Conservation Plan, Bullhead City, Arizona. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2004, Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 1996-2000. Webb, R.H., S.A. Leake, and R.M. Turner, 2007, The Ribbon of Green: Change in Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States, University of Arizona Press. Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin 291 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 292 Section 4.6 Lake Mohave Basin Section 4.7 Meadview Basin 293 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.7.1 Geography of Meadview Basin The Meadview Basin is the smallest basin at 190 square miles, located in the north central part of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 4.7-1. The basin is characterized by a south to north trending wash, a mesa in the western portion of the basin, cliffs along the eastern basin boundary and Lake Mead on the north. Vegetation includes Mohave desertscrub and Great Basin conifer woodland. (see Figure 4.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 4.7-1 are: o Grapevine Wash running south to north in the center of the basin o Grapevine Mesa west of Grapevine Wash o The Grand Wash Cliffs in the eastern portion of the basin o The highest point in the basin, Iron Mountain at 6,437 feet near the southern basin boundary o The lowest point is about 1,100 feet at Pearce Ferry 294 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin 295 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.7.2 Land Ownership in the Meadview Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Meadview Basin is shown in Figure 4.7-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large percentage of U.S. Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 4.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 46.9% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Kingman Field Office of the BLM. • All BLM lands are in the southern half of the basin. • Primary land use is grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 36.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service (NPS) as Lake Mead National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park. • All NPS lands are in the northern half of the basin. • Primary land use is resource conservation and recreation. Private • 15.2% of the land is private. • Private land in the southern portion of the basin is interspersed with BLM lands. • Primary land uses are domestic and grazing. Indian Reservation • 1.5% of the land is under ownership of the Hualapai Tribe, in T29N, R15W. • Primary land use is grazing. State Trust Land • 0.2% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is grazing. 296 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin 297 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.7.3 Climate of the Meadview Basin Climate data from a NOAA/NWS Co-op Network station are complied in Table 4.7-1 and the location is shown on Figure 4.7-3. Figure 4.7-3 also shows precipitation data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Meadview Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 4.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 4.7-1A • There is one NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate station in the basin at Pierce Ferry 17 SSW. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July and is 83.1°F and average minimum temperature occurs in January and is 40.0°F. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the winter (January - March). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 10.87 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 4.7-3 • Other precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 12 inches in the southern portion of the basin and as low as four inches in the northern portion of the basin. • This basin is one of three basins in the planning area with a range of eight inches between areas of highest and lowest average annual precipitation, the lowest in the planning area. 298 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.7-1 Climate Data for the Meadview Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Period of Elevation Record Used for (in feet) Averages Pierce Ferry 17 SSW 3,860 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 83.1/Jul 40.0/Jan 3.52 1.53 3.41 2.42 10.87 1 1963-1984 Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Period of Elevation Avg. Annual Evap Record Used for (in feet) (in inches) Averages None C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages ) None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan Feb March April May June None Section 4.7 Meadview Basin 299 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 300 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.7.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Meadview Basin This basin does not contain streamflow data. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 4.7-2. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 4.7-3. The location of flood ALERT gages is shown on Figure 4.7-4. There are no runoff data available for this basin. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 4.7-2. • As of October 2005 there were two stations in the basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 4.7-3. • The basin borders one large reservoir, Lake Mead, with a maximum capacity of 29,755,000 acre-feet. The dam that creates Lake Mead, Hoover Dam, is in the Lake Mohave Basin. • There are no small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 14 registered stockponds in the basin. Table 4.7-2 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Meadview Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 1690 Grapevine Mesa Precipitation 5/1/2005 Mohave County FCD 7410 Lake Mead City Precipitation/Stage NA Mohave County FCD Source: ADWR 2005b Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Not available Section 4.7 Meadview Basin 301 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.7-3 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Meadview Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION None Mead (Hoover Dam)2 Bureau of Reclamation 29,755,0003 C,H,I,RR,S,R Federal USE JURISDICTION B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 14 (from water right filings) Notes: C=flood control; H=hydroelectric; I=irrigation; RR=river regulation; S=water supply 2 Dam is located in Lake Mohave Basin and lake storage is located in Lake Mohave, Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley and Meadview Basins. 3 Includes 2,378,000 acre-feet of dead storage. 1 302 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin 303 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.7.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Meadview Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 4.7-4. The locations of major springs as well as perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 4.7-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • There is one perennial stream, the Colorado River, located along the northern basin boundary. • There are six major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge rate is 108 gpm at Iron spring. • Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 4.7-4B. There are two minor springs identified in this basin. • Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. All of the measurements were taken prior to 1995. • The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 8 to 10, depending on the database reference. 304 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.7-4 Springs in the Meadview Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Map Key Name Date Discharge Measured 1 Iron 354944 1135923 108 6/29/1994 2 Hillside 354942 1135815 69 6/9/1993 3 Grapevine 360240 1140130 43 5/1/1975 4 Adobe2 355229 1135911 25 9/25/1980 5 Ray's Place-left fork 354924 1140012 18 6/29/1994 6 Ray's Place-right fork 354923 1140010 16 6/29/1994 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Name Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Mud 355052 1135919 7 6/30/1994 Unnamed 360323 1140058 1 5/1975 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 8 to 10 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 1 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin 305 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 306 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.7.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Meadview Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 4.7-5. Figure 4.7-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 4.7-7 contains a hydrograph for a selected well shown on Figure 4.7-6. Figure 4.7-8 shows well yields in one yield category. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 4.7-5 and Figure 4.7-6. • The major aquifer in this basin is sedimentary rock, Muddy Creek Formation. • Flow direction is from the south to the north in this basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 4.7-5 and Figure 4.7-8. • As shown on Figure 4.7-8 well yields in this basin are less than 100 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on five reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 33 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 4.7-5. • The estimate of natural recharge for this basin is 4,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). • Recharge in this basin is minimal because of high evaporation rates and low rainfall. Most of the basin’s recharge comes from infiltration of runoff at higher elevations surrounding the basin. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 4.7-5. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 62,440 acre-feet to a depth of 700 feet to 1.0 million acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 4.7-6. Water level is shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures one index well in this basin. A hydrograph for this well is shown in Figure 4.7-7. • The Department measures water levels four times daily at one automated ground water monitoring site in the west-central portion of the basin. • There are only three water depths recorded in this basin in 2003-2004. In these wells, the deepest is 931 feet in the southern portion of the basin along Pierce Ferry Road and the shallowest is 134 northeast of Meadview. Section 4.7 Meadview Basin 307 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.7-5 Groundwater Data for the Meadview Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 190 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Sedimentary Rock (Muddy Creek Formation) Range 24-80 Median 33 (5 wells measured) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS 35 (1 well reported) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 30-100 ADWR (1990) Range 0-500 Anning and Duet (1994) 4,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 62,440 (to 700 ft) ADWR (1994b) 1,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) <1,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 1 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2006 (16 wells measured) Notes: 1 Predevelopment Estimate 308 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin 309 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Figure 4.7-7 Meadview Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 375 A WELL DEPTH: 650 ft USE: UNUSED 425 1975 310 basin fill B-30-17 14DCC 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 4.7 Meadview Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin 311 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.7.7 Water Quality of the Meadview Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 4.7-6A. There are no impaired lakes or streams in this basin. Figure 4.7-9 shows the location of exceedences keyed to Table 4.76A. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 4.7-6A. • Eight measured springs have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter most frequently equaled or exceeded in the sites measured was radionuclides. Other parameters equaled or exceeded included arsenic, nitrates and fluoride. Table 4.7-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the Meadview Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard2 Site Type 1 Spring 31 North 16 West 29 NO3, Rad 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring 30 North 30 North 29 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 16 West 17 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 17 West 7 33 27 9 10 16 1 NO3 Rad NO3, Rad F Rad As As Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Area of Impaired Designated Use Stream Reach (in Lake (in acres) Standard miles) Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 2 Water quality samples collected between 1973 and 2000. As = Arsenic F = Fluoride NO3 = Nitrate Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium 312 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin 313 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.7.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Meadview Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 4.7-7. There are no wastewater treatment plants in this basin. Figure 4.7-10 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 4.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 4.7-7 and Figure 4.7-10. • Population in this basin is minimal but has increased since 1980, from 104 in 1980 to 823 in 2000. • There are no reported surface water diversions in this basin. Groundwater use in this basin is minimal, with current use similar to historical use. An average of less than 300 AFA during 2001-2005. • The only demand center identified by USGS Gap in the basin is low intensity municipal and industrial located east of Pierce Ferry Road, however low intensity M&I is also found north of this center along Pierce Ferry Road, including at Meadview, to the Lake Mead NRA boundary. • As of 2005 there were 21 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 15 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. 314 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.7-7 Cultural Water Demand in the Meadview Basin 1 Year Estimated and Projected Population Well Pumpage Q < 35 gpm 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 42 104 139 174 209 243 278 313 348 383 418 453 490 527 563 600 637 674 711 748 785 823 858 894 929 964 1,000 1,176 1,495 1,755 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Surface-Water Diversions Agricultural Municipal Industrial <300 NR <300 NR Agricultural 132 ADWR (1994a) 0 1 <300 NR 2 1 <300 NR 1 0 <300 NR NR NR 1 0 <300 NR NR NR 13 0 <300 NR NR NR 21 15 USGS (2007) Notes: NR = Not reported 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. Section 4.7 Data Source Meadview Basin 315 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 316 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.7.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Meadview Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 4.7-8. Figure 4.7-11 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • All subdivisions receiving an adequacy determination are in Mohave County. Six water adequacy determinations for 4,793 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. No lots were determined to be adequate. The most common reason for a determination of inadequacy was because the applicant chose not to submit the necessary information and/ or available hydrologic data were insufficient to make a determination. There is one designated water provider, Joshua Valley Utility Company. The projected or annual estimated demand has not been designated. Section 4.7 Meadview Basin 317 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.7-8 Adequacy Determinations in the Meadview Basin 1 Location Map Key 1 2 Subdivision Name Lake Mead City Unit No. 15-29-17 Lake Mead City Unit No. 23-29-17 3 Meadview B County No. of Lots ADWR File 2 No. ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy 3 Determination Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Township Range Section Mohave 29 North 17 West 15 25 53-402136 Inadequate A1 5/8/2006 NA Mohave 29 North 17 West 23 41 53-500018 Inadequate A1 3/23/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision Mohave 30 North 17 West 35 336 53-500948 Inadequate A1, A2, A3 2/17/1984 Dry Lot Subdivision 4 Meadview Mohave 30 North 17 West 1, 12 3,999 53-500947 Inadequate A1 8/27/1973 Joshua Valley Utility Company 5 Meadview Highlands Mohave 30 North 17 West 1 135 53-500949 Inadequate A2, A3 6/30/1993 Joshua Valley Utility Company 6 Meadview Unit #5 Mohave 29 North 17 West 15 257 53-500950 Inadequate A2, A3 10/22/1985 Dry Lot Subdivision Year of Projected or Annual Demand No data, hydrologic study needed B. Designated Adequate Water Supply Map Key Water Provider Name County Designation No. Projected or Annual Estimated Demand (af/yr) Date Application Received Date Application Issued a Joshua Valley Utility Company Mohave 40-900006 No amount designated NA 6/26/1985 Source: ADWR 2008a Notes: 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 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavaible;for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA = Data not currently available to ADWR 1 318 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin 319 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Meadview Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2007, Cultural Water Demands in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. ______, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. ______, 2005c, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2005d, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005e, Wells55: Database. ______, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. ______, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. ______,1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. ______, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 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 Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. 320 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 O 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. U United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/ nid/webpages/nid.cfm (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) United States Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 2006, Database: Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS). United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/ swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Reading Andersen, M., 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2005, Ambient Groundwater Quality in the Meadview Basin: A 2000-2003 Baseline Study - January 2005, ADEQ Fact Sheet 05-01. Bentley, C.B., 1979, Geohydrologic Reconnaissance of Lake Mead NRA- Hoover Dam to Mt. Davis, Arizona: USGS 79-690. Bureau of Reclamation, 2002, Grand Canyon National Park water supply appraisal study, Section 4.7 Meadview Basin 321 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Coconino, Mohave and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: Grand Canyon National Park report. Cella Bar Assoc., 1985, Water adequacy study for the Joshua Valley Utility Company, Meadview, AZ, Vol.2, 106 p. Dettiger, M., J. Harrill,and D. Schmidt, 1995, Distribution of carbonite rock aquifers and the potential for their development, southern Nevada and adjacent parts of California, Arizona and Utah: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4146, 100 p. Enzel, Y., L.L. Ely, P.K. House, V.R. Baker and R.H. Webb, 1993, Paleoflood evidence for a natural upper bound to flood magnitudes in the Colorado River Basin: Water Resources Research, vol. 29, no. 7, p. 2287-2297. Fielding, G., 2001, A groundwater reconnaissance survey of the Sacramento Valley, Big Sandy Valley, Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley and the Meadview watershed: University of Arizona, 7 p. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County general plan: Mohave County draft report, 204 p. Gauger, R.W., 1997, River-stage data Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona, 1990-1994: USGS Open–File Report 96-626, 20 p. Hart, R.J., 1999, Water quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS national stream quality accounting network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12 annual symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 1999, Hon Dah, Arizona. Laney, R. L., 1979, Geohyrologic reconnaissance of Lake Mead NRA-Temple Bar to Grand Wash Cliffs: USGS Open File Report 79-689. Rote, J.J., M.E. Flynn, and D.J. Bills, 1997, Hydrologic data, Colorado River and major tributaries, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona, water years 1990- 1995: USGS Open – File Report 97-250, 474 p. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Mohave County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 2004, Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 1996-2000. 322 Section 4.7 Meadview Basin Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin 323 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.8.1 Geography of Peach Springs Basin The Peach Springs Basin is a medium-size 1,409 square mile basin in the northeastern portion of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 4.8-1. The basin is characterized by a relatively high elevation plateau area, steep canyons and relatively small valleys. The Colorado River defines the northwestern basin boundary. Vegetation types include Great Basin conifer woodland, plains and Great Basin grassland, Great Basin and Mohave desertscrub and a small area of montane conifer forest. (see Figure 4.0-9) • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 4.8-1 are: o The Grand Wash Cliffs on the northwest basin boundary o Aubrey Valley north of Audley o Aubrey Cliffs on the eastern basin boundary o Peach Springs Canyon, with access to the Colorado River o The Music Mountains on the west basin boundary with the highest point in the basin, an unnamed point at approximately 6,760 feet. o The lowest point in the basin, approximately 1,100 feet on the Colorado River at the northwest point of the basin o Not well indicated is the Hualapai Plateau comprising most of the basin north of Peach Springs 324 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin 325 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.8.2 Land Ownership in the Peach Springs Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Peach Springs Basin is shown in Figure 4.8-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the large amount of tribal land. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 4.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. Indian Reservation • 59.9% of the land is under ownership of the Hualapai Tribe. • Tribal lands encompass most of the basin and are contiguous. • This basin contains the largest percentage of tribal lands in the planning area. • Land uses include domestic, commercial, recreation and ranching. Private • 17.8% of the land is private. • Most private land is located in the southeastern portion of the basin in a checkerboard pattern with state trust lands. • Primary land uses are domestic and ranching. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 11.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Kingman Field Office of the BLM. • All BLM lands are located along the western basin boundary. • This basin contains the smallest percentage off BLM lands in the planning area. • Primary land use is grazing. State Trust Land • 9.7% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools and five other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • Most state trust lands are found interspersed with private lands in the southeastern portion of the basin. • Primary land use is grazing. National Park Service • 1.4% of the land is federally owned and operated by the National Park Service (NPS) as Grand Canyon National Park. • All NPS lands are along the northwestern basin boundary. • Primary land uses are resource conservation and recreation. 326 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin 327 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.8.3 Climate of the Peach Springs Basin The Peach Springs Basin does not contain any NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. The precipitation figures shown in Figure 4.8-3 are from the Spatial Climatic Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 4.0.3. A description of this and other climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 4.8-3 • Average annual precipitation is as high as 18 inches in the eastern portion of the basin in the Aubrey Cliffs and as low as four inches in the northernmost tip of the basin. 328 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin 329 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.8.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Peach Springs Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 4.8-1. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 4.8-2. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 4.8-3. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment and USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 4.8-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 4.8-1. • Data from one real-time station located at Spencer Creek is shown on the table and on Figure 4.8-4. • The average seasonal flow for the station is highest in the summer (July-September) and lowest in the winter (January-March). • Maximum annual flow was 2,267 acre-feet in 1993 and minimum annual flow was 760 acre-feet in 2002. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 4.8-2. • As of October 2005 there were three stations in the basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 4.8-3. • There are no large lakes or reservoirs in the basin. Surface water is stored or could be stored in 10 small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 135 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 4.8-4. • Average annual runoff is 0.1 inch per year in the eastern portion of the basin. 330 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.8-1 Streamflow Data for the Peach Springs Basin Station Number USGS Station Name 9404222 Spencer Creek near Peach Springs Drainage Area Gage Elevation 2 (in feet) (in mi ) NA 1,620 Period of Record 3/1998-current (real time) Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 19 27 32 21 760 (2002) 1,456 1,485 2,267 (1993) Years of Annual Flow Record 4 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: NA = not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 Table 4.8-2 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Peach Springs Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 7450 Crozier Canyon Precipitation/Stage NA Mohave County FCD 7480 Grand Canyon West Repeater Repeater/Precipitation NA Mohave County FCD 7500 Grey Mountain Repeater Repeater/Precipitation NA Mohave County FCD Source: ADWR 2005b Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Not available Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin 331 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.8-3 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Peach Springs Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY MAXIMUM OWNER/OPERATOR SURFACE AREA (acres) RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 2 Total maximum storage: 451 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)1 Total number: 8 Total surface area: 93 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 135 (from water right filings) Notes: Capacity data not available to ADWR 1 332 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin 333 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.8.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Peach Springs Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 4.8-4. The locations of major springs as well as perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 4.8-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • There is one perennial stream, the Colorado River, located along the northern basin boundary. Based on USGS stream gage data from 1998 to present, there is likely an additional perennial/intermittent stream not identified by Arizona Game and Fish Department in 1997. This stream, Spencer Canyon, is not shown on Figure 4.8-5 but can be found on Figure 4.8-4. There are 14 major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge rate was 1,730 gpm at Spencer spring. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 4.8-4B. There are five minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions; however, all spring measurements in the basin are relatively recent with measurements taken between 1991 and 1995. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 28 to 29, depending on the database reference. 334 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.8-4 Springs in the Peach Springs Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 Spencer (multiple) 354659 1133900 1,730 6/8/1994 Meriwhitica 354711 1134032 1,233 6/7/1994 Map Key Name 1 2 3 Eagle 4 5 2 3 Date Discharge Measured 353912 1133902 1,023 Travertine Canyon 354406 1132634 898 6/6/1994 Clay Tank Canyon2 Quartermaster (multiple) Lower Milkweed Canyon2 355124 1134040 261 6/7/1994 355732 1134555 189 8/25/1991 354228 1133743 159 6/8/1994 8 Hindu 354250 1133438 1273 5/16/1993 9 Travertine Falls 354522 1132648 54 6/5/1994 10 Peach 353445 1132550 49 3/31/1995 11 Westwater 353710 1134332 49 3/30/1995 12 Bridge Canyon2 354550 1133134 27 6/9/1994 13 Milkweed 353707 1134220 23 6/4/1994 360312 1135234 12 6/5/1994 Date Discharge Measured 6 7 14 Boundary 2 5/18/1993 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 Upper Blue Mountain Canyon 354151 1131736 9 12/9/1994 Horse Flat Canyon 355111 1134623 54 5/17/1993 4 8/6/1992 Name Surprise 353208 1132404 4 Metuck 353848 1132257 3 6/6/1994 New Water 355807 1135618 1 6/11/1993 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 28 to 29 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 3 Discharge measurements vary. Shown is greatest measured discharge; most recent measurement < 10 gpm 4 Discharge measurements vary. Shown is greatest measured discharge; most recent measurement < 1 gpm 1 Peach Springs Basin Section 4.8 335 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 336 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.8.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Peach Springs Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 4.8-5. Figure 4.8-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 4.8-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 4.8-6. Figure 4.8-8 shows well yields in three yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 4.8-5 and Figure 4.8-6. • The major aquifers in this basin are basin fill and sedimentary rock, R (Redwall) Aquifer. • Flow direction is generally from south to north in this basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 4.8-5 and Figure 4.8-8. • As shown on Figure 4.8-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to 1,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on seven reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 250 gpm. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 4.8-5. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 1.0 million acre-feet (maf) in the Truxton Valley alone to more than 4.0 maf for the entire basin to a depth of 1,200 feet Water Level • Refer to Figure 4.8-6. Water level is shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures three index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for two index wells (C and D) and two other wells are shown in Figure 4.8-7. • These data show the deepest recorded water level in the basin and planning area is 1,341 feet near the Yavapai/Coconino County boundary. The shallowest recorded water level is 60 feet east of Truxton. Peach Springs Basin Section 4.8 337 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.8-5 Groundwater Data for the Peach Springs Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 1,409 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Sedimentary Rock (R Aquifer) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: 119 (1 well measured) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Range 45-650 Median 250 (7 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 5-146 ADWR (1994b) Range 0-500 Anning and Duet (1994) NA 1,000,000 (Truxton Valley, to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) >1,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) >4,000,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 3 Date of Last Well Sweep: 1995 (34 wells measured) Notes: NA = Not Available 1 Predevelopment Estimate 338 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin 339 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Figure 4.8-7 Peach Springs Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 1300 A R-aquifer B-25-09 26DBC WELL DEPTH: 1700 ft USE: UNUSED 1350 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 1975 500 B 1985 1995 2005 R-aquifer B-25-11 31BBB WELL DEPTH: 855 ft USE: UNUSED 550 1975 800 C 1985 1995 2005 R-aquifer B-24-08 20AAB2 WELL DEPTH: 1546 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 850 1975 100 D 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-24-12 17CBC WELL DEPTH: 440 ft USE: UNUSED 150 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 340 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin 341 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.8.7 Water Quality of the Peach Springs Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 4.8-6A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired stream reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 4.8-6B. Figure 4.8-9 shows the location of exceedences and impairment keyed to Table 4.8-6. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 4.8-6A. • Twenty-nine sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • The most frequently equaled or exceeded parameter was arsenic. Other parameters equaled or exceeded in the sites measured in this basin were cadmium, fluoride, lead, nitrates and mercury. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 4.2-6B. • Water quality standards for selenium and suspended sediment were equaled or exceeded in one reach of the Colorado River between Parashant Canyon and Diamond Creek. • Only a very small portion of a 28-mile impaired reach of the Colorado River is in this basin. The majority of the impaired reach is in the Coconino Plateau Basin in the Western Plateau Planning Area. • The Colorado River between Parashant Canyon and Diamond Creek is not part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program at this time. 342 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.8-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the Peach Springs Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard2 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 28 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 27 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 26 North 25 North 25 North 24 North 24 North 7 West 8 West 8 West 8 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 12 West 10 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 11 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 10 West 11 West 11 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 13 West 11 West 11 West 8 West 8 West 17 2 12 12 21 21 35 35 5 2 3 3 6 10 24 24 34 34 7 2 25 4 9 17 20 2 14 17 17 Pb As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As As, Cd As As As As As As As Hg As, NO3 As As F Parameter(s) Designated Use Exceeding Use Standard3 Standard2 Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Well Spring Spring Well Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Well Spring Well Well Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) a Stream Colorado River (Parashant Canyon to Diamond Creek) 28 NA A&W Se, Suspended Sediment Source: ADEQ 2005d Notes: 1 Water quality samples collected between 1967 and 2001. As = Arsenic Cd = Cadmium F = Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate Hg = Mercury Se = Selenium 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife 2 Peach Springs Basin Section 4.8 343 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 344 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.8.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Peach Springs Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 4.8-7. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 4.8-8. Figure 4.810 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 4.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 4.8-7 and Figure 4.8-10. • Population in this basin declined in the 1980s and increased minimally between 1990 and 2000. Overall, the population remained virtually unchanged between 1980 and 2000, with a population of 1,804 in 1980 and 1,780 in 2000. • There are no recorded surface water diversions in this basin. Groundwater use has remained relatively constant from the 1970s to the present, with an average of approximately 650 AFA from 2001-2005 and less than 300 AFA for industrial use and 350 AFA for municipal use. • The majority of the land in this basin is within the Hualapai Indian Reservation. The only demand centers are municipal and industrial and are located in the vicinity of Peach Springs. • As of 2005 there were 36 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 18 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 4.8-8. • There is one wastewater treatment facility, Peach Spring Sewer System, which serves Peach Springs. • Over 1,500 people are served by this facility which generates 112 acre-feet of effluent per year. • The facility discharges to an evaporation pond and to unlined infiltration basins. Peach Springs Basin Section 4.8 345 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.8-7 Cultural Water Demand in the Peach Springs Basin Year Estimated and Projected Population 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 232 1,804 1,720 1,636 1,552 1,468 1,384 1,301 1,217 1,133 1,049 965 1,046 1,128 1,209 1,291 1,372 1,454 1,535 1,617 1,698 1,780 1,869 1,959 2,048 2,138 2,228 2,676 3,391 3,969 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm 1 Well Pumpage Municipal Industrial Surface-Water Diversions Agricultural Municipal Industrial <500 NR <500 NR Agricultural Data Source 142 ADWR (1994a) 1 1 <500 NR 1 0 <500 NR 0 1 <300 <300 NR NR 4 2 <300 <300 NR NR 7 0 350 <300 NR NR 36 18 Notes: NR - Not reported 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 346 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin USGS (2007) Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.8-8 Effluent Generation in the Peach Springs Basin Facility Name Peach Spring Sewer System Ownership Hualapai Tribal Authority City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Peach Springs 1,530 112 Disposal Method Watercourse Golf Evaporation Irrigation Course/Turf/ Pond Landscape X Wildlife Area Discharged to Another Facility Infiltration Basins X Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record Secondary NA 2000 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant NA: Data not currently available to ADWR Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin 347 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 348 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.8.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Peach Springs Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 4.8-9. Figure 4.8-11 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • All subdivisions receiving an adequacy determination are in Yavapai County. Two water adequacy determinations for 51 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. All lots were determined to be inadequate. Water inadequacy determinations were issued because the applicant chose not to submit the necessary information and/or available hydrologic data were insufficient to make a determination. • Table 4.8-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Peach Springs Basin1 Location Map Key Subdivision Name County 1 Antelope Valley Ranches Yavapai 2 Bridge Canyon Country Estates Unit 24 Yavapai Township Range Section 24 North 9 West 24 North 10 West 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 30 11, 13 23 North 8 West 11 No. of Lots ADWR File 2 No. ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy 3 Determination Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 44 53-402017 Inadequate A1 2/9/2006 Dry Lot Subdivision 7 53-700224 Inadequate A1 3/16/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision Source: ADWR 2008 Notes: 1 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. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavaible;for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA= not currently available to ADWR Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin 349 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 350 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Peach Springs Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005d, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map) ______, 2004a, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) ______, 2004b, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. (Water Quality Map and Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2007, Cultural Water Demands in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. ______, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. ______, 2005c, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2005d, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005e, Wells55: Database. ______, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. ______, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. ______, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. ______, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 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 Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. Peach Springs Basin Section 4.8 351 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 E Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. (Effluent Generation Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) O 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. U United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/ swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Wenrich, K.J., S.Q. Boundt and others, 1994, Hydrochemical survey for mineralized breccia pipes- data from springs, wells and streams on the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Northwestern Arizona: USGS Open File Report 93-619. (Water Quality Map and Table) Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. 352 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Supplemental Reading Andersen, M., 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Bentley, C.B., 1979, Geohydrologic Reconnaissance of Lake Mead NRA- Hoover Dam to Mt. Davis, Arizona: USGS 79-690. Bills, D.J. and M.E. Flynn, 2002, Hydrogeologic data for the Coconino Plateau and adjacent areas, Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizona: USGS Open File Report 02-265. Enzel, Y., L.L. Ely, P.K. House, V.R. Baker, and R.H. Webb, 1993, Paleoflood evidence for a natural upper bound to flood magnitudes in the Colorado River Basin: Water Resources Research, vol. 29, no. 7, p. 2287-2297. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County general plan: Mohave County draft report, 204 p. Gauger, R.W., 1997, River-stage data Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona, 1990-1994: USGS Open–File Report 96-626, 20 p. Hart, R.J., 1999, Water Quality of the Colorado River monitored by the USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings of the 12 annual symposium of the Arizona Hydrological Society, September 1999, Hon Dah, Arizona. Laney, R. L., 1979, Geohyrologic reconnaissance of Lake Mead NRA-Temple Bar to Grand Wash Cliffs: USGS Open File Report 79-689. Myers, S.M., 1987, Map showing groundwater conditions in the Peach Springs basin, Mohave, Coconino and Yavapai counties Arizona –1987: ADWR Hydrologic Map Series 15. Rote, J.J., M.E. Flynn, and D.J. Bills, 1997, Hydrologic data, Colorado River and major tributaries, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona, water years 1990- 1995: USGS Open–File Report 97-250, 474 p. Sanger, H.W., and G.R. Littin, 1982, Maps showing ground water conditions in the Bill Williams area, Mohave, Yavapai and Yuma counties, Arizona-1980: USGS Open File Report 82-87. Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Mohave County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 2004, Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 1996-2000. Peach Springs Basin Section 4.8 353 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Watt, D., 2000, Groundwater exploration drilling and well development near Grand Canyon West, Hualapai Reservation Arizona: USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado District, Boulder City, Nevada. 354 Section 4.8 Peach Springs Basin Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 355 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.9.1 Geography of Sacramento Valley Basin The Sacramento Valley Basin is the third largest basin in the planning area at 1,587 square miles and is located in the western portion of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 4.9-1. The basin is characterized by broad valleys and mountains along the eastern and western basin boundaries. A small segment of the Colorado River defines the westernmost basin boundary. Vegetation is primarily semi-desert grassland with smaller areas Arizona upland and lower Colorado River Sonoran desertscrub, semi-desert grassland, of Great Basin conifer woodland, interior chaparral and montane conifer forest. (see Figure 4.0-9) A small riparian area consisting of marsh and mesquite occurs along the Colorado River. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 4.9-1 are: o The north-south trending Sacramento Valley and Dutch Flat in the center of the basin o Sacramento Wash running north to south, then east to west near Yucca to the Colorado River o Cerbat Mountains on the northeast basin boundary o Black Mountains on the western basin boundary north of Yucca and the Mohave Mountains on the southwestern basin boundary o Hualapai Mountains on the east central basin boundary with the highest point in the basin, Wabayuma Peak, at 7,601 feet o The lowest point in the basin, about 500 feet near Topock 356 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 357 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.9.2 Land Ownership in the Sacramento Valley Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Sacramento Valley Basin is shown in Figure 4.9-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large amount of U.S. Bureau of Land Management and private lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 4.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 58.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Kingman Field Office of the BLM. • The basin contains two wilderness areas, a portion of the 112,400 acre Warm Springs Wilderness and the entire 40,000 acre Wabayuma Peak Wilderness (see Figure 4.0-12). • BLM lands are located throughout the basin, and are interspersed with private lands. • Primary land uses are recreation and grazing. Private • 38.0% of the land is private. • Private land is located throughout the basin, with larger contiguous parcels of land in the center of the basin and numerous fragmented lands along the basin edges. • Land uses include domestic, commercial and grazing. State Trust Land • 2.8% of the land in this basin is held in trust for the public schools under the State Trust Land system. • State trust lands are found interspersed with private lands throughout the basin. • Primary land use is grazing. Wildlife Refuge • 0.6% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. • All wildlife refuge lands are part of the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge and are located along the western basin boundary south of Topock. • Primary land uses are wildlife conservation and recreation. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation) • 0.4% of the land is owned and managed by Arizona Game and Fish Department and the Mohave County Parks and Recreation Department. • Lands in the “other” category located in T20N, R18W are managed by Arizona Game and Fish and lands located in T20N, R15W are managed by the Mohave County Parks and Recreation Department as the Hualapai Mountain Park. • Primary land use is recreation. 358 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 359 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.9.3 Climate of the Sacramento Valley Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations are complied in Table 4.9-1 and the location is shown on Figure 4.9-3. Figure 4.9-3 also shows precipitation data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Sacramento Valley Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 4.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 4.9-1A • There are three NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July at all stations and ranges between 82.4°F at Kingman and 90.9°F at Yucca. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January or December and ranges between 42.9°F at Kingman 2 and 49.9°F at Yucca. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the winter (January – March). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 10.36 inches per year at the Kingman station and the lowest is 8.13 inches per year at Yucca. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 4.9-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 16 inches in the Hualapai Mountains on the southeastern boundary of the basin and as low as four inches in the western portion of the basin near Topock. 360 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.9-1 Climate Data for the Sacramento Basin A.NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Kingman 3,360 1901-1967 82.4/Jul 43.4/Jan 3.47 1.06 3.30 2.54 10.36 Kingman 2 3,540 1971-2000 82.5/Jul 42.9/Jan 3.64 0.97 3.05 2.34 10.00 Yucca 1,950 1971-2000 90.9/Jul 49.9/Dec, Jan 3.46 0.63 2.40 1.64 8.13 Source: WRCC, 2005 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Avg. Annual Evap Record Used for (in inches) Averages None C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan Feb March April May June None Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 361 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 362 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.9.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Sacramento Valley Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 4.9-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown in Table 4.9-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 4.9-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment and USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 4.9-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 4.9-2. • Data from one discontinued station located at the Colorado River near Topock is shown in the table and on Figure 4.9-4. The period of record is from 1917 to 1982. • The average seasonal flow was highest in the spring (April-June) and lowest in the fall (October-December). • Maximum annual flow at this station was 21,827,922 acre-feet in 1921 and minimum annual flow was 4,316,354 acre-feet in 1934. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 4.9-3. • As of October 2005 there were 12 stations in the basin. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 4.9-4. • The basin contains five small reservoirs. • There are 44 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 4.9-4. • Average annual runoff is 0.5 inches per year, or 26.65 acre-feet per square mile, in the northeastern portion of the basin and decreases to 0.1 inches, or 5.33 acre-feet per square mile, in the center of the basin. Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 363 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.9-2 Streamflow Data for the Sacramento Valley Basin Station Number 9424000 USGS Station Name Drainage Area 2 (in mi ) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Colorado River near Topock 176,300 423 2/1917-9/1982 (discontinued) Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 19 38 26 17 4,316,354 (1934) 8,926,643 10,636,610 21,827,922 (1921) Years of Annual Flow Record 64 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: NA = Not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 364 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.9-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Sacramento Valley Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility Cherum Peak near Chloride Upper Sacramento Wash West Upper Sacramento Wash East Precipitation 12/3/2001 Mohave County FCD Precipitation/Stage 12/4/2001 Mohave County FCD Precipitation/Stage 12/3/2001 Mohave County FCD 1530 Willow Spring Precipitation 12/4/2001 Mohave County FCD 1540 Santa Claus Precipitation 12/3/2001 Mohave County FCD 1550 Lower Sacramento Wash Precipitation/Stage 12/5/2001 Mohave County FCD 1650 Holy Moses Wash Precipitation/Stage 12/4/2001 Mohave County FCD 7520 Hualapai Foothills Precipitation NA Mohave County FCD 7600 Union Pass Precipitation NA Mohave County FCD 7620 Thirteenmile Wash Precipitation/Stage NA Mohave County FCD 7670 Pinion Pines Weather Station 4/22/2005 Mohave County FCD 7680 MacKenzie Wash Precipitation/Stage NA Mohave County FCD 1500 1510 1520 Source: ADWR 2005b Notes: FCD = Flood Control District NA = Not available Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 365 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.9-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Sacramento Valley Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME MAXIMUM STORAGE OWNER/OPERATOR KEY (Name of dam, if different) (AF) Havasu (Parker Dam)2 None Bureau of Reclamation 651,0003 USE1 JURISDICTION H,I,S Federal USE JURISDICTION B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME MAXIMUM SURFACE OWNER/OPERATOR KEY (name of dam, if different) AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 3 Total maximum storage: 110 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)4 Total number: 2 Total surface area: 16 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 44 (from water right filings) Notes: H=hydroelectric; I=irrigation; S=water supply 2 Dam is located in Parker Basin but lake storage is in Lake Havasu and Sacramento Valley Basins 3 Includes 28,600 acre-feet of dead storage 4 Capacity data not available to ADWR 1 366 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 367 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.9.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Sacramento Valley Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 4.9-5. The locations of major springs are shown on Figure 4.9-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • There is one perennial stream, the Colorado River, located along the basin boundary with California. There is one intermittent stream, Sawmill Canyon, located along the northeastern basin boundary. There are 15 major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest measured discharge rate is 100 gpm at Johnston spring. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 4.9-5B. There are 42 minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. All measurements were taken prior to 1980. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 90 to 100, depending on the database reference. 368 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.9-5 Springs in the Sacramento Valley Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge 1 (in gpm) Johnston 351353 1140424 1003 2 Beale 351348 1142258 90 3 Unnamed2 351231 1140357 50 4 Cottonwood 351728 1142201 50 1/1965 5 Grapevine 351233 1140535 35 5/13/1943 6 Unnamed2 350657 1135918 25 During or Prior to 1965 7 Willow 350243 1135917 20 10/25/1979 8 Gross 352124 1140904 15 During or Prior to 1965 9 Unnamed 351938 1140825 12 1/1/1965 10 Cottonwood 350617 1135858 12 10/25/1979 11 Unnamed2 350403 1135500 10 During or Prior to 1965 12 Unnamed 351314 1142258 10 10/12/1979 13 Twin 350210 1141902 10 3/1/1965 Map Key Name 1 3 3 Date Discharge Measured 4/1/1943 4/15/1943 4/15/1943 14 C 351348 1142258 10 15 Unnamed 351356 1142320 10 5/1965 1/1/1965 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name 1 Dripping Section 4.9 Location Latitude Longitude Discharge 1 (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured 350349 1141820 8 1/1/1965 Lookout 350704 1140304 7 10/24/1979 Unnamed 351830 1142053 7 10/1943 Willow Burro 351751 351556 1142235 1142239 7 7 1/1965 1/1965 Cave 350438 1141845 5 10/11/1979 Unnamed 352021 1140718 5 During or Prior to 1965 Unnamed 352009 1140717 5 During or Prior to 1965 Unnamed 351955 1140719 5 During or Prior to 1965 Unnamed 351521 1142153 4 1/1965 Unnamed 350717 1140130 4 1/1965 Unnamed 352206 1140940 4 1/1965 Unnamed 350621 1135352 3 1/1965 Unnamed 345639 1135729 3 12/1964 Unnamed 350030 1135923 3 1/1965 Unnamed 350031 1135905 3 1/1965 Unnamed 345926 1135701 3 1/1965 Unnamed 350616 1135530 3 1/1965 Hackberry 351553 1140605 3 During or Prior to 1949 Little Hberry 345600 1140118 2 12/1964 Unnamed 350336 1135500 2 1/1965 Unnamed 350233 1135731 2 1/1965 Unnamed 350245 1135622 2 1/1965 Unnamed 350621 1135543 2 1/1965 Unnamed 351439 1142154 2 1/1965 Unnamed 352447 1140855 2 During or Prior to 1965 Sacramento Valley Basin 369 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.9-5 Springs in the Sacramento Valley Basin (Cont) B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): (Cont) Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured Unnamed 352417 1140952 2 During or Prior to 1965 Unnamed 352507 1140940 2 During or Prior to 1964 Caliche 345531 1141313 2 Unnamed 345852 1140014 1 1/1965 Unnamed 350705 1135315 1 2/1965 Unnamed Unnamed 350701 350454 1135350 1135548 1 1 2/1965 1/1965 Unnamed 350436 1135530 1 1/1965 Unnamed 350827 1140314 1 1/1965 Unnamed 352127 1140707 1 During or Prior to 1965 Unnamed 352009 1140717 1 During or Prior to 1965 Indian 350856 1140332 1 1/1965 Fig 350424 1141825 1 10/11/1979 Name 4 10/24/1979 Van Martyr 351306 1140437 1 4/27/1978 Jone's Seep 351155 1140428 1 2/27/1979 Unnamed 352000 1140841 1 1/1965 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 90 to 100 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring is not displayed on current USGS topo maps 3 Discharge measurements vary. Shown is greatest measured discharge; most recent measurement < 10 gpm 4 Discharge measurements vary. Shown is greatest measured discharge; most recent measurement < 1 gpm 1 370 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 371 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.9.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Sacramento Valley Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 4.9-6. Figure 4.9-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 4.9-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 4.9-6. Figure 4.9-8 shows well yields in four yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 4.9-6 and Figure 4.9-6. • The major aquifers in this basin are basin fill and volcanic rock. • Flow direction is from the north to the south in the northern portion of the basin and east to west in the southern portion of the basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 4.9-6 and Figure 4.9-8. • As shown on Figure 4.9-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 36 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 100 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 4.9-6. • Natural recharge estimates range from 1,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) to 4,000 AFA. • Most of the recharge in this basin comes from infiltration along the mountain fronts. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 4.9-6. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 3.6 million acre-feet (maf) to 1,500 feet to 14 maf to 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 4.9-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 16 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for three index wells (A,D and E) and two other wells are shown in Figure 4.9-7. • The Department measures water levels four times daily at two automated groundwater monitoring site in the north-central portion of the basin. • These data show the deepest recorded water level in the basin is 1,062 feet west of Kingman and the shallowest is 38 feet east of Topock. 372 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.9-6 Groundwater Data for the Sacramento Valley Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 1,587 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Volcanic Rock Range 94-753 Median 167 (9 wells measured) Range 5-1,000 Median 100 (36 wells reported) Well Yields, in gal/min: Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (>10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 30-100 ADWR (1990) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 1,000 Rascona (1991) (HMS 21) 4,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1 3,600,000 - 9,500,000 (to 1,200 ft) Conway and Ivanich (2008) 7,000,000 - 8,300,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990 and 1994b) 11,000,0002 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 14,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) 6,500,000 - 13,000,000 (to 1,500 ft) Gillespie and Bentley (1971) Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current Number of Index Wells: 16 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2006 (177 wells measured) Notes: Range based on estimates of specific yield 2 Predevelopment Estimate 1 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 373 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 374 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Figure 4.9-7 Sacramento Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 1025 A basin fill B-21-18 09BBA WELL DEPTH: 1518 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 1075 1975 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 700 B 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-20-18 22AAC WELL DEPTH: 779 ft USE: UNUSED 750 1975 350 C 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 450 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill B-17-17W19BAD 400 1975 450 D 1995 1985 2005 basin fill B-15-19 07AAB WELL DEPTH: 900 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 500 1975 900 E 1985 1995 2005 basin fill B-15-16 07BDD WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 950 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 375 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 376 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.9.7 Water Quality of the Sacramento Valley Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 4.9-7A. Figure 4.9-9 shows the location of exceedences keyed to Table 4.9-7A as well as the location of an effluent dependent stream reach within the basin. All community water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and treat water supplies to meet drinking water standards. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 4.9-7A. • Sixty-two sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • Frequently equaled or exceeded parameters include arsenic, fluoride and radionuclides. Other parameters equaled or exceeded in the sites measured in this basin were beryllium, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, nitrate and total dissolved solids. Effluent Dependent Reaches • Refer to Figure 4.9-9 • There is one effluent dependent reach in this basin, Holy Moses Wash, south of Kingman. Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 377 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.9-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Sacramento Valley Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water 2 Standard 24 North 24 North 24 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 23 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 22 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 21 North 20 North 20 North 20 North 19 North 19 North 18 North 18 North 18 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 17 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 16 North 15 North 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 17 West 19 West 20 West 17 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 18 West 19 West 17 West 19 West 19 West 16 West 17 West 16 West 16 West 17 West 15 West 16 West 18 West 18 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 16 West 16 West 16 West 20 West 20.5 West 21West 21West 21West 14 West 33 33 34 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 14 6 6 7 17 30 11 35 11 5 5 9 30 32 25 2 7 9 7 16 25 26 11 32 2 12 25 20 33 36 36 36 11 14 14 14 14 35 35 36 8 Rad Rad Pb As, NO3, Rad As, Rad NO3, Rad NO3, Rad Rad As As, Cd, Pb, TDS As, NO3 NO3 Cd, Cu As, Rad As Cd, Be, Pb As, Rad NO3 NO3 NO3 NO3 As Cr As As Pb As As Cd As F, Rad F, NO3, Rad As, Rad F, Rad F, Rad As, Rad F, Rad As As Rad F As F, Rad F As, Rad F F, Rad F F As, Cd, F As, Cd, F As, F F Site Location Map Key 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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 Site Type Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Mine Well Well Mine Spring Mine Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Spring Well Well Well Spring Well Well Spring Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well 378 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.9-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Sacramento Valley Basin (Cont)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard2 15 North 15 North 15 North 14 North 14 North 14 North 13 North 13 North 13 North 15 West 15 West 16 West 15 West 17 West 17 West 15 West 15 West 15 West 15 15 1 2 2 12 12 14 33 As, F, Rad, TDS Rad F, Rad F, Rad F F NO3, Rad As Rad Site Location Map Key Site Type 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Designated Use Lake (in acres) Standard Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Notes: 1 2 Section 4.9 Water quality samples collected between 1978 and 2004. As = Arsenic Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium Cu = Copper Cr = Chromium F = Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate TDS = Total Dissolved Solids Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Sacramento Valley Basin 379 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 380 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.9.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Sacramento Valley Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 4.9-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown in Table 4.9-9. Figure 4.910 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 4.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 4.9-8 and Figure 4.9-10. • Population in this basin has more than doubled since 1980, increasing from 7,245 in 1980 to 17,575 in 2000. • Groundwater use in this basin decreased from 1971-1990. Between 1991-2005 groundwater demand has increased, with an average of 3,700 AFA from 2001-2005. • Most municipal and industrial demand in this basin is in the vicinity of Kingman and around Highway 68 west of Kingman in the Golden Valley unincorporated area. • Although the City of Kingman is located in this basin, the majority of the water for the City comes from well fields located in the Hualapai Valley Basin. Municipal groundwater demand in this basin has, however, increased from an average of 1,500 AFA in 1991-1995 to an average of 2,100 AFA in 2001-2005. • Groundwater demand declines in the 1970s and 1980s can be attributed to the declining use of water by the Mineral Park Mine located south of Chloride. • Industrial groundwater use has increased in recent years from an average of less than 300 AFA in 1991-1995 to an average of 1,600 AFA in 2001-2005. • There is one power plant, Griffith, located in this basin. The Griffith plant opened in 2002 and is located south of Kingman west of Interstate 40. • There are no reported surface water diversions for cultural demand in this basin, however, water is diverted for environmental purposes at Topock Marsh in Havasu National Wildlife Refuge. • As of 2005 there were 1,010 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gallons per minute and 151 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons per minute. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 4.9-9. • There are four wastewater treatment facilities in this basin. • Information on population served was available for only one facility and information on effluent generation was available for two facilities. More than 3,500 people are served by these facilities which generate almost 300 acre-feet of effluent per year. • Of the two facilities with information on the effluent disposal method, one discharges to a watercourse and both discharge to an evaporation pond. Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 381 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.9-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Sacramento Valley Basin 1 Year Estimated and Projected Population Q < 35 gpm 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 2444 7,245 7,578 7,911 8,244 8,577 8,910 9,243 9,576 9,909 10,242 10,575 11,275 11,975 12,675 13,375 14,075 14,775 15,475 16,175 16,875 17,575 18,498 19,422 20,345 21,268 22,192 26,808 34,099 40,020 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet)2 Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q > 35 gpm Well Pumpage Municipal3 Industrial Surface-Water Diversions Agricultural Municipal Industrial 6,000 NR5 7,000 NR Agricultural Data Source 704 ADWR (1994a) 55 12 3,000 NR 91 13 2,000 NR 146 22 1,500 <300 NR NR 184 25 1,800 350 NR NR 290 9 2,100 1,600 NR NR 1,010 151 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) Notes: NR = Not reported 1 Does not include effluent or evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs. 2 Includes pumpage and diversion of Colorado River Contract Water. 3 The majority of the water for the City of Kingman comes from well fields in the Hualapai Valley Basin 4 Includes all wells through 1980. 5 The 1994 ADWR Arizona Water Resources Assessment included surface water diversions for the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge in the surface water demand for this basin. 382 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.9-9 Effluent Generation in the Sacramento Valley Basin Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Disposal Method Water course Current Treatment Level Population Not Served Year of Record X Secondary NA 2007 X Secondary 5,335 2004 Evaporation Irrigation Pond Golf Course/Turf/ Landscape Arizona Gateway WWTP AZ American Water Franconia 3 2 Kingman - Downtown WWTP City of Kingman Kingman 3,590 258 Pilot Travel Center #221 Private Franconia NA Sacramento Rd WWTP Private Griffith Power Plant NA Total 3,593 X Wildlife Area Discharged to Another Facility Infiltration Basins 260 Notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 383 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 384 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 4.9.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Sacramento Valley Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 4.9-10A and B for water reports and analysis of adequate water supply. Designated water provider information is shown in Table 4.9-10C with date of application, date the designation was issued and projected or annual estimated demand. Figure 4.9-11 shows the locations of subdivisions and designated providers keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • All subdivisions receiving an adequacy determination are in Mohave County. Thirty-two water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through December 2008. Of the 4,415 lots in 30 subdivisions for which lot information is available 1,200 lots, or 27%, were determined to be adequate. The most common reason for an inadequacy determination was because the applicant chose not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination. Six Analysis of Adequate Water Supply applications for a total of 110,946 lots have been approved for this basin. There are four designated water providers with a total projected or annual estimated demand of 7,434.86 acre-feet. One provider, City of Kingman, does not have a projected or annual estimated demand. Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 385 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.9-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Sacramento Valley Basin1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Map Key Subdivision Name County Township Range Section 13 1 AZ Gateway Mohave 16 North 20 West No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 51 53-400703 Adequate 2 Black Hills Ranchos Tract 3301 Mohave 21 North 19 West 14 23 53-500340 Adequate 3 Desert Shadows Ranchos Mohave 17 North 17 West 9, 15, 25 947 53-500582 Inadequate 4 Desert Shadows Ranchos of Az #02 Mohave 17 North 17 West 31 12 53-500584 Adequate 5 Friendly Golden Valley #1 Mohave 21 North 18 West 17 63 53-500688 Adequate 7 Golden Valley Ranchos Mohave 20 North 19 West 23, 35 61 53-500005 Inadequate 10 Holiday Shores #7 Mohave 20 North 18 West 18 92 53-500801 Adequate 11 Lake Havasu Estates #08 Mohave 17 North 17 West 35 NA 53-500873 Inadequate 12 Lake Havasu Estates Unit 9 Mohave 17 North 17 West 25 120 53-400425 Inadequate 13 Lake Havasu Estates Unit 9 Mohave 17 North 17 West 25 27 53-401941 14 Lake Havasu Estates Unit 13 Mohave 17 North 16 West 31 184 15 Lake Havasu Estates Unit 14 Mohave 17 North 16 West 29 16 Lake Havasu Estates #15 Mohave 17 North 16 West 17 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination 6/11/2002 3/15/1995 A1,A3 A1 5/20/1988 Water Provider at the Time of Application Arizona American Water Company (Citizens) Golden Valley County Improvement District #1 Dry Lot Subdivision 8/23/1991 Dry Lot Subdivision 9/14/1993 Valley Pioneer Water Company 2/13/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision 7/29/1977 Oasis Utility Company A1 10/14/1993 Dry Lot Subdivision A1 11/21/2000 Dry Lot Subdivision Inadequate A1 12/13/2005 Dry Lot Subdivision 53-400427 Inadequate A1 11/21/2000 Dry Lot Subdivision 372 53-400428 Inadequate A1 11/21/2000 Dry Lot Subdivision NA 53-500874 Inadequate A1 10/21/1993 Dry Lot Subdivision 17 Lake Havasu Heights Mohave 15 North 19 West 7 21 53-400745 Inadequate A2, B, C 8/16/2002 Havasu Heights Domestic Water ID 18 Lake Mohave Heights Estates Mohave 23 North 19 West 25 83 53-700265 Inadequate A1 3/19/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision 19 Lake Mohave Knoll Estates Mohave 23 North 18 West 21 127 53-401592 Inadequate D 12/7/2004 Dry Lot Subdivision 20 Last Lap Subdivision Mohave 15 North 17 West 31 23 53-400014 Inadequate A1 2/22/1999 Dry Lot Subdivision 21 Paradise(Units)/Sun West(Unit 3)Acres Mohave 20 North 18 West 19, 21, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35 862 53-300149 Inadequate A1, A2 6/25/1996 Dry Lot Subdivision 22 Pioneer Valley Mohave 18 North 18 West 35 64 53-401383 Adequate 8/2/2004 Dry Lot Subdivision Pioneer Valley and Paradise Trail's Tr. Mohave 3802 18 North 18 West 25, 35 232 53-401816 Adequate 8/15/2005 8/11/1986 23 25 Double R Water Distributors, Inc. Valley Pioneer Water Company Valley Pioneer Water Company Ranhos Havasu DWID Rancho Verde Estates Mohave 21 North 18 West 17 60 53-501273 Adequate 26 Rancho Verde Estates #2 Mohave 21 North 18 West 17 263 53-501274 Adequate 2/5/1988 27 Ranchos Havasu Tract 3705 Mohave 15 North 19 West 5 188 53-700429 Adequate 11/9/2007 29 Sagebrush Trails Estates Mohave 14 North 17 West 3 97 53-401821 Adequate 10/6/2005 Sagebrush Trails Domestic Water ID 30 Santa Claus Acres #2 Mohave 23 North 18 West 19 64 53-501369 Inadequate A2, A3 9/10/1992 Dry Lot Subdivision 31 Sawmill Creek Tract 3049 Mohave 20 North 16 West 2 13 53-300039 Inadequate A1 8/4/1995 Dry Lot Subdivision 33 Walnut Creek Estates #1 Mohave 20 North 17 West 7 42 53-501662 Inadequate A1 2/22/1985 Unformed Water Company 34 Walnut Creek Estates #2 Mohave 20 North 17 West 7 109 NA Inadequate A1 3/14/1988 Walnut Creek Water Co. 35 Walnut Creek Estates Unit 3 Tract 3043-B Mohave 20 North 17 West 7 44 53-400258 Inadequate A1 3/28/2000 Walnut Creek Water Co. 36 Walnut Creek Subdivision Mohave 20 North 17 West 7 73 53-400727 Inadequate D 5/29/2002 Walnut Creek Water Co. 37 Walnut Creek Unit 2, Tract 3043-A Mohave 20 North 17 West 7 43 53-501661 Inadequate A1 11/30/1994 Walnut Creek Water Co. 38 Yucca Vista #2 Mohave 16 North 19 West 11 55 53-501709 Adequate 2/21/1992 Dry Lot Subdivision 386 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table 4.9-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Sacramento Valley Basin (Cont)1 B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Location Map Key Subdivision Name County 6 Golden Valley 5800 Mohave 8 Golden Valley South 9 Golden Valley South 2 Mohave Mohave No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 32000 43-401823 10/19/2005 NA 18 West 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16 34 20 North 18 West 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 16 26433 43-402190 8/14/2006 Undetermined 20 North 18 West 20 North 19 West 17544 43-700253 10/10/2007 NA 21 North 18 West 6, 13, 22, 24, 26, 28 26, 33 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 33, 34, 36 NA Township Range 20 North 18 West 21 North Section 24 Rancho Havasu Mohave 15 North 19 West 5 189 43-700286 5/25/2007 28 Sacramento Centre & Apache Centre Mohave 19 North 20 North 18 West 18 West 4 25 640 43-700514 7/10/2008 NA 11/8/2006 Sterling Water Company 32 Sterling Arizona Villages I, II, III and IV Mohave 16 North 19 West 18 33500 43-300230 C. Designated Adequate Water Supply Map Key Projected or Annual Estimated Demand (af/yr) Date Application Received Date Application Issued Year of Projected or Annual Demand 40-300106.0000 882 NA 6/14/1998 NA 41-500088.0000 5332 10/14/2006 1/22/2008 2017 5/17/1973 No data, hydrologic study needed Water Provider Name County Designation No. a Cerbat Water Company Mohave b Golden Valley Water Improvement District Mohave c City of Kingman Mohave 40-900007.0000 No amount designated NA NA 2/1/1995 NA 7/24/2004 6/27/2005 2015 d Valley Pioneer Water Company Mohave 40-900015.0000 844 e Walnut Creek Water Company Mohave 40-401425.0000 376.86 Source: ADWR 2008a Notes: 1 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. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavaible; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA= Data not currently available to ADWR Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 387 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 388 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Sacramento Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W., M. Truini, M.E. Flynn and W.H. Remick, 2007, Ground-Water Occurrence and Movement, 2006, and Water-Level Changes in the Detrital, Hualapai, and Sacramento Valley Basins, Mohave County, Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigation Report 20075182. Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005.(Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005d, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. (Water Quality Table and Map) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2007, Cultural Water Demands in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. ______, 2006, CAP diversions: Database, ADWR Office of Colorado River Management. ______, 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. ______, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. ______, 2005c, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. ______, 2005d, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005e, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005f, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) ______, 2005g, Wells55: Database. ______, 2002, Groundwater quality exceedences in rural Arizona from 1975 to 2001: Data file, ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. (Water Quality Map and Table) ______, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. ______, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. ______, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 389 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. ______, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 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 Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. C Conway, B.D. and P.A. Invanich, 2008, Preliminary Estimate of Groundwater in Storage for the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, Mohave County, Arizona: Arizona Department of Water Resources Open File Report No. 10. E Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Effluent Generation Table) ______, 2005, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm. (Effluent Generation Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) Gillespie, J. B., and C.B. Bentley, 1971, Geohydrology of the Hualapai and Sacramento Valleys, Mohave County, Arizona: USGS Water Supply Paper 1899-H, 37 p. O 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. R Rascona, S.J., 1991, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Sacramento Valley Basin, Mohave County, Arizona 1991: ADWR Hydrologic Map Series No. 21. Rosner, U, 1995: Water quality investigations in the historic mining district of Chloride and adjacent areas in the Cerbat Mountains, Mohave County, Arizona: AZGS Open File Report 95-I. (Water Quality Map and Table) 390 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 T Towne, D. C. and M.C. Freak, 1999, Ambient groundwater quality of the Sacramento Valley Basin: A 1999 baseline study: ADEQ Open File Report 01-04, 78 p. (Water Quality Map and Table. U United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/ nid/webpages/nid.cfm (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) United States Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 2006, Database: Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS). United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/ swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA . Supplemental Reading Andersen, M., 2005, Assessment of water availability in the Lower Colorado River basin: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Anderson-Nelson Inc., 1991, Water adequacy study for the Valley Pioneer Water Company’s franchise area, Golden Valley, Arizona, 8 p. Anning, D.W., M. Truini, M.E. Flynn and W.H. Remick, 2007, Ground-Water Occurrence and Movement, 2006, and Water-Level Changes in the Detrital, Hualapai, and Sacramento Valley Basins, Mohave County, Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigation Report 20075182. Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 391 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Bentley, C.B., 1979, Geohydrologic Reconnaissance of Lake Mead NRA- Hoover Dam to Mt. Davis, Arizona: USGS 79-690. City of Kingman, 2006, 2007 City of Kingman System Water Plan. Submitted to the Arizona Department of Water Resources. FMA International, 1999, Area plan for the Sterling property in Mohave County, adopted by Mohave County, May 10, 1999, 67 p. Fielding, G., 2001, A groundwater reconnaissance survey of the Sacramento Valley, Big Sandy Valley, Detrital Valley, Hualapai Valley and the Meadview watershed: University of Arizona, 7 p. Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, 2005, Mohave County general plan: Mohave County draft report, 204 p. Golden Valley Area Plan, 2002, Mohave County Arizona, 57 p. Hargis & Associates, 1997, Groundwater resource evaluation, Sante Fe Ranches, Mohave County, Arizona, 30 p. Hyde, P., 1994, Cerbat Mountains, Mohave County, AZ - Water and soil characterization of the American Legion, Stockton, and Neal watersheds - Feb. 7-10 and April 15, 1995: ADEQ, Aquifer Protection Program. Jacobs, K.L., and L.S. Stitzer, 2006, Water supply and management in rural Arizona, in Arizona Water Policy: Management Innovations in an Urbanizing Arid Region, Resources for the Future Press. Manera Inc., 1999, Griffith well production well 1- results of the drilling and testing Program. ______, 1998, Preliminary hydrologic evaluation Griffith energy field, Sacramento Valley, Mohave County, Arizona, 11 p. Manthe, D.P. and N.K. Ash, 1995, Constructed wetlands for nitrogen removal in Kingman, Arizona: in Water Use in Arizona: Cooperation or Conflict?: Proceedings from the 8th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1995, Tucson, Arizona, p. 127. Mohave County, 2006, Dutch Flat Area Plan, Mohave County, Arizona Available at www. co.mphave.az.us/dcpts/pnz/forms/Dutch_Flat_Area_Plan.pdf RNM, Stanley Consultants, and Cooper Research, 2005, Rhodes Homes-Golden Valley South area plan, unpublished report, 31 p. 392 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Santec Consulting, 1999, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Mohave County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Towne, D.C. and M.C. Freark, 2001, Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Sacramento Valley Basin: A 1999 Baseline Study, ADEQ Open File Report 01-04, Phoenix, AZ 79p. RNM, Stanley Consultants Inc. and Cooper Research, 2005, Rhodes Homes- Peacock Highlands area plan, unpublished report 34 p. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins in Arizona, and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 90 p. Rösner, U., 1998, Heavy metals in surface soils and streambed sediments in the Wallapai mining district, Northwestern Arizona: a historic mining district in a semi arid region: AZGS Bulletin CR-98-A, 43 p. United States Department of Energy, 1998, Griffith energy project draft environmental impact Statement, DOE-EIS 0297, 71 p. Valley Pioneers Water Company, 2006, Valley Pioneers Water Company System Water Plan, Submitted to the Arizonna Department of Water Resources, 2006. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 2004, Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 1996-2000. Water Surveys, 1997, Cedar Ridge subdivision, unpublished report, 6 p. Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin 393 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 394 Section 4.9 Sacramento Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AAWS ACC ADMMR ADWR ADEQ AGFD ALERT ALRIS AMA AWBA AWPF AZMET BIA BLM BOR BPCA CAP CERCLA CLIMAS DES DOD DWID ENSO EPA ESA FCD GIS gpcd gpm GWSI HUC ITCA LUST maf MCWA MHP M&I MSCP MVIDD NEMO NHD NOAA NPS Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Arizona Corporation Commission Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Game and Fish Department Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time Arizona Land Resource Information System Active Management Area Arizona Water Banking Authority Arizona Water Protection Fund Arizona Meteorological Network United States Bureau of Indian Affairs United States Bureau of Land Management United States Bureau of Reclamation Boulder Canyon Project Act Central Arizona Project Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act Climate Assessment for the Southwest Arizona Department of Economic Security United States Department of Defense Domestic Water Improvement District El Niño-Southern Oscillation Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Flood Control District Geographic Information System Gallons per capita per day Gallons per minute Groundwater Site Inventory System Hydrologic Unit Code Intertribal Council of Arizona Leaking Underground Storage Tank Million acre-feet Mohave County Water Authority Mobile Home Park Municipal and Industrial Multi-Species Conservation Program (Colorado River) Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Non-point Education for Municipal Officials National Hydrography Dataset National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration United States National Park Service Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 395 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 NRA NRCD NRCS NWIS NWR NWS Pan ET PCC PDO RCRA SCAS SNOTEL SX/EW TDS USFS USFWS USGS VRP WC WIFA WQARF WRCC WWTF WWTP National Recreation Area Natural Resources Conservation District Natural Resources Conservation Service National Water Information System National Wildlife Refuge National Weather Service Pan Evaportranspiration Permit Certificate Conveyence Pacific Decadal Oscillation Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Spatial Climate Analysis Service SNOpack TELemetry Solvent extraction/electrowinning Total Dissolved Solids United States Forest Service United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey Voluntary Remediation Program Water Company Water Infrastructure Finance Authority Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Western Regional Climate Center Wastewater Treatment Facility Wastewater Treatment Plant 396 Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Appendix A Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 397 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 APPENDIX A: Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area through 2008 UPPER COLORADO RIVER PLANNING AREA Groundwater Map Basin Number AWPF Grant # Big Sandy 262 00-100 Bill Williams 93 96-0017 Bill Williams 151 96-0021 Bill Williams 244 99-085 Project Title Willow Creek Riparian Restoration Project Big Sandy River Riparian Project Riparian Vegetation and Stream Channel Changes Associated with Water Management along the Bill Williams River Kirkland Creek Watershed Resource Assessment Bill Williams 268 00-106 Tres Alamos Dirt-Tanks-ToAquatic-Habitat-Conversion Lake Mohave 232 99-073 Colorado River Nature Center Backwater --- Phase 2 398 Project Category Revegetation Fencing Research Feasibility Study Fencing & Upland Channel Restoration Feasibility Study Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Appendix B Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 399 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Appendix B: Community Water System Annual Report Data 2006-2007 and Submitted Plans PCC 91-000608 91-000653 91-000676 91-000333 91-000327 91-000358 91-000360 91-000344 91-000324 91-000325 91-000313 91-000321 91-000361 91-000350 91-000328 91-000349 91-000314 91-000351 91-000335 91-000322 91-000336 91-000308 91-000354 91-000319 FACILITY PHELPS DODGE - TOWN OF BAGDAD PEEPLES VALLEY WATER CO WALDEN MEADOWS COMM COOP MT TIPTON WATER CO INC WHITE HILLS WC, INC. CERBAT WATER CO 2006 Received 2006 Total Demand Big Sandy 446 446 Bill Williams 50 50 Basin 2006 Withdrawn 2006 Diverted Bill Williams 62 Detrital Valley Detrital Valley LAKE MEAD NRA KATHERINE SUNRISE VISTA UTILITIES WILLOW VALLEY WCKING STREET WILLOW VALLEY WCLAKE CIMARRON JOSHUA VALLEY UTIL CO ARIZONA AMERICAN (DESERT FOOTHILLS) ARIZONA AMERICAN (LAKE MOHAVE HIGHLANDS) ARIZONA AMERICAN (MOHAVE WATER) BERMUDA WATER CO INC FORT MOHAVE TRIBAL UTIL GHR LANDOWNERS ASSN WATER COOP GOLDEN SHORES WATER CO 400 CUSTOMER 61/8 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 2007 Received 2007 Total Demand 2007 Delivered 2007 Delivered to 991 991 991 CUSTOMER 46 46 41 CUSTOMER 65 65 57/7 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 106 106 106 CUSTOMER 26 26 26 CUSTOMER 30 30 29 CUSTOMER 150 150 211 CUSTOMER NR NR 73 23 23 12 12 12 CUSTOMER NR Lake Havasu Lake Havasu 44 2007 Diverted NR Hualapai Valley Hualapai Valley Hualapai Valley Hualapai Valley Lake Havasu 2006 Delivered 2007 to Withdrawn NR JOSHUA HILLS WATER CO RANCH WATER SERVICE INC TRUXTON CANYON WATER CO ARIZONA AMERICAN Lake Havasu (CAMP MOHAVE) ARIZONA AMERICAN Lake Havasu (HAVASU WATER) HAVASU HEIGHTS DWID 62 2006 Delivered 27 81 81 79 CUSTOMER 86 86 85 CUSTOMER 795 795 788 CUSTOMER 902 902 751 CUSTOMER 57 57 58 CUSTOMER 65 65 59 CUSTOMER 201 201 CUSTOMER 177 177 CUSTOMER 229 229 CUSTOMER 176 176 CUSTOMER 201 229 177 176 Lake Havasu 356 356 339 CUSTOMER 348 348 335 CUSTOMER Lake Havasu 40 40 31 CUSTOMER 66 66 52 CUSTOMER Meadview 140 140 121 CUSTOMER 163 163 141 CUSTOMER Lake Mohave 640 640 632 CUSTOMER 788 788 703 CUSTOMER Lake Mohave 87 87 78 CUSTOMER 88 88 79 CUSTOMER Lake Mohave 6,733 6,733 6,699 CUSTOMER 6,642 6,642 6621 CUSTOMER 3,677/339 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 3,883 3,883 3,521/318 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 518 587 278 CUSTOMER Lake Mohave 9 9 11 11 11 CUSTOMER Lake Mohave 493 493 492 492 491 CUSTOMER Lake Mohave Lake Mohave 69 4,017 4,017 NR Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 PCC 91-000359 91-000355 91-000315 91-000317 91-000332 FACILITY HARDYVILLE MANOR I-40 INDUSTRIAL WATER SYS KATHERINE RESORT WATER COMPANY LAGOON ESTATES WATER CO LAGOON ESTATES WATER CO Basin 2006 Withdrawn 2006 Diverted 2006 Received 2006 Total Demand 2006 Delivered 2006 Delivered 2007 to Withdrawn 2007 Diverted 2007 Received NR Lake Mohave 2007 Total Demand NR 1,636 1,636 1,460 CUSTOMER 2,258 2,258 2063 CUSTOMER Lake Mohave 9 9 9 CUSTOMER 8 8 8 CUSTOMER 136 136 120 CUSTOMER 11 11 9 CUSTOMER Lake Mohave NR Lake Mohave NR CUSTOMER/ 14,363/1,500 OTHER 15,500 349 15,849 13963/1695 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 1,029 1,029 946 CUSTOMER 23 22 CUSTOMER 18 15 CUSTOMER LAKE HAVASU, CITY OF Lake Mohave 14,534 14,534 91-000339 NORTH MOHAVE VALLEY Lake Mohave WATER CORPORATION 1,150 1,150 91-000337 SILVER CREEK RV Lake Mohave NR NR 91-000338 SNOWBIRD RV PARK Lake Mohave NR NR Lake Mohave NR NR Lake Mohave NR NR 91-000334 SNOWBIRDS MOBILE HOME PA SUNCREST APARTMENTS HATCH VALLEY WATER CO 2007 Delivered to Lake Mohave 91-000318 91-000258 2007 Delivered Peach 30 91-000312 Springs Sacramento 91-000309 CHLORIDE DWID Valley GOLDEN VALLEY IMP Sacramento 330 91-000343 DIST #1 Valley KINGMAN MUNICIPAL Sacramento 9,078 91-000316 WATER Valley OATMAN WATER Sacramento 91-000307 COMPANY Valley Sacramento 91-000329 SO HI DWID 42 Valley TOPOCK WATER Sacramento 91-000323 SYSTEM Valley VALLEY PIONEERS WC, Sacramento 688 91-000326 INC Valley WALNUT CREEK WATER Sacramento 98 91-000341 CO Valley YUCCA WATER Sacramento 91-000330 ASSOCIATION Valley PCC = Program Certificate Conveyance (used as the community water system ID number) Upper Colorado River Appendices 30 1,089 23 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER NR 23 14 330 408 CUSTOMER 451 451 403 CUSTOMER 9,078 8,504 CUSTOMER 9,382 9,382 9,382/29 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 14 14 14 CUSTOMER 42 40 CUSTOMER 47 47 42 CUSTOMER NR NR NR 4 NR 688 659 CUSTOMER 930 930 800 CUSTOMER 98 99 CUSTOMER 103 103 89 CUSTOMER 48 48 49 CUSTOMER 401 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Community Water Systems that have submitted a plan to the Department as of 12/2008 PCC Name Basin Big Sandy 91-000608 PHELPS DODGE - TOWN OF BAGDAD Bill Williams 91-000653 PEEPLES VALLEY WATER CO Bill Williams 91-000676 WALDEN MEADOWS COMM COOP Detrital Valley 91-000333 MT TIPTON WATER CO INC Hualapai Valley 91-000360 JOSHUA HILLS WATER CO Lake Havasu 91-000313 ARIZONA AMERICAN (HAVASU WATER) Lake Havasu 91-000321 HAVASU HEIGHTS DWID Lake Havasu 91-000325 ARIZONA AMERICAN (CAMP MOHAVE) Lake Havasu 91-000328 WILLOW VALLEY WC-KING STREET Lake Havasu 91-000349 WILLOW VALLEY WC-LAKE CIMARRON Lake Havasu 91-000350 SUNRISE VISTA UTILITIES Meadview 91-000314 JOSHUA VALLEY UTIL CO Lake Mohave 91-000308 FORT MOHAVE TRIBAL UTILITY Lake Mohave 91-000315 KATHERINE RESORT WATER COMPANY Lake Mohave 91-000317 LAGOON ESTATES WATER CO Lake Mohave 91-000318 LAKE HAVASU, CITY OF Lake Mohave 91-000319 GOLDEN SHORES WATER CO Lake Mohave 91-000322 ARIZONA AMERICAN (MOHAVE WATER) Lake Mohave 91-000332 LAGOON ESTATES WATER CO Lake Mohave 91-000335 ARIZONA AMERICAN (LAKE MOHAVE HIGHLANDS) Lake Mohave 91-000336 BERMUDA WATER CO INC Lake Mohave 91-000339 NORTH MOHAVE VALLEY WATER CORPORATION Lake Mohave 91-000351 ARIZONA AMERICAN (DESERT FOOTHILLS) Lake Mohave 91-000354 GHR LANDOWNERS ASSN WATER COOP Lake Mohave 91-000355 I-40 INDUSTRIAL WATER SYS Lake Mohave 91-000357 AZ AMERICAN WTR CO Lake Mohave 91-000359 HARDYVILLE MANOR Peach Springs 91-000312 HATCH VALLEY WATER CO Sacramento Valley 91-000309 CHLORIDE DWID Sacramento Valley 91-000316 KINGMAN MUNICIPAL WATER Sacramento Valley 91-000326 VALLEY PIONEERS WC, INC Sacramento Valley 91-000329 SO HI DWID Sacramento Valley 91-000341 WALNUT CREEK WATER CO Sacramento Valley 91-000343 GOLDEN VALLEY IMP DIST #1 PCC = Program Certificate Conveyance (used as the community water system ID number) 402 Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Appendix C Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 403 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 APPENDIX C SURFACE WATER RIGHT AND ADJUDICATION FILINGS Surface water is defined in Arizona as “waters of all sources, flowing in streams, canyons, ravines or other natural channels, or in definite underground channels, whether perennial or intermittent, floodwaters, wastewaters, or surplus water, and of lakes, ponds and springs on the surface” (A.R.S. § 45-101). In 1864, the first 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 “first in time, first in right” which means that the person who first puts the water to beneficial 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 specified by the legislature for filing 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 beneficial use and recording a notice of appropriation at the state and country recorder’s office. 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 file 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 beneficial use shall be the basis, measure and limit to the use of water within the state. Beneficial uses are domestic (which includes the watering of gardens and lawns not exceeding one-half acre), municipal, irrigation, stockwatering, water power, recreation, wildlife including fish, nonrecoverable water storage, and mining uses (A.R.S. § 45-151(A)). The quantity of water that is reasonable for a particular beneficial 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 filed in Arizona since the Public Water Code was enacted. Each filing is assigned a unique number with one of the following prefixes ●● “3R” – application to construct a reservoir filed before 1972; ●● “4A” – application to appropriate surface water filed before 1972; ●● “33” – application for permit to appropriate public water or construct a reservoir filed after 404 Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 1972. In addition to surface water diversions and reservoirs, instream flow maintenance can be applied for and is defined as a surface water right that remains in-situ or “in-stream”, is not physically diverted or consumptively used, and is for maintaining the flow of water necessary to preserve wildlife, including fish, 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 certification filed for stockponds constructed after June 12, 1919 and before August 27, 1977. To file 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 filed 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 filings on behalf of the Superior Court of Arizona; and, ●● “BB” – decreed water rights determined through judicial action in state or federal court. These filings 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 first 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 beneficial use and not conflict 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 beneficial use. If the terms of the permit are met, the applicant can submit proof of appropriation through an application of certification and may be issued a Certificate 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 specifies the extent and purpose of the right and may be subject to abandonment and forfeiture if not beneficially used. There are currently approximately 850 applications to appropriate pending with ADWR, and approximately 420 permits and over 7,000 certificates 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 filed the claim. If filed prior to March 17, 1996, the priority date is the date of construction. Otherwise, the priority date is the date of filing 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 filed before August 27, 1977. To date, nearly 20,000 stockpond claims have been filed of which over 3,000 stockpond certificates have been issued by ADWR or its predecessors. Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 405 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Unlike a CWR, the act of filing 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 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 filed in Arizona. In addition to the applications and claims described above, ADWR’s registry of surface water right filings 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 confirms 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 confirming rights, specifies 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 prefix “BB”. Further discussion of the major court decrees is provided in Volume 1. 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 Figure C-1 General Stream Adjudications in law and claimed by Indian tribes and the Arizona United States have not been quantified 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 confirming existing state-based 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 406 Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 pumping appropriable underground water (subflow) 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 filed 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 filed 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 filed 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 file an SOC or risk the loss of their right. Well owners are also encouraged to file 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 filing an SOC nor is an SOC a legal permit to use 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 file an SOC. In response, the number of SOCs filed in the adjudications continues to increase as new water uses are initiated. To date, nearly 81,000 SOCs have been filed in the Gila Adjudication and over 14,000 SOCs have been filed in the LCR Adjudication. ADWR maintains a separate registry of these adjudication filings on behalf of the Superior Court and assigns each a unique number with the prefix “39”. Table C-1 summarizes the number of surface water right and adjudication filings 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 sufficient locational information (Township, Range, and Section) to allow a POD and/or POU to be mapped within the planning area. If a file 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 filings for the same POD/POU which can result if a landowner or lessee has two or more filings or if different applicants each have at least one filing. Since many SOCs list surface water right filings as their basis of claim, multiple filings are common and account, in part, for the large number of filings. Sorting through multiple filings is one of the challenges facing the Department and the adjudication courts. Results from the Department’s investigation of surface water right and adjudication filings are presented in Hydrographic Survey Reports (HSRs). Figure C-2 shows the location of surface water diversion points listed in the Department’s surface water rights registry. The numerous points mapped reflect 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 C-2. Instream flow filings are not shown as these filings do not have points of diversion. Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 407 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Table C-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: 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) 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. 408 Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 409 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 410 Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 Appendix D Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices 411 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 4 APPENDIX D: Rural Watershed Partnerships in the Upper Colorado River Planning Area - participants, projects, accomplishments and issues (2008) UPPER COLORADO RIVER PLANNING AREA Watershed Partnership Primary Participants Kingman Dolan Springs Mohave County Dolan Springs Water Co. Local citizens Projects & Accomplishments x Groundwater reconnaissance survey of 3 basin area. x Coordinated the 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 x Hualapai Nation Northwest Arizona Watershed Council ADWR ADEQ Cooperative Extension BLM USFS USFS x x x Issues x x x x x x x x x x x Mohave County Water Authority 412 Lake Havasu Kingman Bullhead City Mohave County Mohave Valley Irrigation Dist x Obtained a portion of the Cibola Irrigation District’s Colorado River Allocation x x x x Obtained Kingman’s Colorado River Allocation x Limited groundwater supplies Huge growth projected for all three basins. Detrital Basin envisioned as bedroom community of Las Vegas with the completion of the bypass bridge over the Colorado River. Drought impact on private water suppliers, which impacts water haulers Potential for subsidence from proposed development Limited groundwater data. Potential impact from large industrial users in the Big Sandy basin Water quality concerns (hexavalent Chromium) Potential problems with developments proposed within the 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 Growth Limited Colorado River water supplies Competition from Phoenix/Tucson for additional Colorado River supplies Water quality concerns Upper Colorado River Planning Area Appendices